Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 104

Thread: Holding Back Technology - Magnets & Gravity.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I'm not sure killchain agrees...why else would he continue talking about patents??
    Please read the first three lines of my direct reply to you, Post #48.

    I thought it was clear by a couple of different posts, but i explained it to you in #48

    The suggestion was made , he didnt even work for this or that..... maybe not a real person, was one suggestion.

    I said "to look at his patents would be a start".
    Not difinitive, i didnt say he reinvented the wheel, i didnt say his patent's were the be all & end all for everybody's scientific Journey.
    in one of the post's i said myself, what i thought of the value of patent's.
    I have not championed any of his patent's or pointed to any particular one.
    Who paid for them & funded them, dosent prove any theory or validate the patent as a working model...
    But it proved that Lockheed Martin Funded this guy at some point. 27 points actually.

    If i mislead you in the first three lines of #48, can you please point out how i mislead you?
    I thought that it would have been crystal clear.

  2. #62
    I have enjoyed this topic, the question's i had when i started are Well answer'd, and more.

    Feel like its turned to a nit picking end,

    If you want to keep on barking "patents are useless", cool, not to different to what i said earlier.

    Cheers for all your replies & pointers in the right direction.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,568
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    ... Direct response to a bracketed suggestion from a moderator (post #32) ...
    No, that was rhetorical - I wasn't asking you to actually de-rail this thread with that second line of discussion. (Besides that wasn't a request "from a moderator".)

    My point at that stage was that freely available technology (e.g. off the internet) would be being used right now - if it really worked. My "oil company" comment was hyperbole: the idea that some bigger conspiracy was keeping these technologies back is, in my view, silly. (The "300 mpg carburetor" is one of the oldest held-back technology myths...).
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Please read the first three lines of my direct reply to you, Post #48.
    I did, so?....


    I said "to look at his patents would be a start".
    A "start" of what?...irrelevancies?


    Not difinitive...
    Not even close...


    i didnt say he reinvented the wheel, i didnt say his patent's were the be all & end all for everybody's scientific Journey.
    We are in agreement...so you won't be posting anything more about patents??


    If i mislead you in the first three lines of #48, can you please point out how i mislead you?
    I thought that it would have been crystal clear.
    Yes, then you went ahead and listed all his patents, compounding the "irrelevancies".


    I'm curious, you supposedly agree that the discussion of patents is not evidence, and is irrelevant, so what response did you expect from us when you brought up the subject??

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    18,957
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    in the Environmental issues section.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco
    That's only Boshert's conclusion. I see no evidence that it's true.

    Instead, I see proof that industries like to build things in quantity and don't want to start up an entire production run for only a few orders.
    I can't even get a spare tire for my car because the manufacturer is not willing to ship less than a (container?) load. So; they only end up going to the plant.

    Besides, isn't NiMH on the way out in favor of Lithium Ion?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Feel like its turned to a nit picking end...
    Sorry, you "feel" that way...nothing "unusual" about expecting evidence before belief, particularly on this board.

    ...and although it seems like "nitpicking", that's nothing compared to what ideas must go through before they are accepted as mainstream....nothing at all...


    If you want to keep on barking "patents are useless"...
    Woof, woof...

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    A week back I ripped open a couple of old hard drives (32 GB? Pffft.)...
    Now I feel old! When I worked at Storage Technology in Colorado in the mid '70s we made state-of-the-art HDD's. The HDA (Hard Disk Assemblies) were 8 disks of 12 inch diameter that held a total of 256MB. We would have died for 32 GB.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,147
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post

    Hutchison
    Is it not possible for a Slightly scruffy, Hippie type to come up with "somthing" in his garage.....
    Would'nt like to say, No.
    And I would say: Show me the evidence. Let's see details of experimental process, and then actual, independent supporting experiments. A video where you can see a wire moving along with the bobbing UFO toy isn't evidence. Obvious upside-down camera tricks aren't evidence. Extreme close-ups with no explanation aren't evidence.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #69
    R.A.F

    Im not shure you are getting it, or ever will.

    Earlier in this thread:

    molesworth, (post #3)

    Looking for information on this supposed "engineer" only turns up UFO and conspiracy web sites, and one highly disputed Wikipedia entry with no supporting references.

    "Boyd Bushman" may indeed exist, and may have worked as an engineer for Lockheed Martin, but we have no way of knowing if this is in fact him in the video.


    Did Make me wonder.
    I looked for information on him.
    I came across (god... dare i say it), a patents website that has links to who funded him, with dates, times..... etc.
    Site is not linked to any conspiacy Theorys.
    So he does exist, and Lockheed Martin did fund him at some point.

    I did comment in a reply to molesworth (post #30)
    At the bottom.

    No comments on the Patent link.....thought that might have been relavant.

    But patents are made for all sorts of strange items.....by all sorts of people...


    I should have carried on my first line by saying,
    No comments on the Patent link.....thought that might have been relavant to proving there is a man called Boyd Bushman, and he was funded by Lockheed.

    I remember you pulling me up for that line.

    so i replyed to you...

