Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote in message news:<ju45ta.qr5.ln at miriam.mikron.de>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> > Unfortunately you are confusing ion wind devices with Biefeld-Brown
> > effect devices. These are not the same thing. No one has yet come
> > up with an explanation as to why the Biefeld-Brown effect works, but
> > only that it does. And it has been tested in a vacuum.
>> All the words they mix into their articles like "Area 51" or "Element 115"
> show clearly that they do not understand what they write. It's not easy to
> debunk such an experiment without repeating it, and measuring other
You've clearly fallen into the "guilt by association" logic trap. Not
all who write about the Biefeld-Brown effect subscribe to the "Area
argument. In fact NASA's pattent of the device (yes they do have a
patent) says nothing about UFOs or anything else. I'm suprised that
someone as "logical" as yourself would fall into such a crackpot trap.
Here's the link to NASA's patent.
> The assymetric capacitor is not in empty space, but close to a very large
> plate, the ground (surface of our planet earth, tied to a certain
> potential). Now it's a lot easier to understand how this is going to give a
> force, even one that allows "infinite lifting". A lot of people make
> mistakes like this one, because the ground is always present, and therefore
Wrong again Bernd. The force has also been observed moving PARALLEL
the ground. Not only does this shoot your theory to shreds, but it
means that it's likely not "antigravity" either. Here's a paper on
But interesting theory. Even if it were "tied to the ground" so to
that would still be a positive result for "earth bound"
> This is a standard trick used by magicans of all sorts: distract the viewer
> from what's really happening. "Area 51" and "element 115" are obvious parts
> of this, so these people are crackpots. And NASA for sure is such a large
> organization that it has to have an crackpot somewhere.
>> And where a "scientist" stands that believes in creationism, is also
> obvious: on the crackpot side. If you believe something even though there's
> enough material around to question it, you deserve it. If you really think
> a supreme being created our eyes "because it's perfect", you are
> furthermore a bad engineer. Our eyes have been created by "blind
> watchmakers", which shows that both veins and neurons are on top of the
> light-sensitive cells, shading and diffusing light. And this "blind
> watchmaker" didn't just cut&paste his errors on other independent designs,
> because cephalopods got it right - but got their blood wrong (copper
> instead of iron).
>> Or maybe HE was just in hurry because of the tight schedule ;-).
Or maybe creation is no longer "perfect". In fact the idea of a
creation is fundamental to Christianity.
John M. Drake