The Disclosure Project (National Press Club, 2001)

Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The Disclosure Project (National Press Club, 2001)

The website is http://www.disclosureproject.org/ and the record of conference is in the media section.

I have seen the 2001's conference record. As far as I can tell as a foreigner, that place is really the National Press Club (the biggest hall there) and the people giving testimony in the project are real military officers or officials. But there are also scientists and astronauts involved.
This is where you might be interested, because you might know these names better than me. You won't find there guys speaking of chinese lanterns or meteorological balloons. They're the people who also were in charge of nuclear and conventional weapons for your country, so you'd better pay attention to them.

I hope there will be some sensible reaction from you. I personally didn't come up with this sooner because it took a long time to watch that film, read the author's book, and so on. Therefore, I have actually examined the project, before I had let you know. I expect the same from you, dear Americans.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I had to take time to come up with a reasonable, well thought response to this subject that you obviously spent a considerable amount of time on:

 

 

 

 

 

lol.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What does this show other

What does this show other than people with advanced degrees will say anything for money?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I hope there

Luminon wrote:
I hope there will be some sensible reaction from you. I personally didn't come up with this sooner because it took a long time to watch that film, read the author's book, and so on. Therefore, I have actually examined the project, before I had let you know. I expect the same from you, dear Americans.

I'm Canadian, so I expect no such thing from myself. I fall into the "gee, it would be great to see some physical evidence, guys" camp. I don't care who was interviewed. Show me the alien spacecraft, or the alien or whatever. Otherwise, it's a spook story.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, I believe the only

Luminon, I believe the only "sensible reaction" you will accept is along the lines of:

"Oh my gosh, such a strong argument from authority. Luminon is completely correct. I should accept every bit of wisdom he put forth without investigation. Why didn't I see it sooner?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:  

HisWillness wrote:

 

Luminon wrote:
I hope there will be some sensible reaction from you. I personally didn't come up with this sooner because it took a long time to watch that film, read the author's book, and so on. Therefore, I have actually examined the project, before I had let you know. I expect the same from you, dear Americans.

 

I'm Canadian, so I expect no such thing from myself. I fall into the "gee, it would be great to see some physical evidence, guys" camp. I don't care who was interviewed. Show me the alien spacecraft, or the alien or whatever. Otherwise, it's a spook story.

 

Well, I don't see what being Canadian has to do with the topic. Even so, there is indirect evidence that the woo stuff is just not going to show up.

 

Now I am not going to sit through two hours of that but I would be somewhat surprised if there was not some mention of Tesla and his suppressed technology in there somewhere. Those people eventually get around to that every time they get together.

 

So let me run with that.

 

Apparently, a century or so ago, Tesla (with the technological and scientific base available to him at the time) found new stuff that was in some way amazing. Well gee, that is how knowledge advances. However, it is also a fact that pretty much every major advance has been preceded by related advances and there are always many people working in related areas.

 

If one follows the history of science, the main points that are often credited as being in some way revolutionary can be viewed retrospectively as discoveries that were waiting to happen. Perhaps Einstein published when he did and gave us fascinating new ideas to mull over. However, the number of people working in related areas was such that relativity would have been known sooner rather than later.

 

The fact that no other electrical engineer contemporary to Tesla ever came up with free energy or death rays should be telling about the reality of the ideas.

 

If that is not enough, science and technology have progressed just a little bit in the past century. Today, we have machines like the LHC and the RHIC that are probing the basic nature of the universe. If expectations work out, we should be able to know why matter actually has mass in the next year or so (honestly, we have only observed the fact that stuff has mass but we can't today say why it ought to.).

 

With the technology that we have today, anything that Tesla could have done should be trivial for us. The fact that we don't have the things that are claimed for him strongly suggests that they are not and were never real.

 

So let's say that there is a place somewhere that has the secret alien technology under wraps. Can it possibly look all that much different from what we already have?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Lol, you guys are brutal. 

Lol, you guys are brutal.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Around that time, a guy who

Around that time, a guy who used to live not too far away from me was into this 'project', and lent me a videotape of it. Doing my own checking into the background of the main proponents didn't quite support that they deserved to be taken as seriously as he seemed to think. I think he and Luminon would have really got on well together...

Some of the testimony is interesting, and not all that easy to dismiss on the face of it. However, knowing just how even apparently rational people can mis-interpret stuff, in the absence of some more independent corroborating evidence, which does not appear to have come out, there seems less reason to take it seriously now than originally.

No matter how you cut it, someone is seriously deluded or conspiratorial, and when it is a small group of people like this back then, with little or no follow-up, vs many more people with at least as good and mostly better credentials and 'track records', who make at least as much apparent sense, I think it is a 'no-brainer' who to take seriously.

This and the fact that the world seems to have continued on a path that is still consistent with more 'regular' interpretations of reality, it seems rational to consign this 'project' to the dustbin of history.

I'm sorry Luminon, I've seen more than enough examples where you persistently see something weird and 'inexplicable' in phenomena which have perfectly straightforward explanations, that your strong bias against regular science and toward the 'woo' makes any research from you hard to take seriously in backing up such stuff.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What does

jcgadfly wrote:

What does this show other than people with advanced degrees will say anything for money?

I didn't notice that this film would be among the top in cinemas, making hundreds of millions of dollars.


jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon, I believe the only "sensible reaction" you will accept is along the lines of:

"Oh my gosh, such a strong argument from authority. Luminon is completely correct. I should accept every bit of wisdom he put forth without investigation. Why didn't I see it sooner?"

I find it very funny when someone much into science talks about argument from authority or proving something. When was the last time you saw the round Earth from the orbit? When did you observe viruses last time? How often does a proton bite your ass? Or did you take someone else's word on these things? You didn't even care to verify these claims on a particle accelerator in your basement? What a shame.

People should try things for themselves. For example, this weekend I tried on myself a special medicine, (called MSM, or dimethylsulfid or something like that) which is said to get rid the organism of all toxins, bacteries, viruses and parasites. And I can say, it really does. I was for two days in real agony because the detoxication process worked very well, perhaps too much. So don't tell me about proving things.  You sit on your ass and wait for a so-called proof from an academic authority, while others actually investigate things by themselves. I think it's hypocrisy, man.


HisWillness wrote:

Luminon wrote:
I hope there will be some sensible reaction from you. I personally didn't come up with this sooner because it took a long time to watch that film, read the author's book, and so on. Therefore, I have actually examined the project, before I had let you know. I expect the same from you, dear Americans.