    (post #48) reply to R.A.F

    My Bad, i didnt word that properly, I was'nt saying "look at these guys Patents, Its got to be right".

    I was addressing his background, which was brought in as a point to discredit him.
    That being, his work with Lockheed Martin and other companys related and mentioned earlier.

    Dont get me wrong, im not looking for the job of president of the Boyd Bushman fan club.....

    But His Research, activities & patents are funded by, and part owned by some major companys.


    While i have been reading other threads on this forum, i have noticed that posting a link can be percieved as trying to up a google rating.

    so i listed the patent and the company that paid for it.

    so you wouldnt click on it and up their google rating

    I explained that in the same post.

    Chopping a line out of the middle of three, then taking it out of context, copying it and arguing the out of context point.
    Is not what i would expect to, or pass off as Argument or even disscusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I did, so?....
    So you should have understood, if you read it.
    but you think its fine to reply with a "Kevin & Perry" style answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    A "start" of what?...irrelevancies?
    If you copy/paste the line before that, it answers it self with out the irrelevancies

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Not even close...
    Now your not only taking a line out of the middle, and taking it out of context.
    your in to breaking up sentance's, and popping in snide comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    We are in agreement...so you won't be posting anything more about patents??
    I am quite shure we were in agreement from at least post#30, well into the 60's now....
    I dont belive that i stated anywhere the validity of the patent, itself.
    Please show me the post number where i stated this.
    And dont chop it in to lines that make no sense or take it out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Yes, then you went ahead and listed all his patents, compounding the "irrelevancies".
    As i explained in the original post containing the list.
    and in other post's
    and in this post.
    and here again.

    While i have been reading other threads on this forum, i have noticed that posting a link can be percieved as trying to up a google rating.
    so i listed the patent and the company that paid for it.
    so you wouldnt click on it and up their google rating


    Is that not clear enough....

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I'm curious, you supposedly agree that the discussion of patents is not evidence, and is irrelevant, so what response did you expect from us when you brought up the subject??
    I never stated that we should "disscus his patent's". Or any other patents for that matter.
    Including the one's thrown in for comic effect.

    What post Number did i say to look at the validity or practical use of his patents.

    You misinterpreted my reason for looking at the Patent financiers and banged on about the value of patent's.
    Making me think i have encounterd the first man with "Patent Tourette syndrome".

    Chopping up sentance's, and throwing in statments, is a way of getting your point across.

    Very similar to me having a conversation, but on every second word or pause for breath, a voice pops up and says "So", "irrelavant", "Not even close". and more.

    Not sure i would stay for rest of conversation.......

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    No, that was rhetorical
    rhetorical question started , "unless you....etc"

    Seemed (to me, Wrongly, i admit) more direct than rhetorical.

    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    I wasn't asking you to actually de-rail this thread with that second line of discussion.
    Note i only replied to your rhetorical/hyperbole, statement/question, with one line.

    Other people jumped on it then.

    In future i shall not answer/Comment on rhetorical/hyperbole, statement/question's.

    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    (Besides that wasn't a request "from a moderator".)
    I called it a Bracketed suggestion, not realizing at the time, it was a rhetorical/hyperbole, statement/question.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    R.A.F

    Im not shure you are getting it, or ever will.
    Ever considered that the "fault" might not be on my "end"?


    I looked for information on him.
    I came across (god... dare i say it), a patents website that has links to who funded him, with dates, times..... etc.
    Site is not linked to any conspiacy Theorys.
    So he does exist, and Lockheed Martin did fund him at some point.
    How many times must it be said...his patents are irrelevant...Patents say nothing about the viability of an idea.


    So you should have understood, if you read it.
    The only thing I "understand", is tyhat you are STILL talking about patents...why is that??


    Now your not only taking a line out of the middle, and taking it out of context.
    your in to breaking up sentance's, and popping in snide comments.
    There is a little triangle the bottom left of every post utilized for mod notification...if you feel the need to use it, then do so...


    I dont belive that i stated anywhere the validity of the patent, itself.
    So, then, this be your last post mentioning patents?


    And dont chop it in to lines that make no sense or take it out of context.
    Little triangle, remember?


    I never stated that we should "disscus his patent's". Or any other patents for that matter.
    Then we are in agreement...and this will be the last post where you waste time discussing patents.


    You misinterpreted my reason for looking at the Patent financiers and banged on about the value of patent's.
    Making me think i have encounterd the first man with "Patent Tourette syndrome".
    Random insult ignored...


    Very similar to me having a conversation, but on every second word or pause for breath, a voice pops up and says "So", "irrelavant", "Not even close". and more.
    I have a "secret" for ya...you can shut me up for good...problem is, you haven't provided the evidence that will "shut me up".


    Not sure i would stay for rest of conversation.......
    What "conversation"? I'm still trying to get you to stop talking about patents, and present some form of evidence...

    When will you be presenting that evidence??

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,523
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    How many times must it be said...his patents are irrelevant...Patents say nothing about the viability of an idea.
    And, as poor old Killchain has repeatedly said, that isn't the point.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    molesworth, (post #3)

    Looking for information on this supposed "engineer" only turns up UFO and conspiracy web sites, and one highly disputed Wikipedia entry with no supporting references.

