So you agree that RV is real and some are better at it than others?
ChrisTerry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Christopher Arnold Also, Hal Puthoff experimented on this topic with Ingo Swann in the early days of RV in attempts to manipulate machines from a distance.Actually, Pat Price put
At 07:12 pm 20/07/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Grimer wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
some scientific phenomena which only occurs once and you are the only
observer.
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If
Terry Blanton wrote:
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
. . . you can be 99% sure, has nothing to
do with any supposed secret space station.
Assuming he is lying, what would be his motive?
I don't think he's lying.
What he said in the interview made it sound to me like he saw
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Grimer wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
some scientific phenomena which only occurs once and you are the only
observer.
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If you cannot
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Coral reef spawning time is apparently phase-locked in some way, using a
signal we had not previously identified. There is, however, nothing
especially mysterious about phase-locking to an (as yet unidentified)
external signal: evolutionarily, it's presumably an
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why won't those saucers just cooperate!
Neither did the WOW signal:
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/Wow.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific
-- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot
reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude
that you did not see it.
Using your own words, that's absolutely ridiculous!
Tell that to all those pesky UFOs that come
Here is further elaboration of specific MAHG
analytical details - which tend to support the hypothesis that the
operative OU rationale relates to ortho-para hydrogen, and the rapidly
alternating but asymmetric conversion of the two isomers catalytically. The end
result being the coherence
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If you cannot reproduce it, then eventually you must
conclude that you did not see it.
Nonsense. If you cannot reproduce it you must conclude that it is very
hard to reproduce.
The continuing debate between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Jed:
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific
-- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot
reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude
that you did not see it.
Using your own words, that's absolutely ridiculous!
Jed,
Respectfully, some people need funding to hire HELP, otherwise they use a pencil and paper. It is not the fault of the discoverer that he ONLY discovered the breakthrough that a hard working professional data cruncher would never have bothered attempting, much less even think of. And how
Insight into a problem is a bit like experiencing
a vision. One sees something but doesn't know
what it means.
I find myself in this situation with regard to the
effect of drop in Beta-atmospheric (B-a) pressure
on the strength of the attraction and repulsion of
positive and negative
At 12:23 pm 21/07/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
.
For example, it's often been my highly subjective
and idle day dreams that spuriously flit across my
consciousness like UFOs that have pointed me in the
direction of another personal discovery, or how to
conduct an experiment, or how to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If acute intelligence, keen
observation and astounding intuition were a reliable
guide to nature, people would have devised starships
thousands of years ago. People have always had these mental
abilities, but they never did us much good until we harnessed
them to
Hi Jed,
I'm probablly getting way OT here but I feel a need to follow-up on one
particular line of thought.
...
Perhaps a theorist can work with a pencil and paper alone,
but in experimental and observational science instruments
are the only source of valid information. UFO-ology will
At 11:30 am 21/07/2005 -0400, Jed wrote:
There have been a few instances in which irreproducible but high-sigma CF
events occurred. The best examples are the 1985 explosion in Fleischmann
and Pon's lab, and Mizuno's 1991 massive heat after death event. Even
though these could not be
Grimer wrote:
It was a quick reaction just as I had
hoped for, but I could no longer ignore
the fact that this research was potentially
hazardous.
=
Of course it's bloody hazardous. For a scientist
to complain about hazard is like a soldier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely you're not suggesting that our nation's highly sophisticated
intelligence gathering instrumentation network (that probably DOES include
UFO-cams) has not verified beyond a shadow of doubt that certain kinds of
UFOs truly exist?
I have no idea. I know next to
Jed sez:
...
Along the same lines, I suppose the highly sophisticated
intelligence organizations are busy just now, with this
War on Terror in full swing. They probably do not have
the resources or the skills to go looking for UFOs.
On this point I'm in agreement with you.
All the more
At 04:22 pm 21/07/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Grimer wrote:
It was a quick reaction just as I had
hoped for, but I could no longer ignore
the fact that this research was potentially
hazardous.
=
Of course it's bloody hazardous. For a scientist
to
I wrote:
However, if they have not observed them, it would not surprise me, and I
would not blame them. The government and the professional astronomers have
not observed or cataloged many of the large and potentially dangerous
asteroids. . . .
I meant to say that I suppose asteroids
At 05:04 pm 21/07/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
being mistaken for a bunch of
ravenous Jihad Loving reptilian messengers
spawned from Satan's loins - or several other
colorful cultural interpretations many in our
population passionately cling to.
Careful Stevey - or you'll
Christopher Arnold griped when I said FP and Mizuno should have preserved
the data better:
Respectfully, some people need funding to hire HELP, otherwise they use a
pencil and paper. It is not the fault of the discoverer that he ONLY
discovered the breakthrough that a hard working
The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the
energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - A few scientists have
claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar
instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such
luck. The
Jed sez:
I wouldn't know, but perhaps intelligence surveillance
equipment is not geared toward detecting UFOs, and perhaps
innovative amateur equipment could do a better job. This
is mere speculation, but suppose UFOs are common, so the
big radars have been programmed to ignore them. After
Jed and Others,
Since you were recently discussing Remote Viewing,
I thought you might be interested in reading about the U.S. Government's Remote
Viewer program that ran for decades called "Stargate". They acheived
some remarkable results in this once classified Remote Viewing intelligence
On Thursday 21 July 2005 18:29, Edmund Storms wrote:
The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the
energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - A few scientists have
claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar
instead of a high-tech crucible,
Ed should copyright it!! It's a " natural "sez Jed !
Meanwhile back at the ranch all uz non wizards arre left to speculate, Here
goes another one..
The sun !. Ah so . The sun may be a "repeating" station that receives
energy in one " form" and transmits it in another. The
"another" has
Jed,
I agree with you, I must be a sloppy nincompoop. Before I started RV and inventing, I had a jewelry store that just grossed $250K - and I destroyed my income by discovering a new technology and then patenting it myself and used the rest of my life savings building the prototypes and paying
29 matches
Mail list logo