I'm Canadian, so I expect no such thing from myself. I fall into the "gee, it would be great to see some physical evidence, guys" camp. I don't care who was interviewed. Show me the alien spacecraft, or the alien or whatever. Otherwise, it's a spook story.

If a president of USA would say, "they are real", would you demand from him the same thing? Or Stephen Hawking, let's say? Or your mother?

 

Just consider it, even the most admired person in the world can turn into a distrusted renegade by saying a thing you don't want to hear. All their previous trustworthiness suddenly means nothing, right?

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Now I am not going to sit through two hours of that but I would be somewhat surprised if there was not some mention of Tesla and his suppressed technology in there somewhere. Those people eventually get around to that every time they get together.

 

So let me run with that.

 

Apparently, a century or so ago, Tesla (with the technological and scientific base available to him at the time) found new stuff that was in some way amazing. Well gee, that is how knowledge advances. However, it is also a fact that pretty much every major advance has been preceded by related advances and there are always many people working in related areas.

 

If one follows the history of science, the main points that are often credited as being in some way revolutionary can be viewed retrospectively as discoveries that were waiting to happen. Perhaps Einstein published when he did and gave us fascinating new ideas to mull over. However, the number of people working in related areas was such that relativity would have been known sooner rather than later.

 

The fact that no other electrical engineer contemporary to Tesla ever came up with free energy or death rays should be telling about the reality of the ideas.

Well, and what about some other guy, Leonardo da Vinci, let's say. This guy drew things like helicopters, parachutes and tanks. And surprisingly, just a moment after that other inventors also invented this, and the world became technically advanced while in medieval ages. They immediately recognized him as a genius and now we are like 500 years into the future than we actually are. Riiiight, this is how science works.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
If that is not enough, science and technology have progressed just a little bit in the past century. Today, we have machines like the LHC and the RHIC that are probing the basic nature of the universe. If expectations work out, we should be able to know why matter actually has mass in the next year or so (honestly, we have only observed the fact that stuff has mass but we can't today say why it ought to.).

 

With the technology that we have today, anything that Tesla could have done should be trivial for us. The fact that we don't have the things that are claimed for him strongly suggests that they are not and were never real.

 

So let's say that there is a place somewhere that has the secret alien technology under wraps. Can it possibly look all that much different from what we already have?

 

Tesla's invention is not a more advanced technology, it's a technology based on a different, deeper understanding of the world. Tesla did what nobody else thought to be possible. Some of his schemes give no sense in conventional electrotechnics. This is because he predicted and used other forms of energy than are officially known, not only electricity. He refers to it as  "radiant energy", for example.  We do basically nothing new, we just do it on smaller scale and greater detail. Tesla did something new with the old technology, and we still didn't catch up with him. Technically, he's still "ahead" of us. I think Tesla deserves to be trusted, because he proved his engineering abilities well on his other works which are well known.
As for the alien technology, it can be very different by using a completely different aspect of the world, the non-mechanistic aspect. It can, for example, employ the postulate that thought is a form of energy, and that the very basis of energy is consciousness.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Around that time, a guy who used to live not too far away from me was into this 'project', and lent me a videotape of it. Doing my own checking into the background of the main proponents didn't quite support that they deserved to be taken as seriously as he seemed to think. I think he and Luminon would have really got on well together...

So... they didn't work where they claimed to work?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Some of the testimony is interesting, and not all that easy to dismiss on the face of it. However, knowing just how even apparently rational people can mis-interpret stuff, in the absence of some more independent corroborating evidence, which does not appear to have come out, there seems less reason to take it seriously now than originally.
Sure, a glowing, maneuvering object of no known earthly design is really easy to misinterpret. It might be... let's say.... a flying pig! Pilots and military officers are blind like moles, their opinion doesn't count.

BobSpence1 wrote:
No matter how you cut it, someone is seriously deluded or conspiratorial, and when it is a small group of people like this back then, with little or no follow-up, vs many more people with at least as good and mostly better credentials and 'track records', who make at least as much apparent sense, I think it is a 'no-brainer' who to take seriously.

This and the fact that the world seems to have continued on a path that is still consistent with more 'regular' interpretations of reality, it seems rational to consign this 'project' to the dustbin of history.
There is no conspiracy, there is simply the law of marketing, the instinct of self-preservation, the need to have power, to sustain it, and to expand it. For centuries, there were individuals who controlled everything and nobody called that a conspiracy. It was simply the absolutism. Then someone noticed, that the rulers were getting killed in revolutions, so they renamed themselves into 'democrats'. Now we can't revolt against the democrats, because you know, we elected them, right? And so, everything is here for us, everyone up there means it well with us, so be happy and believe what you're told, because it is the truth. Now you're free, you know. The millenial tendency for absolute control just vanished into nowhere, believe that.


BobSpence1 wrote:
  I'm sorry Luminon, I've seen more than enough examples where you persistently see something weird and 'inexplicable' in phenomena which have perfectly straightforward explanations, that your strong bias against regular science and toward the 'woo' makes any research from you hard to take seriously in backing up such stuff.

Geez... can you forget about me for a while and think only about dr. Greer? Or did my woo-woo fluidum contaminate him as well?

 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What does

jcgadfly wrote:

What does this show other than people with advanced degrees will say anything for money?

luminon wrote:
I didn't notice that this film would be among the top in cinemas, making hundreds of millions of dollars.

So they didn't get paid to speak at this conference?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon, I believe the only "sensible reaction" you will accept is along the lines of:

"Oh my gosh, such a strong argument from authority. Luminon is completely correct. I should accept every bit of wisdom he put forth without investigation. Why didn't I see it sooner?"

luminon wrote:
I find it very funny when someone much into science talks about argument from authority or proving something. When was the last time you saw the round Earth from the orbit? When did you observe viruses last time? How often does a proton bite your ass? Or did you take someone else's word on these things? You didn't even care to verify these claims on a particle accelerator in your basement? What a shame.People should try things for themselves. For example, this weekend I tried on myself a special medicine, (called MSM, or dimethylsulfid or something like that) which is said to get rid the organism of all toxins, bacteries, viruses and parasites. And I can say, it really does. I was for two days in real agony because the detoxication process worked very well, perhaps too much. So don't tell me about proving things.  You sit on your ass and wait for a so-called proof from an academic authority, while others actually investigate things by themselves. I think it's hypocrisy, man.

You were the one saying "These are real scientists so you should listen". Or don't you bother reading what you post?

That is different from reading research from many people who did the experiments and replicating them where I can.

As for self medicating with things that you don't really know the names of - be careful.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:BobSpence1

Luminon wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Around that time, a guy who used to live not too far away from me was into this 'project', and lent me a videotape of it. Doing my own checking into the background of the main proponents didn't quite support that they deserved to be taken as seriously as he seemed to think. I think he and Luminon would have really got on well together...

So... they didn't work where they claimed to work?

No, I looked at the sort of things they had done and published previously, especially Greer.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Some of the testimony is interesting, and not all that easy to dismiss on the face of it. However, knowing just how even apparently rational people can mis-interpret stuff, in the absence of some more independent corroborating evidence, which does not appear to have come out, there seems less reason to take it seriously now than originally.
Sure, a glowing, maneuvering object of no known earthly design is really easy to misinterpret. It might be... let's say.... a flying pig! Pilots and military officers are blind like moles, their opinion doesn't count.

There a whole raft of potential problems making conclusions about glowing moving objects - 'no known earthly design' begs so many questions. Such sightings are very easy to misinterpret as to its nature and origin. The description need to be a hell of a lot more specific than that. This argument has been raked over many many times. Pilots and military officers are still human, and still can misinterpret such sightings, especially if they are of unfamiliar objects. Your silly comments do not help us take you seriously.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
No matter how you cut it, someone is seriously deluded or conspiratorial, and when it is a small group of people like this back then, with little or no follow-up, vs many more people with at least as good and mostly better credentials and 'track records', who make at least as much apparent sense, I think it is a 'no-brainer' who to take seriously.

This and the fact that the world seems to have continued on a path that is still consistent with more 'regular' interpretations of reality, it seems rational to consign this 'project' to the dustbin of history.
There is no conspiracy, there is simply the law of marketing, the instinct of self-preservation, the need to have power, to sustain it, and to expand it. For centuries, there were individuals who controlled everything and nobody called that a conspiracy. It was simply the absolutism. Then someone noticed, that the rulers were getting killed in revolutions, so they renamed themselves into 'democrats'. Now we can't revolt against the democrats, because you know, we elected them, right? And so, everything is here for us, everyone up there means it well with us, so be happy and believe what you're told, because it is the truth. Now you're free, you know. The millenial tendency for absolute control just vanished into nowhere, believe that.

Quote:

I rather doubt there were ever individuals who controlled everything.

There are certainly individuals and groups who lust for and gain significant, maybe even worrying amounts of control behind the scenes, sure. But there is a strong tendency for these legitimate concerns to get inflated to a ridiculous degree on little or no real evidence.


BobSpence1 wrote:
  I'm sorry Luminon, I've seen more than enough examples where you persistently see something weird and 'inexplicable' in phenomena which have perfectly straightforward explanations, that your strong bias against regular science and toward the 'woo' makes any research from you hard to take seriously in backing up such stuff.

Geez... can you forget about me for a while and think only about dr. Greer? Or did my woo-woo fluidum contaminate him as well?

I was only referring there to your assurances that you had taken the time to look into it first before making this post.

Like I said, on face value, there are interesting questions raised. But in the context of many other reports and claims, which also have been hard to explain on face value, and which don't seem to have any hint of further evidence or follow-up events which one might have expected, and seemed to point to all kinds of secret scenarios, many of which were not consistent with each other, I'll wait till we have something more substantial before giving it serious concern.

When I am confronted every day with the crazy things all kinds of people come to believe in passionately, including people with far better scientific credentials than these guys, I am going to need much more than this to take this interpretation of the world seriously, when compared against other scenarios which to me provide a much better overall fit, while still far from precise, to what I have observed and read about the world over 50 years.

I can't help thinking of people like Francis Collins and his Evangelical beliefs, which he justifies on the most uncritical and irrational grounds, using arguments which I find genuinely shockingly naive, from a serious scientist.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Christ Luminon, your

Christ Luminon, your arguments are:

1) Smart people invented things (although the crazy stuff usually didn't work), therefore aliens!

2) People with degrees have the same percentage of delusional cases as people without degrees, therefore aliens!

3) We have not personally seen a proton with the naked eye, therefore aliens!

 

Evidence for the things you listed as your examples of using authority as a reference are all available.  You can learn about every one, you can even get involved yourself if you want.  You can send a balloon up with a camera to see the curvature of the earth for example, science classes do it all the time.  You guys can't even get a good picture of E.T. much less something you can test in a lab.  Science is about reproducibility, the E.T. stuff can never be reproduced and it is always conveniently covered up or mis-understood or somehow obfuscated.

If E.T. existed one of these guys should come back with the math formula for fusion, or some horrible difficult science problem.

U.F.O.s are Unidentified Flying Objects.  That does not mean aliens.  It often means military aircraft, photoshop, hallucination or whatever.  E.T. is not going to do Blue Angels stunts all night just for giggles.

 

You seem like a nice guy, but your problem is you believe in anything and everything without any actual evidence.  You are like a Miss Cleo, Supernatural and the X-Files rolled into one being.  I don't know what to tell you, because your default policy is to accept blindly and you openly reject the methods by which rational humans acquire objective information about the world around them.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I honestly thought I

I honestly thought I wouldn't be doing this again, but I just can't resist your particular brand of woo dear Luminon.  You're like the sore tooth I can't stop touching...

 

Luminon wrote:

I find it very funny when someone much into science talks about argument from authority or proving something. When was the last time you saw the round Earth from the orbit? When did you observe viruses last time? How often does a proton bite your ass? Or did you take someone else's word on these things? You didn't even care to verify these claims on a particle accelerator in your basement? What a shame.

What's a shame is that, if argued correctly, the use of science is never an argument from authority fallacy.  I'll let that one sink in for a bit.  The use of scientific data or results posted by others is not an argument from authority.

 

Give it a couple of minutes.

 

Good.  Now Uncle Michael will tell you why.  The argument from authority is only a fallacy when a statement is claimed to be true because a particular person said it.  For example:  "How can you say there's no God when even Newton believed in him?".  The implication here is that because an intellect as great as Newton's believed in God then there must be some strength to the claim of God.  This is fallacious because there is no way for Newton to know God or to have expertise in God. Newton is in a position of false authority.  His "cache" is being used to give credence to something.

 

So why isn't belief in science, and the facts discovered thereby, an appeal to authority fallacy?  Because any statement such as "the world is round", or "there are organisms called viruses that cause infection" is not made because X said so.  Newton discovered/described the force of gravity but we never say it is true because he told us.  Every fact in science can be stated to be true because several hundreds of people have observed, tested and verified the claim.  The body of people you're referring to can claim expertise and can claim knowledge of these things and it is reasonable to assume that their combined opinion is valid.

 

Please learn what the fallacy is you're using before you start ranting.

 

Luminon wrote:

People should try things for themselves. For example, this weekend I tried on myself a special medicine, (called MSM, or dimethylsulfid or something like that) which is said to get rid the organism of all toxins, bacteries, viruses and parasites. And I can say, it really does. I was for two days in real agony because the detoxication process worked very well, perhaps too much. So don't tell me about proving things.  You sit on your ass and wait for a so-called proof from an academic authority, while others actually investigate things by themselves. I think it's hypocrisy, man.

 

Hi.  Remember me?  The chemist?  Got an education in this?  MSM is methylsulfonylmethane, DMS is dimethyl sulfide.  MSM is recommended as a supplement for sulfur in the diet even though you get plenty of sulfur from protein.

 

If you use PubMed, WebOfKnowledge, or another reliable journal database source you can actually search for the research that's been done for MSM as a therapeutic agent.  For example there are 8 papers to be found on PubMed when searching for MSM and cancer, with some suggestion that the use of MSM can disrupt biological pathways and delay the onset of tumours.  So I'll give you that MSM may have some health benefits.

 

However, what it is not is a "special medicine".  There is absolutely no recognised process for MSM to remove "toxins", bacteria, viruses and parasites.  I'll ignore the ever ambiguous "toxins" for a moment - because I hate how these "toxins" are never defined - and focus on the other three.  The three organisms you describe interact with the body in various different ways.  You are suggesting that a single chemical can not only disrupt the function of these disparate things but it can also induce the body to flush them out?  How does it do this?  How do you flush out a virus that isn't in anything connected to your urinary tract?  Why doesn't it flush out the millions of bacteria needed for your stomach to function?

 

I would like to know more about this detoxification experience you had.  What occured?  How do you know anything left your body that wouldn't have done so naturally?  How do you know the pain you experienced wasn't due to a high dose of MSM disrupting your bodies natural functions?


Luminon wrote:

If a president of USA would say, "they are real", would you demand from him the same thing? Or Stephen Hawking, let's say? Or your mother?

Only if the president said these things and couldn't back them up.  Why do you think Bush faced criticism over non-existent WMD's?  For Barrack Obama to stand in front of millions of people on TV and say "We have a UFO" would take thousands of man hours and preparation and cross-checks.  If it weren't true you'd find him quickly ridiculed.  We trust presidents because what they say has generally been thoroughly gone over again and again, and those things that haven't been are quickly found out.

For Stephen Hawking I refer you to the argument on science.  I believe Hawking not just because he said it but because what he says is backed up by a volume of literature from hundreds of different sources, or because he's willing to have his statement challenged if it is not true.  He is not claiming to be the authority on everying.

My mother has an atlas that still points out the United Soviet States of Russia and routinely tries to grab boiling pots of water with her bare hands.  So no, I don't believe everything she says. Spot me skirting round a fallacy there Luminon... don't trust anything she says because she's dotty eh?  What I do trust her saying is things I know she can claim knowledge or expertise on. (and that can easily be verified)

 

Luminon wrote:

Just consider it, even the most admired person in the world can turn into a distrusted renegade by saying a thing you don't want to hear. All their previous trustworthiness suddenly means nothing, right?

Their trust yes, but again this is the reverse fallacy.  Because you don't trust their most recent statement it doesn't make all their previous statements false.

 

 

Luminon wrote:

Well, and what about some other guy, Leonardo da Vinci, let's say. This guy drew things like helicopters, parachutes and tanks. And surprisingly, just a moment after that other inventors also invented this, and the world became technically advanced while in medieval ages. They immediately recognized him as a genius and now we are like 500 years into the future than we actually are. Riiiight, this is how science works.

 

Except DaVinci was highly regarded as a scientist and engineer and did move his respective fields forward.  The inventions you mention didn't have a huge impact because they were impractical with the technology of the time.  His ideas were many, many years ahead of their time but it doesn't mean they were practicable.

 

 

Luminon wrote:

Tesla's invention is not a more advanced technology, it's a technology based on a different, deeper understanding of the world. Tesla did what nobody else thought to be possible. Some of his schemes give no sense in conventional electrotechnics. This is because he predicted and used other forms of energy than are officially known, not only electricity. He refers to it as  "radiant energy", for example.  We do basically nothing new, we just do it on smaller scale and greater detail. Tesla did something new with the old technology, and we still didn't catch up with him. Technically, he's still "ahead" of us. I think Tesla deserves to be trusted, because he proved his engineering abilities well on his other works which are well known.
As for the alien technology, it can be very different by using a completely different aspect of the world, the non-mechanistic aspect. It can, for example, employ the postulate that thought is a form of energy, and that the very basis of energy is consciousness.

 

Except a lot of what was claimed about Tesla's achievements was never verified.  His use of the phrase "radiant energy"could mean anything.  The ambigous phrase used by one scientist to describe his work, in no great detail, does not necessarily equate to the deeper mysteries of the world. 

Don't believe me?  Here's a thought for you.  From now on I'm going to conclude that the reduction of dye species by known photocatalytic materials - with poorly understood mechanisms -  is due to "aetheric influences".  If someone I've never spoken to comes across my photocatalyst paper on "aetheric influences" are they more correct in assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, or I have a deeper understanding of forces they don't know?

 

Plus, if someone claims they did something that can't be repeated by anyone else it doesn't necessarily mean they had secret-ninja-mystic-techniques - unless you can provide evidence of this.


 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and I'd like to add

Oh, and I'd like to add something in that seems to have been skipped over in discussion, having watched some of the first testimony on the video.

 

UFO does not equate to alien.  If in a room full of FAA operatives, CIA members and high-ranking Government officials someone utters the phrase "This is the first time we have radar data  of a UFO" it does not mean "First time tracking aliens omgwtfbbq!".   It means that it's the first time the United States forces have been able to match real-time data to a UFO sighting.

 

A UFO could be anything.  UFOs can become identified objects.

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Christ

mellestad wrote:

Christ Luminon, your arguments are:

1) Smart people invented things (although the crazy stuff usually didn't work), therefore aliens!

2) People with degrees have the same percentage of delusional cases as people without degrees, therefore aliens!

3) We have not personally seen a proton with the naked eye, therefore aliens!

I hope not!