    "Boyd Bushman" may indeed exist, and may have worked as an engineer for Lockheed Martin, but we have no way of knowing if this is in fact him in the video.


    Did Make me wonder.
    I looked for information on him.
    I came across (god... dare i say it), a patents website that has links to who funded him, with dates, times..... etc.
    Site is not linked to any conspiacy Theorys.
    So he does exist, and Lockheed Martin did fund him at some point.
    Yes, I'm sure that someone by the name of "Boyd Bushman" does exist, and worked as a research engineer at Lockheed Martin. There is quite a bit of evidence to support that.

    My point however is that we have no way of knowing if the person in the video is the same "Boyd Bushman", and much of what he says, and shows by way of demonstrations, argues against it being him. If it is, then he seems to have forgotten a lot of the physics he would have had to have known to do his job.
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Just noticed this...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    I never stated that we should "disscus his patent's".
    Irrelevant...I posted that you brought up his patents.

    You're not going to deny that, are you?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth View Post
    My point however is that we have no way of knowing if the person in the video is the same "Boyd Bushman", and much of what he says, and shows by way of demonstrations, argues against it being him. If it is, then he seems to have forgotten a lot of the physics he would have had to have known to do his job.
    Hadn't even considered that...good point.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Sorry, you "feel" that way...
    Doubt It.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    nothing "unusual"
    Where...

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    expecting evidence before belief
    But Find it hard to understand a simple point.....

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    nothing compared to...
    nearly a sinead o'connor lyric.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Woof, woof...
    Clap, Clap.

    Annoying having your words chopped and taken out of context......

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, as poor old Killchain has repeatedly said, that isn't the point.
    Thank you.....

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Annoying having your words chopped and taken out of context......
    Just because it "annoys" you, don't assume it "annoys" everyone.

    When will you be presenting that evidence I mentioned??

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, as poor old Killchain has repeatedly said, that isn't the point.
    Well, then...he should be able to move away from the discussion of patents, and actually provide evidence for the ideas he is "promoting" here.


    Why haven't we seen that happen??




    ...and really...poor old??

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Just because it "annoys" you, don't assume it "annoys" everyone.

    When will you be presenting that evidence I mentioned??
    When you up the medication to cure your "Patent Tourette syndrome"

    Please state the evidence you require....

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    Please state the evidence you require....
    Huh? You don't know what evidence is required in order to validate an unproven idea?

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,055
    The point is, as Molesworth points out, the patents were only brought up to prove that such a person exists at least so far as the US Patent Office is concerned. The validity of the patents, at this point, don't enter into it. They exist, ergo the person might reasonably be assumed to exist. However, that they exist, and he exists, doesn't prove he's the guy in the video. No one is claiming that they prove his idea has merit.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Huh? You don't know what evidence is required in order to validate an unproven idea?
    Are you 12?

    This is going nowhere fast/slow, i suggest you read the thread from the begining, and please understand.

    I dont want to get into a silly keyboard battle, with you.

    post's Into the 80's now..... and you still aint getting it....

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,523
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Well, then...he should be able to move away from the discussion of patents, and actually provide evidence for the ideas he is "promoting" here.

    Why haven't we seen that happen??

    ...and really...poor old??
    Because you keep banging on about "validity".
    Because he is not (any longer?) promoting an idea.

    Just let it go...

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    The point is, as Molesworth points out, the patents were only brought up to prove that such a person exists at least so far as the US Patent Office is concerned.
    Okey doke...I concede that this person exists...heck, I'll even concede his work "history".


    Can we now move on to The Killchain's presentation of evidence for this supposed "held back" technology??

  26. #86
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    18,957
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    This is going nowhere fast/slow, i suggest you read the thread from the begining, and please understand.
    I have been reading this thread, and I have no clue where it left off before this whole patent thing.

    Could you please restate what you are claiming so we can get back on track?

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    This is going nowhere fast/slow, i suggest you read the thread from the begining, and please understand.
    Do you have any evidence that there is technology being "held back"?

    Yes or no...

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    7,926
    Moderator's note: rude comments in this thread have resulted in an infraction. Let's keep it polite folks.
    Brett's the name. Peters Creek is the place.
    ─────────────────────────────────────────────
    My moderation comments will appear in this color.
    To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
    .
    Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Could you please restate what you are claiming so we can get back on track?
    Seems pretty clear from the OP...


    Quote Originally Posted by The Killchain View Post
    My Point, Has Technology been held back, yes, These two guys prove that.
    Even if the video experiments are crude, they are proof.
    The claim is that technology is being held back...the evidence for that has not been presented.

  30. #90
    No moremention of Patents. It has turned into a major hijack. Back to the OP please
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Gravity Treadmill Developed from NASA Technology
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Nov-18, 09:10 PM
  2. Holding on to an atmosphere
    By MrFRjr in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-06, 06:14 PM
  3. Will Anti-Gravity technology ever exist?
    By nixter in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-24, 11:32 PM
  4. UK and Australia after our anti-gravity technology!
    By Rodina in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Feb-01, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: