Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82083
  • *Latest: GalenLid

  • *Total Posts: 495239
  • *Total Topics: 14571
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 176
  • *Total: 180

Facebook

Author Topic: Video you probably did not see  (Read 9898 times)

Offline raburgeson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Video you probably did not see
« on: December 15, 2008, 04:32:17 AM »
I haven't tried this yet, it's got to be good, they killed this on the net very completely. Hey I saved a copy and have a link. I want you to notice the spin is the same as this other video's ufo spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFKdEy33SO4

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=57X9DKJN

I don't have a cell phone and won't have one in my presence, or any other device that can be turned on remotely by the government. It's why I haven't tried it yet. The fact that it disappeared so completely from the net speaks volumes. Curious the glass didn't have a larger mouth. The 2 pennies taped on the bottom create a capacitance and the larger copper coin in the glass creates another one. That's an assumption. The cell phone provides AC and the batteries DC. well look it over.

I have built a Joe's cell and think I'll take another look at it. This may validate a claim of a 4th mode of operation. Might be that the voltage drop the length of the cylinders is not enough under standard operation and the cylinder materials may need to be changed or the unknown capacitance of the water is not high enough or low enough to cause the tube like structure to produce the required AC voltages and frequencies to work in antigravity mode.

I'm totally jerked by the action of the government and their campaign to remove any information that will cause advancements in technology. I have to go and make a video available on a news post now, check out the update to that post.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Video you probably did not see
« on: December 15, 2008, 04:32:17 AM »

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2008, 01:14:50 PM »
I haven't tried this yet, it's got to be good, they killed this on the net very completely.
...

OMG!  :o
One movie is fake and the other is meant to be a joke (a bad one, grossly insulting the Scottish inventors).
Doh…
Maybe you need to take a break, to let it go and stop wasting everyone’s time and bandwidth.
Oh, one more kind advice: buy yourself a cell phone; it helps communicating and getting informed.

Cheers,
Tinu

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2008, 02:10:41 PM »
@tinu:

Who said the Mexican UFO is fake and on what facts?
I don't know if it's fake or not, and I also do not really care. But I'm curious.
And after a search on the net on this, I found both statements for telling it's fake and telling it's not, but neither of them based on  any usable fact.

So if you do have any valuable information, why this is fake I would be grateful to hear it. As I don't want to spend too much time in search engines, just for my curiosity...

@raburgeson:
Sensed reality is created in the brain. So if you think, all people and governments are bad, you will always see it that way.
"You always see, what you expect to see!"

Offline khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2008, 02:35:47 PM »
I have seen several times paranormal  cases,  twice was real UFO-s. First time I was 12 yo, next time was 30 years later. It did not rotate and flappering - first one - it did stay near two hours, very clear and stable, on the sky may be 500m... maybe 1000m of altitude we saw it at 45 degrees to up , it was below of cloud...  smooth metal-look surface, no doors, no windows, no lamps ...  >:( ...and suddenly it  flied away - very fast!!!!! and noiseless. It was on the border of sea, with me was two same age friends and perhaps 12 totally stiffened Russian soldiers included lieutenant, country I lived was occupied this time. Later UFO, I have to believe it was  ::) , I met as adult man at night time, It was very complicated, weird and unbelievable story - I have told about to some persons, I do not want to publish this case.
The only thing what I want to tell you - once seen in reality - next time you can forthwith detect the fake.
This is fake,
cheers,
khabe

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2008, 02:45:47 PM »
Thank you for your story.
But your argument is unfortunately not very stable.

If someone who doesn't know what a plane is, saw a Concorde and later a F15. Then you show him a video of a Cessna, he would say, that this is definitely not a plane, but just a fake, for planes look and fly differently...

Additionally: If it would really be true, then it would definitely be a prototype, or it has a malfunction.
What speaks against the prototype is the year of the sighting...(quite new)
So if it's true then IMHO it has a malfunctioning in the precessing control.
And so the movement would certainly look quite different than usually...
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 05:03:06 PM by Shanti »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2008, 02:45:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2008, 04:12:54 PM »
@tinu:

Who said the Mexican UFO is fake and on what facts?
I don't know if it's fake or not, and I also do not really care. But I'm curious.
And after a search on the net on this, I found both statements for telling it's fake and telling it's not, but neither of them based on  any usable fact.

So if you do have any valuable information, why this is fake I would be grateful to hear it. As I don't want to spend too much time in search engines, just for my curiosity...


Hi Shanti,

I don’t have any hard evidence as we don’t have a police force to investigate faking UFOs, do we?

I’m not interested in UFOs either. But spent some time on it (time that I deeply regret) and as for the Mexico 1997, there were looong debates and if I recall it right, although the movie was withstanding the first summary analysis, considering that it was:
1. submitted anonymously (ha!);
2. showed to be fake-able by using the video capabilities of that time.
3. having some inconsistencies (technical, logical/trajectory-movement and perspective)
4. incredible few ‘witnesses’ (if anyone real, of course) and no other back-up proofs of any kind.
the general view is the movie is a hoax.
Of course, even if general view is 99.99% or more, there are still plenty of believers.

Here are two links, the second more for putting everything into the right perspective.
http://www.iwonderproductions.com/mexvid.htm
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/PHYS122/23-TheFringe/23-TheFringe_alt.ppt#256,1,23 - The Fringe

Cheers,
Tinu

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2008, 05:12:12 PM »
First: Thank you very very much!

Quote
1. submitted anonymously (ha!);
2. showed to be fake-able by using the video capabilities of that time.
3. having some inconsistencies (technical, logical/trajectory-movement and perspective)
4. incredible few ‘witnesses’ (if anyone real, of course) and no other back-up proofs of any kind.

1. Well doesn't have to say anything. But surely pushes the credability more into the fake region...
2. Surely no surprise. It's so easy to fake such things, even at that time...
3. Well none of the seemingly inconsistencies really are convincing. But surely it also pushes the credability into the fake region.
4. Well you could also interpret this as pro or contra. At least there are some witnesses. On the other hand, one would expect much much more witnesses if a saucer is such easily visible in a big city...
So this also speaks more for a fake.

5. The quality of the tape is really bad. And bad quality definitely helps in hiding a fake...

So generally. If looked at all points one could say, that from these points more arguments speak for a fake. But as said before there are no definite killing arguments. So it could also be real.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2008, 05:12:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2008, 06:05:02 PM »
You’re welcome.

Yes, in theory it could be real.
But I think we talk on different points: So could be real the green little men that live under my bed. Yet, if I decide to go public about them, the burden of proof is on me only and not at all on the whole humanity to prove me wrong.

As per above childish example, the burden of proof is on the author of the movie. If he/she disappeared (lets say that the ‘conspiracy’/oil business etc got him/her  ;)), the burden of proof moves further onto the UFO-logists and onto those promoting the story. No facts/supporting evidences/irrefutable proofs/ were reasonably presented to sustain the story and certainly not in an amount of reasonable time (11 years now!!!) thus everything falls into the fake area because it does not belong to this reality.

It’s like with the physics laws, in particular the 2LoT breaker, that is largely debated these days and comes back from time to time. In theory nobody can say the 2LoT will hold true forever, although it may be well so. In (the same) theory many say it can be broken although the accepted (other) theory says it can not be. Which is the applicable theory? The one based on evidences.
Hence, I’d modify the second line of this post by saying that “it could be real in a hypothetical sense only” and that’s much less than “in theory”, because a 'theory of our cosmos' does not necessarily require the presence of UFOs, hence by applying Occam’s razor, they won’t be included until proven real.

Agree?

Cheers,
Tinu

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2008, 06:42:42 PM »
LOL

Quote
As per above childish example, the burden of proof is on the author of the movie.

Well there I definitely don't go together with you. If somebody observes an effect, then it is certainly not only up to this one, to prove or explain this effect. He would just state: I saw this and this, don't know what it was, but maybe someone is interested or can explain it.
Science often worked this way: Many discoveries were made by other people than the people who could then explain the effect. Famous example: The Photo Effect.

As about the 2nd LoT: The 2nd LoT is purely founded on a statistical argument! But as it is with probability calculations: you never have 100%. So in some cases in can happen, that the law doesn't hold true, although this is very improbable.
The interesting thing here is, that the 2nd LoT almost completely falls apart if viewed on a small molecular level.
Example:
We know, the temperature of a molecule is defined by it's velocity. The temperature of the room is the mean velocity of all the air molecules. Let's assume that all molecules have the same speed (the same temperature). Due to the collisions between the molecules very soon, some will get quite higher speeds (higher temperatures) and some lower speeds (lower temperatures). The room temperature (mean) would remain the same, but on a molecular level, now some molecules have become "hotter" and some "colder", which means that in the volume where currently a fast molecules is, the temperature would be higher, and in a volume, where a slow molecule is, it would be colder.This would actually be against the 2nd LoT. So the 2nd LoT only holds true if there are many many molecules to make a mean. With only a few molecules it will even be more likely that it not holds true. This is nothing else than standard statistics!


Another example:
Due to quantum physics it is theoretically possible, that you suddenly disappear and reappear at a 2m distance. But the probability for this event would be so extremely small, that you would say, it is very unlikely to happen...
But still, there's a chance that it will happen!
The probability to win in a lottery is also quite small. Nevertheless there exist quite some people who have won...

Todays science has got the habit to tell, these events are impossible. And this is what I don't like about it.
They are not impossible, they are just not very likely to happen!

It the same with this video. Like you did in the beginning to tell this is fake is not certain. The statement should rather have been e.g.: Many points speak against the credability of this video.

I think one should be tolerant to the view of others. Especially if it is not even in one's own model certain that one tells the truth!

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2008, 08:22:56 PM »
I agree about being tolerant, although I don’t see the point in discussing UFOs (or even worst: politics) in an OU forum. If somebody wants talking about UFOs, why wouldn’t go out there, in an appropriate place?

I don’t fully agree about photovoltaic effect. It may have been discovered more or less by chance but it was documented and made repeatable. It was verified to be real and that’s exactly why it was later included by Einstein as part of a larger theory. I don’t totally agree with you because I haven’t say the ‘effect’ (or observation etc) had to be understood. I said it has to be proved real, which was not the case with our movie.

I certainly and completely disagree about thermodynamics. The roots of this very powerful science do not come from statistics but from more general considerate, i.e Boyle’s law and steam engines. Classical thermodynamics can not be broken because in its entirety is a logical unity based on the existence of absolute temperature scale. Statistical thermodynamics, which came much later (about half a century since the foundations, as we know them today, were set by Sadi Carnot), not only that confirmed what was already known but exactly because the classical part had to hold true it was possible to develop correct statistical models (distributions) and so to contribute to the advancing of the whole sciences (including thermodynamics itself and also its application into other fields) and to the development of new ones. Maxwell’s demon problem has no solution, no matter at what scale you analyze it and I really don’t understand why so many people feel obliged to throw quantum into the whole discussions when it is not necessary. Really, without ever discussing about the level of knowledge we both possess in quantum mechanics, it is known before quantum grew up (since Heisenbeng principle) that no Maxwell demon will work. Do you think Schrodinger et all  forgot about that because of the math or maybe because of other reason?! Think again.
To make the long story short, that tale about statistical fluctuations, when molecules in a gas ‘decide to have a meeting’ altogether in one compartment, is a just a big empty donut served with a lot of sugar on top of it. Yes, it happens all the time but one never knows what molecules do unless, in order to find it out, he/she expends a lot more energy that the molecules can ever provide. It’s otherwise called statistical noise and that’s why noise rectification is utter nonsense: it is either thermodynamically impossible or you’d have to forget thermometers can exist in our universe.  (2LoT can't be broken without the first one too, given the link between them in the virtue of simple facts of nature).

Sorry for not being very tolerant at the end but so are some of them -the ‘contemporary genius’ around.
Besides, it’s really late here and I have to go check my little green men under the bed.  ;)

I regret, but the video remains fake to me as to the majority of the people on this planet. I wonder why you didn’t react about my views in respect to the second video? Dou you buy the message that Scottish inventors are all stupid? Why not? Because all of your arguments still apply! Oh, I see: you understand the second movie is a joke, case in which I fully agree: if the Mexico UFO movie is not fake, then it is surely a joke.  ;D Deal?

Cheers,
Tinu
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 09:02:32 AM by tinu »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2008, 08:22:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline raburgeson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2008, 03:49:04 PM »
I saw a disk fly on the news for 2 days, it was perfectly Identified. Couple of months after returning from the service on what was then advertised as super channel 8 Hamilton Canada, mind you this was the Early 70s. The inventors name was John Searl. After viewing this craft in operation the realization that gravity was forever in the future cracked will never be driven from my mind. I think soon after they chucked him in jail for fraud and his manufacturing complex was completely scuttled. Now if he was a fraud they wouldn't have packed up his stuff and stolen it would they. They have been manufacturing his invention and others. I've already said I don't believe in Aliens, we did it all. I think you'll find many of the older members have more interest in this subject that the younger members do. That's because we have seen a great deal more and believe me there are other stories like John Searls.

       Hope I spelled his name right.

And yes there is information on his device and yes we did crap away some money trying to make some magnets. I understand he is out trying to do it again. I also hear he is getting old and worried about the amount of time he has left. This is exactly what the government wants, they want him out of the picture just like they put Tesla out.

Notice the new magnet moter to go into production by the Chinese on youtube.

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2008, 04:16:56 PM »
Lol, seems we don't agree on this...

Sure The 2nd law was observed, but no real explanation found other than the statistical.

Quote
2LoT can't be broken without the first one too, given the link between them in the virtue of simple facts of nature).

Well, here I think the German Wiki explains this quite nicely:

Quote
Er schränkt die Aussage des ersten Hauptsatzes über die Gleichwertigkeit von Wärme und Arbeit ein und ist damit eines der Fundamente der Thermodynamik, wird aber im Rahmen dieser Theorie nicht begründet. Erst im Rahmen der Statistischen Mechanik wird er mit den übrigen Theorien der Physik verknüpft: Je nach philosophischem Standpunkt bekommt er dort eine stochastische Formulierung oder wenigstens eine wahrscheinlichkeitsbezogene Begründung.

Rough translation:
The 2nd law restricts the first law, and is by itself one of the fundaments of thermodynamics, but is not by itself based on this theory. Only in the relation to statistical mechanics it can be tied with the other theories. Dependant on the philosophical standpoint, it gets either a stochastic formulation or at least a probability related explanation.

But I don't think it will make any sense to discuss this anymore in here. It's quite Offtopic... Sorry for that to the starter of the thread!

Maybe we should agree, that we don't agree  ;)
It looks like our brains reason differently. What my brain reasons, doesn't seem to be logical to your brain, and vice versa. Isn't it good that it is also possible to have different opinions? I love the world!
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 12:00:29 AM by Shanti »

Offline SkyWatcher123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2008, 05:15:09 PM »
Hi folks. Yes very interesting video of the scottish invention, i wonder what is causing the distortion in the lower portion of the device. You see folks i tend to comply with the protocol of ' believing none of what i hear or read and half of what i see, until further research and investigation is carried out '. Now notice most people on this planet throw out the last part of investigation maybe for fear they'd have to change or modify the programming they have been given since birth which can be a very scary thing for most folks or on the other hand some folks dont give a darn, for different possible reasons like they enjoy too much the child like monetary care they receive from their government and shadow gov. masters to help hoard all these inventions again like spoiled brat children. Also its interesting how they steal then develop these things and then have there lackys on all media sources claim, oh ya its all man made stuff, ROFLMAO, your joking right. I really do have compassion for the folks in this world and any adjacent ones that have such fear within that they have to control everything they possibly can except the one and only most important thing and that is themselves. Thank god we all make our own choices, even though severely limited these days, and eventually by these choices and what we think is the true reality of creation we will go to the reality that suits each of us and i was ready 20 years ago to hop in my flying saucer and go say hello to some old friends up there, the time is well past due to end this fake, engineered illusion of scarcity, lack, poverty, disease, etc., etc., etc., etc. i think you get the point. Think with your heart.

peace, love, light

Offline raburgeson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2008, 07:34:58 AM »
I am completely sorry to say energy production is completely political. Go off the grid tomorrow and see how long it takes for surveillance teams to move in. That is something you cannot separate because of supposed national security, hidden patents, and the like. You have to know they are hiding a lot of stuff from us. Look at the quality of the news, surely there are important things, much more important in a world of 6.5 billion people going on than the stupid headlines you can go read right now. Some where this year someone made an important break through in energy even if they made the discovery purely by accident. Where is it?

Before hopping right off the grid I suggest you go read stories from people that have done it and how life gets soon afterwards.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13590
Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2008, 03:39:24 PM »
Well, there went ten minutes I'll never get back.

May I recommend a different file sharing site? One that doesn't put you thru a rigamarole to get to the file you want, and doesn't spam you with advertising pop-ups?
Try w w w dot mediafire dot com.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Video you probably did not see
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2008, 03:39:24 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink