Dishonest or Delusional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crunchy Cat said:
I think he knows with reasonable certainty that logical thinking or scientific knowledge is not a forte' of yours. Regarding the 'challenge' you are putting forth for him, why would he even consider accepting when the Australian publisher (Nexus) is clearly an entertainment provider. Look at some of the articles:

AN ALIEN DETOUR
ORGAN TRANSPLANTS & CELLULAR MEMORIES
THE HENOCH PROPHECIES
DEADLY DIABETES DECEPTION
OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCE & SELF-RESEARCH
EINSTEIN: PLAGIARIST OF THE CENTURY
UFOs & THE DRAGON SNAKE
EVIDENCE FOR CREATION BY OUTSIDE INTERVENTION
MYCOPLASMA - The real cause of AIDS, CFS, CJD & MS?
AFRICAN AVATARS - Has Christ already returned?

This is the equivelant of the Weekly World News where Bat Boy reigns supreme.
Click to expand...

i seeee. you know what you and your friend remind me of?.....the image i got from readin it. an uppr middle calss aunt maude having to contemplate some awful dinner habit of the 'lower classes'...type of ting....totally up yer arse in other words

so you think you are superior than me dont you?
 
But the question is: is the guy deliberately lying or does he believe his own bullshit, and why does the reporter take him at face value?
Click to expand...

The guy wants to make money off of something he tried to invent or recieve recognition about his product. Reporters will report about anything for all they are doing is finding stories that are of interest to the general public no matter how far fetched or full of bull shit they are.
 
duendy said:
i seeee. you know what you and your friend remind me of?.....the image i got from readin it. an uppr middle calss aunt maude having to contemplate some awful dinner habit of the 'lower classes'...type of ting....totally up yer arse in other words

so you think you are superior than me dont you?
Click to expand...

Light is better aligned to reality.
 
duendy said:
you pompus oaf. ... a true scientist who is first a human being wouldn't hav even said what you just said, so you've xposed yourself fpor what you really are....see above
Click to expand...

TYpical woowoo behaviour. A scientist criticizes some wild claims made by a guy who is obviously not telling the truth, and instead of trusting the words of the scientist, you side with the liar.

Read that article again and check some of the verifiable facts. If you do, you'll see that there are factual inaccuracies. So what else isn't true in that article, I start to wonder, ....
 
phlogistician said:
TYpical woowoo behaviour. A scientist criticizes some wild claims made by a guy who is obviously not telling the truth, and instead of trusting the words of the scientist, you side with the liar.

Read that article again and check some of the verifiable facts. If you do, you'll see that there are factual inaccuracies. So what else isn't true in that article, I start to wonder, ....
Click to expand...

Thank you, phlogistician.

Marine biology and psychology are my personal fields but naturally I took all the other courses in college as well. Like chemistry, physics, etc.

Anyone with even a high school background in physics would be able to spot the many technical inaccuracies in that article.

And even lacking that, someone who is halfway alert should have heard warning bells when this fraud starts tossing out names like General LeMay, von Braun and Arthur Rudolph. Besides being well-known, high-profile people, what else do they all have in common? They are all very conveniently dead. So it is impossible for them to refute his ridiculous claims.
 
did you see an email atached to that article? why not voice your concern to him, and ask him to foreward it on to the person involved and see how HE respond, and foreward it all to here to let us see an make up our own minds for ourselves....thias SHOULDbe the wonder of the internet!
Click to expand...
I have sent a query and am waiting for a reply, but the point of my question was that publishing obvious crap doesn't help anyone's case - it makes it far easier for the whole topic to be dismissed by those who don't believe, and seems to always be accepted at face value by those who do. There appears to be no "internal" review of the phenomenon at all, anything and everything is taken as fact (from what I can see) with no-one saying "hang on a minute, the numbers you've given don't work out". Example: Adair says he got a speed of 8754 mph in "about 4.6 seconds". No engineer gives a speed that exact and then says "about 4.6 seconds". How did he know that was the speed? If the speeds are true then the acceleration was 850 m/sec, hardly so fast that NASA guys would think it had exploded. And if a guy is smart enough to work out a fusion containment rocket how come he's not smart enough to stress the structure to accept the g loads? And he used CARBONITE?!? Too many viewings of Star Wars, Han Solo where are you? :eek:
 
nice one OLi....congratulations fortakin up the chalenge. that's all i was asking. i was/am not stoically defending the guy's position, but the wy i do tings is to go bcak to source and...push it, rather tan gossip and etc. cause maybe we may learn someting

can ou imagine how many people have poo pooed somescientinists theories in the past when hey have conflicted wih established opinion. someone wrote about this......about how difficult it is for tose in an existing paradigm to accept tings that treaten it. stuff like that

let me know if you get a reply and if not i will also try and contact. yo could even relaywhati could ask. seein your the scientist an all........heheeee cud be fun
 
Light said:
Thank you, phlogistician.

Marine biology and psychology are my personal fields but naturally I took all the other courses in college as well. Like chemistry, physics, etc.
Click to expand...

My background is physics/IT, but I also took chemistry, and my girlfriend when I was at Uni was a psychologist, so I've been subjected to all manner of psychometric tests! Had to participate in every project as a subject so she got lots of responses. Was a good insight into the methods though. Her lecturer was Dr Susan Blackmore, reknowned sceptic, who wrote for 'Sceptic' magazine at one time.

And even lacking that, someone who is halfway alert should have heard warning bells when this fraud starts tossing out names like General LeMay, von Braun
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I know a guy that knew von Braun. He's never mentioned reverse engineered alien technology!
 
Oli said:
There appears to be no "internal" review of the phenomenon at all, anything and everything is taken as fact (from what I can see) with no-one saying "hang on a minute, the numbers you've given don't work out"....
Click to expand...

:) .... Precisely the case. There isn't any internal review going on in frankly any of the kind of material of this sort I've ever seen published - if there were, no one would ever have to read it.

And your perfectly correct, it doesn't help anyone, least of all the people who profess a belief in the kind of subjects these things claim to not merely address, but "incontrovertibly" prove.... ;)
 
Well I've had my question answered as far as the writer of the article goes:
Forgive me for upsetting your perception of reality. Unlike yourself, I am not a practicing engineer. There is no amount of "rigor" that could be adequately applied to the claims as stated.
Click to expand...
So the guy who claims to be a technology writer apparently has no engineering experience - maybe I could write about food, after all I eat it so that should qualify me. There is no amount of rigour? Bwahahaha. Obviously the writer at least accepts all of it at face value and is totally unprepared to question.
I await any reply from David Adair....
 
Also, he mentions that one of these fusion rockets went to a science fair. If it did, why can't I find meniton of it anywhere?
 
Squeak22 said:
Also, he mentions that one of these fusion rockets went to a science fair. If it did, why can't I find meniton of it anywhere?
Click to expand...

Because the MIB covered it all up, and erased everyone's memory of it, ... the truth is hidden in films, web sites and the minds of stoners. There's no truth in stuffy old science books at all!
 
Well, I suggested some rigour that could be applied to the claims (and completely left the fusion rocket/ Area 51 section alone - I stuck to the numbers and engineering materials), and so far far all I've had is a stunning silence...
Would you buy a used car from this man? :)
 
but the really important thing througout this, Oli, istat yo ae makin a effort to look INTO it regardless. that to me is cscientifically inclined rather than the closed off attitude of just ridiculing etc......i also have contacted Susan Blackmore to see if she said someting pretty relevant to another author. this subjct being in anothere tread here. up tiol now she's not replied....if you dont assssk you dont find out.....
 
Yeah sorry Norval. You weren't the focus of interest in that one, so I can see why you'd think it wasn't worth discussing.
OTOH I did get to talk to someone who at least tried offering "evidence" instead of just fatuous speculation.
 
Yeah, but that someone got driven away from the forums, no?
Click to expand...
? Dunno. I assume you mean Duendy, I haven't seen her around for a long while (and missed her last few posts). But I was referring to the guy(s) that wrote/ were featured in the article discussed in this thread... not a Sciforumers.

Just checked her last couple of posts, I suppose you could say "driven away" but here's the opening remarks from her last topic:
i already havepmed goofyfish asinghimwhy itis he keeps closing my threwads about the extremely important subject of 9/11. as ANYone with any intelligence can see reading that thread, it's only me who is takingit seriously. from start i have been alone and had ro put up wit ad homs, out and out abuse, trolling, timewasters, spacewasters.
Click to expand...
This was typical of her posts and a lot of the time it got so they weren't worth reading because of the effort they took to decipher... and this had been pointed out to her. IIRC she managed about two posts with reasonable spelling and grammar and then reverted.
So if she was driven away it wasn't so much to do with content as comprehensibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top