Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote in message news:<2487ta.4p8.ln at miriam.mikron.de>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> > Hello Bernd,
> > You've clearly fallen into the "guilt by association" logic trap. Not
> > all who write about the Biefeld-Brown effect subscribe to the "Area
> > 51" argument.
>> You have just asked if the people at www.americanantigravity.com are
> crackpots. Since they subscribe to the "Area 51" argument, they clearly
First you didn't make "they" clear since by this point in the discussion
I was talking about Lifter researcher in general which you described as
"magicians". But even if we restrict the discusion to this website,
you're assesment is in error. Just because someone includes on his
webpage information from OTHERS that may believe in UFOs doesn't mean
that he does himself. Here is a quote taken from one of the papers
at that website.
As an inventor, I couldn't care less whether or not the idea for the
technology came from a crashed UFO. To be perfectly honest I'm not
what you would call a "believer" anywasys, although I have often
wondered about it. My point is not to attempt to lend any credibility
to "Art's Parts", but rather to tie in the properties of the anomalous
material's high-voltage movement with the underlying theory of lifter
Even mentioning a UFO in a respected publication or article is the
kiss of death in today's world - and I wouldn't do it if it wasn't an
intricate part of the story. The other interesting thought is that
the layered material is once again partially composed of Bismuth --
which is thought to possibly have some of the same
electro-gravitation properties as Bob Lazar's Area 51 "element 115".
Is there a similarity, or merely a coincidence between a claim that
hasn't gained credibility and a technology currently under development?
The lifter in its own right is essentially a layered material. One
of those layers is the emitter wire, which is highly chared with
about 30kV worth of electrons, another layer is the air-gap, which is
approximately 3 cm in height, an the final layer is an electronically
grounded "skirt" of aluminum foil that surrounds the lifter. It is
also reasonable to expect tht there are only two possible forces at
work in the lifter -- one of which being a possible ion-wind effect
moving down from the emitter to the foil, and the other being a
possible Biefeld-Brown effect, moving up through the foil to the
Translation. The author doesn't really believe in UFOs but sees
some similairity between lifter technology and the report given
by Bob Lazar. Now lets suppose that Bob Lazar's experiment was
an elaborate hoax. Lets also suppose that he (or someone else) was
aware of the Biefeld-Brown effect, since this was patented well
befor Bob Lazar's story. Is it not possible that he could have
used this to engineer the hoax?
Anyway believing in Area 51 and even UFOs doesn't mean that you
believe in aliens. The U.S. government does have top secret
research facilities (afterall, where do you thing the F117 and
B2 bomber came from). One design from 1942 was even eliptical
like a "flying saucer". While such a craft was identified to
the U.S. government it would have been "unidentified" to those
who had never seen it before.
> >> 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 ignored.
> > Wrong again Bernd. The force has also been observed moving PARALLEL
> > to the ground.
>> In free, unobscured space? Or inside a lab with walls (the photos in the
> paper below show walls in their lab)? All these people completely ignore
> other surfaces, so how do you know their settings?
Lifters have also been tested out of doors, but I suppose you would then
claim trees, mountains, distant building or whatever as your explanation.
It's funny that you're quite sure of this having done no testing yourself.
It's also funny that you seem to be so much smarter than the NASA
scientists who filed for patent and at this point have "no explanation".
Interesting theory, but to present it as "proof" is "crackpot" on your
> > Not only does this shoot your theory to shreds, but it also
> > means that it's likely not "antigravity" either. Here's a paper on
> > this:
> > http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf> >
> > But interesting theory. Even if it were "tied to the ground" so to
> > speak that would still be a positive result for "earth bound"
> > transportation.
>> Sure. However: the breakdown voltage of air is too small to lift anything
That remains to be seen.
> > Or maybe creation is no longer "perfect". In fact the idea of a
> > degraded creation is fundamental to Christianity.
>> You really mean that it's possible to invert a once perfectly layouted
> structure later? The problem is that it's exactly the other way round:
> Mutation can't easily invert a once wrongly layouted structure - that's why
> our eyes are still constructed "inside-out" after half a billion years of
> evolution, and so are the eyes of all our relatives who share a common
> non-blind ancestor (all animals with a spinal cord).
Now THIS is truly crackpot! First there's a huge difference between an
organism not having the "perfect" metal in its eye and eyes turning
"inside out". Second the record is full of instances of "bad mutations"
that have been passed on from generation to generation. Hemophelia
immediately comes to mind. So does sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell
anemia is a response to a hostile enviornment. But it could hardly
be called an "improvement". With increasing enviornmental degredation
I would expect humans to eventually develop genetic defense mechnisms
to things like carbon-monoxide and radiation posioning, but these
changes will most likely not be an improvement. I don't expect to
see any "X-men" emerge.
> Science requires a critical mind, and I still fail to see how lots of faith
> does not contradict that.
Well Bernd you seem to have a lot of "faith" in your own theories,
even though you haven't tested them and they seem to contridict the
NASA scientists who have. But hey, maybe they'll give you a job.
John M. Drake