 

mellestad wrote:
Evidence for the things you listed as your examples of using authority as a reference are all available.  You can learn about every one, you can even get involved yourself if you want.  You can send a balloon up with a camera to see the curvature of the earth for example, science classes do it all the time.  You guys can't even get a good picture of E.T. much less something you can test in a lab.  Science is about reproducibility, the E.T. stuff can never be reproduced and it is always conveniently covered up or mis-understood or somehow obfuscated.
Here's the problem. Science is about reproducibility, but the world isn't always reproducible. Do we have to give up on researching everything that is not reproducible? We don't, I hope.
As for reproducibility of ET stuff, we are not completely clueless. Information provided by dr. Greer in his book includes also a contact protocol, which should allow people to summon the space crafts on a meeting point. Dr. Greer describes his numerous, repeated succesful uses of this protocol. This protocol can be researched within a civil association, for example.

mellestad wrote:
If E.T. existed one of these guys should come back with the math formula for fusion, or some horrible difficult science problem.
Well, they all say that we already have numerous working methods of cold fusion, free energy and so on, but we won't be able to use them, when there are powerful interests in oil and nuclear fission and political stability dependent on them. As for the horribly diffcult science problem, that is materialism, and the authors indeed do emphasize how big problem it is for the scientific development...

mellestad wrote:
  U.F.O.s are Unidentified Flying Objects.  That does not mean aliens.  It often means military aircraft, photoshop, hallucination or whatever.  E.T. is not going to do Blue Angels stunts all night just for giggles.
If military people can't recognize their own aircrafts as they should, then it's really weird. Photoshop doesn't work with witnesses. And hallucinations are really rare. I've never had one.
Furthermore, E.T. indeed is going to do a stunt show for people to see, because this is a non-invasive method of visual communication, which bypasses the mass media. Mass media are not interested in showing that there is really a better civilization than ours.

 

mellestad wrote:
You seem like a nice guy, but your problem is you believe in anything and everything without any actual evidence.  You are like a Miss Cleo, Supernatural and the X-Files rolled into one being.  I don't know what to tell you, because your default policy is to accept blindly and you openly reject the methods by which rational humans acquire objective information about the world around them.

It is really easy to classify me like that, because you don't know what is my motivation and method. Even if I would tell you, you wouldn't believe it. You also don't know what I have rejected, because I usually don't talk about it.
For example, I have not accepted Claude "Rael" Vorhillon as a source of information on extraterrestrials, because that guy is a weirdass sect leader. I have also not accepted Eduard "Billy" Meier, because nobody ever backed him up. And a similar guy in my country (Iwbiek might hear of him), mr. I. Benda, has a long history of over-sweeted extraterrestrial propaganda, but also low-quality channeling of voices in his head and unfulfilled catastrophic prophecies. So he's rejected as well.
On the other side, there is George Adamski, dr. Greer and mr. Creme, who are really different than the rejected candidates and they all independently came to the same message and they also complement each other.


So it's not like I'd believe everything. I am a part of a greater society with worldwide contacts, which acts like a filter or a neuronal network, and every member of that society or whole groups somehow contributes to the investigation of the paranormal on their own skin, not by hearsay.  Through collective, worldwide effort we distinguish the truth from disinformation and we contribute to well-being of our members by practicing what we have found out. Of course, not all other groups have so high standards on verity and usefulness of information, but we cooperate with them anyway, hoping to increase their standards. You see, it's not that simple.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
The Lunatic, is in my head...

(HE HE HE HE HEH EH HAH AH AH )

Quote:
And hallucinations are really rare. I've never had one.

"And hallucinations are really rare. I don't think I've never had one."


Corrected. To say anything more is conceit. And I'm tired of you trying to present yourself as actually knowing anything about your brain. I understand most people don't like to admit this, but your mind can very easily play tricks on you, and in most cases, it is essentially impossible for you to ever realize this without external help, because how can your mind figure out that your mind is fucking loopy?

Suppose you are hallucinating a best friend after you have been enrolled in a very prestigious university, possibly studying mathematics. This best friend is also your roommate, and helps you clear your head. Without someone else pointing out that no one has ever heard of this guy, which if you are a socially inept loser (SEE: Mathematics Major) who never really talks to anyone, much less about your best friend, how are you supposed to ever bring this up, and without this, how are you supposed to ever realize, or even consider that your best friend is just a figment of your imagination?  Oh well, at leat you aren't hallucinatinga very violent alter-ego who likes to not talk about clubs he makes to beat up people.

Furthermore, I want you to try an experiment for me. The next time you are in a modern fighter aircraft, do a pass over your house at over the speed of sound, then try to tell me that you can reliably pick it out from all of the other houses.
That is the detail that you are asking these military men to be able to see with. It isn't weird that they can't identify objects as they are actively flying over them at speeds you probably don't even comprehend*, it would be weird if the could.

Oh also, so this Greer guy has a tested and reliable method of contacting these aliens, yet doesn't have a reliable picture of them? Right.

*"But I do know that modern military jets are very fucking fast things. By the time you see one its already over there so combat in such a thing would usually amount to pressing a button and watching something half a mile behind you burst into flames and that's not just idle fact it's cold hard speculation."
-Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:... Obviously

Luminon wrote:

...

 

Obviously the only way to answer this is a fight to the death between chosen proxies.

 

You can have E.T. and a quadriplegic woo-woo master.  I'll take an old lady with a frying pan.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:What's a

MichaelMcF wrote:

What's a shame is that, if argued correctly, the use of science is never an argument from authority fallacy.  I'll let that one sink in for a bit.  The use of scientific data or results posted by others is not an argument from authority.

Give it a couple of minutes.

Good.  Now Uncle Michael will tell you why.  The argument from authority is only a fallacy when a statement is claimed to be true because a particular person said it.  For example:  "How can you say there's no God when even Newton believed in him?".  The implication here is that because an intellect as great as Newton's believed in God then there must be some strength to the claim of God.  This is fallacious because there is no way for Newton to know God or to have expertise in God. Newton is in a position of false authority.  His "cache" is being used to give credence to something.

So why isn't belief in science, and the facts discovered thereby, an appeal to authority fallacy?  Because any statement such as "the world is round", or "there are organisms called viruses that cause infection" is not made because X said so.  Newton discovered/described the force of gravity but we never say it is true because he told us.  Every fact in science can be stated to be true because several hundreds of people have observed, tested and verified the claim.  The body of people you're referring to can claim expertise and can claim knowledge of these things and it is reasonable to assume that their combined opinion is valid.

Please learn what the fallacy is you're using before you start ranting.

Well, I can understand that, but I'm really confused by people who can't.
For example, the topic is about people responsible for watching our skies (or your skies) and protecting national security. They reported that they were unable to guard their terrirory as they normally would, because the aerial intruders were most significantly abnormal. I consider these people to be experts in this field. Nobody else is better trained in protecting national security by telling a meteorologic balloon from (let's say) a North Korean missile. If someone can claim knowledge of what is an earthly air craft and what's not, it's them. But I'd not trust the judgement of those who were not even there.
 

MichaelMcF wrote:
Hi.  Remember me?  The chemist?  Got an education in this?  MSM is methylsulfonylmethane, DMS is dimethyl sulfide.  MSM is recommended as a supplement for sulfur in the diet even though you get plenty of sulfur from protein.

 

If you use PubMed, WebOfKnowledge, or another reliable journal database source you can actually search for the research that's been done for MSM as a therapeutic agent.  For example there are 8 papers to be found on PubMed when searching for MSM and cancer, with some suggestion that the use of MSM can disrupt biological pathways and delay the onset of tumours.  So I'll give you that MSM may have some health benefits.

 

However, what it is not is a "special medicine".  There is absolutely no recognised process for MSM to remove "toxins", bacteria, viruses and parasites.  I'll ignore the ever ambiguous "toxins" for a moment - because I hate how these "toxins" are never defined - and focus on the other three.  The three organisms you describe interact with the body in various different ways.  You are suggesting that a single chemical can not only disrupt the function of these disparate things but it can also induce the body to flush them out?  How does it do this?  How do you flush out a virus that isn't in anything connected to your urinary tract?  Why doesn't it flush out the millions of bacteria needed for your stomach to function?

I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It's not MSM, but MMS, and it's a trade name.  After getting my memory refreshed, (I currently live away from home most of the time and have limited access to the internet) it's basically NaClO2. (sodium chlorite) It's such a foul-smelling clear liquid, and may be used for disinfection of water in field circumstances, for the non-chemists who read. One drop of NaClO2 solution is put into five drops of 10% citric acid. In a few minutes it changes color into bright yellow and the reaction is started. The six yellow drops must be drank with a glass of water.

What it does, is a simple chemical reaction, it divides on salt and ClO2. ClO2 (chlordioxide) is a free radical, but not as corrosive as oxygen free radicals, so it's hopefully safe. Now the magic comes. ClO2 seeks for everything that is pathologic in human body and it destroys it, by tearing away electrons from the pathogen's surface, and then gets inside the cell membrane and wreaks havoc there. It attacks everything, including cancer cells or malaric parasites.  I've been told an unbelievable things about it. I decided to not believe, but instead try it on myself.

You see, NaClO2 is quite a cheap thing, it can be bought easily in great amount. (which is what a member of our club did for us) There's no big money to be made on that by the people who propagate it today. It can also destroy AIDS reputedly, but they use another simple calcium-based substance for that, and they combine it with a carrier substance, which is a common part of various pills. (isn't that the MSM I meant?)
You can read about this on the homepage. There is one detail - MMS must NOT come into contact with ascorbic acid, or better said, the artificial vitamine C. It can be mixed with fruit juices, though.

The reason why ClO2 (carried by blood like oxygen) attacks only pathogens is mostly explained by more acidic pH of them.
If this explanation is not correct, I have an alternative hypothesis, which is quite promising.
These pathogens are then removed from the organism. The problem is, that too much of MMS can cause too much of dead pathogens in blood, and that causes a harsh detoxication. It is necessary to take it very carefully.
But reputedly, when the detoxication is finished, there are no more pathogens in the body, and then not even a higher  amount of MMS causes any further problems. It can be then taken as a regular, preventive dose.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
I would like to know more about this detoxification experience you had.  What occured?  How do you know anything left your body that wouldn't have done so naturally?  How do you know the pain you experienced wasn't due to a high dose of MSM disrupting your bodies natural functions?
I had fallen ill, mildly. I had a bit raised temperature, vertigo, shiver, cough, runny nose, and so on. I welcomed this opportunity to try MMS. But I had very little of time left, so I took rather high doses. There is no direct effect even if whole body is soaked with that chlorine kill-devil, all the problems come later when the dead pathogens are flushed into blood stream. Most of all, MMS in too high doses causes diarrhoea. A lot of diarrhoea. Soon, there was nothing left in my intestines. I shitted a clear water and mucus. Of course, I couldn't drink or eat, thanks to strong nausea. I felt like shit for whole day.
Even if I stopped taking MMS, I still felt like shit, because there was no problem with MMS, the problem was with pathogens which kept being flushed out by diarrhoea. Eventually the day passed.
When I gathered what remained of myself, the result was, that the illness was gone. I still had a little of cough and runny nose, but the vertigo and increased temperature went away. The diarrhoea continued until I stopped it with some pills (charcoal didn't help) and replenished my colon bacteries.

But it really did something. At that time I suffered by cysts of sebum deeply under the skin on my face. I am grateful that I don't suffer by acne a lot, but still these cysts sometimes visit me. Having a pea-sized cyst hidden under the soft tissue of my face is not pleasant, though not as visible and ugly as acne. And well, after the hellish two days of MMS treatment (one day treatment, one recovery) I noticed that the cysts are gone, though I expected them to remain there for a week or two. So I can really say, MMS does purify the organism of all the shit.  But I REALLY recommend to take it very carefully, slowly and gradually.

My dad then decided to take it as well, but in careful doses, 1 drop per day. I took like.... 20 drops in total, in increasing doses over a day and night. Still, even with 1 drop per day the detoxication is so significant, that it distracted him from work, thanks to the nausea. It's better to start when you've got a lot of free time. Basically, we investigate MMS as a group effort. There are currently 3-4 people in our group who tried this, (including me) and there is a national internet community with further experiments and discussion going on. For the record, I think I will continue to take MMS in small doses, because I think the worst is already behind me and I can make it to the ideal toxinless state, when it will do nothing to me. Of course, I will be much more careful. The benefits are reported to be great, though they require some courage and caution. Says the unknown soldier of unofficial research, laying his bowels on the altar of alternative medicine Sticking out tongue


MichaelMcF wrote:
Luminon wrote:

Just consider it, even the most admired person in the world can turn into a distrusted renegade by saying a thing you don't want to hear. All their previous trustworthiness suddenly means nothing, right?

Their trust yes, but again this is the reverse fallacy.  Because you don't trust their most recent statement it doesn't make all their previous statements false.

What I mean is, if someone is trustworthy, then there is no reason to doubt their last statement, even if it is unusual. For example, good friends don't lie to each other, so I can trust my friends that if they would see UFO, and that they wouldn't try to spice up their description. We are adults, we know each other for years, we don't have any ambitions, we're not after money or media attention, and so we can freely share all the cases of UFO we saw. 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Except DaVinci was highly regarded as a scientist and engineer and did move his respective fields forward.  The inventions you mention didn't have a huge impact because they were impractical with the technology of the time.  His ideas were many, many years ahead of their time but it doesn't mean they were practicable.

Well, this makes him even more similar to Nikola Tesla, which in some parallel universe would make everyone around understand my point. It is possible to be in some respects technologically hundreds of years ahead of the world around.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Except a lot of what was claimed about Tesla's achievements was never verified.  His use of the phrase "radiant energy"could mean anything.  The ambigous phrase used by one scientist to describe his work, in no great detail, does not necessarily equate to the deeper mysteries of the world. 

Don't believe me?  Here's a thought for you.  From now on I'm going to conclude that the reduction of dye species by known photocatalytic materials - with poorly understood mechanisms -  is due to "aetheric influences".  If someone I've never spoken to comes across my photocatalyst paper on "aetheric influences" are they more correct in assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, or I have a deeper understanding of forces they don't know?

Yes, except of that Tesla's work is perfectly explainable within the multi-dimensional universe. This aspect of the universe is tangible to me and it is also sometimes mentioned in technical sense among that local (national) community I noted earlier.   People there study not only MMS, but also free energy inventions (like Testatica) and they like to debunk popular misconceptions of scholastic physics. In such a context, it is very unlikely that Tesla would mean something entirely different than we mean. It's pretty obvious that we're on track of understanding him.

Reputedly, there have been disinformations that Tesla didn't make any notes. But Tesla made literally tons of notes and laboratory records, which are still 'classified'. Some of them are stored in Los Alamos. One man describes a curious event, when he found a guide of making a hydrogen bomb there, on publically availabe shelves, but he was not allowed to see Tesla's notes.

MichaelMcF wrote:
  Plus, if someone claims they did something that can't be repeated by anyone else it doesn't necessarily mean they had secret-ninja-mystic-techniques - unless you can provide evidence of this.

If I'm correct, Tesla invented what is today a basis of the Advanced Tachyon Technologies, and this technology was succesfully replicated and modified.And I have it currently in my rear pocket.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Well, I can

Luminon wrote:
Well, I can understand that, but I'm really confused by people who can't.

 

For example, the topic is about people responsible for watching our skies (or your skies) and protecting national security. They reported that they were unable to guard their terrirory as they normally would, because the aerial intruders were most significantly abnormal. I consider these people to be experts in this field. Nobody else is better trained in protecting national security by telling a meteorologic balloon from (let's say) a North Korean missile. If someone can claim knowledge of what is an earthly air craft and what's not, it's them. But I'd not trust the judgement of those who were not even there.

But this isn't the same situation.  These men aren't making claims that are verifiable nor that are tied to the normal range of expertise and experience associated with their titles and jobs.  We are being asked to believe their opinions not because there is any available evidence but because of their ranks and titles.  That's what pushes it into an appeal to authority fallacy.
 

Luminon wrote:

I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It's not MSM, but MMS, and it's a trade name.  After getting my memory refreshed, (I currently live away from home most of the time and have limited access to the internet) it's basically NaClO2. (sodium chlorite) It's such a foul-smelling clear liquid, and may be used for disinfection of water in field circumstances, for the non-chemists who read. One drop of NaClO2 solution is put into five drops of 10% citric acid. In a few minutes it changes color into bright yellow and the reaction is started. The six yellow drops must be drank with a glass of water.

What it does, is a simple chemical reaction, it divides on salt and ClO2. ClO2 (chlordioxide) is a free radical, but not as corrosive as oxygen free radicals, so it's hopefully safe. Now the magic comes. ClO2 seeks for everything that is pathologic in human body and it destroys it, by tearing away electrons from the pathogen's surface, and then gets inside the cell membrane and wreaks havoc there. It attacks everything, including cancer cells or malaric parasites.  I've been told an unbelievable things about it. I decided to not believe, but instead try it on myself.

You see, NaClO2 is quite a cheap thing, it can be bought easily in great amount. (which is what a member of our club did for us) There's no big money to be made on that by the people who propagate it today. It can also destroy AIDS reputedly, but they use another simple calcium-based substance for that, and they combine it with a carrier substance, which is a common part of various pills. (isn't that the MSM I meant?)
You can read about this on the homepage. There is one detail - MMS must NOT come into contact with ascorbic acid, or better said, the artificial vitamine C. It can be mixed with fruit juices, though.

The reason why ClO2 (carried by blood like oxygen) attacks only pathogens is mostly explained by more acidic pH of them.
If this explanation is not correct, I have an alternative hypothesis, which is quite promising.
These pathogens are then removed from the organism. The problem is, that too much of MMS can cause too much of dead pathogens in blood, and that causes a harsh detoxication. It is necessary to take it very carefully.
But reputedly, when the detoxication is finished, there are no more pathogens in the body, and then not even a higher  amount of MMS causes any further problems. It can be then taken as a regular, preventive dose.

 

I'll let this guy speak for me, then I'll give you a proper response

 

There is absolutely no way that this works.  The only way that you could believe this is if you have a very limited grasp of chemistry.

 

1.  This relies on the free-radical theory of disease, which has yet to be shown to be true.

2.  The assumption is that the ClO2 acts as an oxidant (removes electrons) against all these cells and pathogens and is controlled by pH.  Unfortunately biological materials are not split evenly on pH lines.  Tell me, how would it tell the difference between pathological e-coli and the billions of e-coli that happily sit in your gut having a positive effect?  Answer?  It can't!

3.  On that subject.  ClO2 is actually an oxidant.  Do you know what that means?  It attacks things which can lose electrons.  Low pH species carry positive charge.  They gain electrons.  To strip away electrons from acidic species requires a very strong oxidizing agent.  Such an agent would do more harm to you than good.

3.  Cells are not the objects of attack in an electron transfer.  This molecule will attack any molecule that can be oxidised.  That includes protein channels in cell walls, molecules in the lining of your lungs and all sorts of other things.  The reason you have to keep the number of drops in the solution low is that, at higher concentrations, the ClO2 could actually do you some harm.

4.  Alcohol can destroy AIDS  The studies that show ClO2 destroying AIDS have shown it destroying the HIV virus in the test -tube.  Alcohol is capable of this.  It doesn't mean if you drink lots of wine you'll never contract HIV and AIDS.

5.  Ascorbic acid and Vitamin C are the same thing.  End of story.  Not only that, but ascorbic acid is a weak acid.  Just like?  Citric acid.  It will have the same effect.  This is absolute bunkum.

 

I could go on but that should be enough.

 

Luminon wrote:
Me and my dad took MMS and got sick

 

I'm not surprised.  If the high doses you took were enough to cause violent expulsion of your stomach bacteria you were bound to feel like shit.  That doesn't mean you were being detoxed though!


Luminon wrote:

What I mean is, if someone is trustworthy, then there is no reason to doubt their last statement, even if it is unusual. For example, good friends don't lie to each other, so I can trust my friends that if they would see UFO, and that they wouldn't try to spice up their description. We are adults, we know each other for years, we don't have any ambitions, we're not after money or media attention, and so we can freely share all the cases of UFO we saw.

Friends do lie to each other.  They do it all the time.  But even if we assume that friends always tell the truth we have to accept that they can be deluded and wrong.

 

Luminon wrote:

Well, this makes him even more similar to Nikola Tesla, which in some parallel universe would make everyone around understand my point. It is possible to be in some respects technologically hundreds of years ahead of the world around.

 

Except it doesn't.  We've been able to show which of DaVinci's devices work and don't.  We've found the ones which are practicable.  The important point that when the idea was ahead of its time DaVinci himself couldn't claim to build it.  That's not the case with the claims around Tesla.  We're expected to believe that he was able to build something which can't be built (or shown) with technology many years advance (and advance on an exponential scale)

 

 

Luminon wrote:

If I'm correct, Tesla invented what is today a basis of the Advanced Tachyon Technologies, and this technology was succesfully replicated and modified.And I have it currently in my rear pocket.

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

See, I knew this thread would be priceless to check back in on.

 

 

I'm glad I wasn't dissapointed.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Corrected.

Sinphanius wrote:

Corrected. To say anything more is conceit. And I'm tired of you trying to present yourself as actually knowing anything about your brain. I understand most people don't like to admit this, but your mind can very easily play tricks on you, and in most cases, it is essentially impossible for you to ever realize this without external help, because how can your mind figure out that your mind is fucking loopy?

I take care to get a witnesses on what I base my reality on. If someone else can see it, then it's real. If my mind is loopy, then about dozens of people I know with similar experiences and abilities must also have a loopy mind, and we all must share a gigantic collective hallucination, which is quite unlikely, to put it mildly. It is much more likely that what happens is real, when we all can relate to it.

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, I want you to try an experiment for me. The next time you are in a modern fighter aircraft, do a pass over your house at over the speed of sound, then try to tell me that you can reliably pick it out from all of the other houses.
That is the detail that you are asking these military men to be able to see with. It isn't weird that they can't identify objects as they are actively flying over them at speeds you probably don't even comprehend*, it would be weird if the could.

The extraterrestrial objects might fly quickly, but the military men chasing them also flew quickly, so the difference in speed is relatively smaller. There were also cases when the unmistakable characteristics of them were not in high speed, but in earthly impossible maneuvering. And there are finally the cases when an U.F.O. deactivated missiles in silo with nuclear warheads. So the speed is only one of several factors of observation.


Sinphanius wrote:
Oh also, so this Greer guy has a tested and reliable method of contacting these aliens, yet doesn't have a reliable picture of them? Right.
In the era of Photoshop, no picture is convincing. Not even a video. I have demonstrated that well enough with my presentation of extensive material on the Miracle Star. Not even this vast photographic and video collection convinced the cynical public.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:But this

MichaelMcF wrote:

But this isn't the same situation.  These men aren't making claims that are verifiable nor that are tied to the normal range of expertise and experience associated with their titles and jobs.  We are being asked to believe their opinions not because there is any available evidence but because of their ranks and titles.  That's what pushes it into an appeal to authority fallacy.

I guess we'll differ on that, because I think that these people are qualified to make such a statements. So are astronomers, who observed weird objects by their telescopes. Like the one living in this region, interviewed by a member of our group.

MichaelMcF wrote:
There is absolutely no way that this works.  The only way that you could believe this is if you have a very limited grasp of chemistry.

1.  This relies on the free-radical theory of disease, which has yet to be shown to be true.

2.  The assumption is that the ClO2 acts as an oxidant (removes electrons) against all these cells and pathogens and is controlled by pH.  Unfortunately biological materials are not split evenly on pH lines.  Tell me, how would it tell the difference between pathological e-coli and the billions of e-coli that happily sit in your gut having a positive effect?  Answer?  It can't!

MMS and it's active ingredient, ClO2 is SOMEHOW selective. People researching this do report a positive effects. And they report taking high doses every day for weeks without any violent negative effects. I also did describe a positive effect, and the negative effects can be well ascribed to the sudden excess of pathogens being removed from the body.

When MMS seems to bring on any bad condition that is always a good indication as any change is an indication that MMS is doing its job which is killing bad bacteria, viruses, mold, yeast, or parasites and leaving poisons caused by the dead organisms.  These poisons cause a reaction know as the herxheimer reaction. 

I have mentioned the pH theory because such is an official version, but since you find it lacking, I do have an alternative hypothesis on why it is selective. Why it does attack pathogens and not the healthy human cells.
All organisms radiate light. This is not the black-body radiation, neither it is ambigous or uniformous. This light that the organism radiates is very specific and may reflect the nature of organism, or it's health state.

You know, that chemical reactions are either endothermic or exothermic. And you should know, that it means producing photons and absorbing photons. (infrared light = heat) Here, the light may work as a catalyst. A chemical reaction of some kind might require a light at a certain frequency as a catalyst. It is not measurable on small molecules, but with big molecules like proteins or DNA, it might be. In that case, a presence of light of a suitable frequency might greatly enhance certain biochemical reactions. Theoretically, regeneration of tissues might be speeded up by exposing them to light source of suitable frequency. Two authors already mention this as a future healing technology.

But we're not interested in this kind of reaction now. Basically, all pathogens do radiate light with much lesser frequency than human body. We people vibrate much faster than a parasite or bacteria. If our light vibration decreases thanks to being in a bad shape, the body becomes a suitable place for pathogens to inhabit, and vice versa. This is something that contemporary medicine ignores. And this light vibration might be, what ClO2 requires as a catalyst. It may react with pathogens thanks to their low-frequency light radiation. This would make human cells quite safe from it, and similarly, no pathogen is safe to disguise from this oxidant.

So this is the alternative hypothesis for the strange, selective behavior of ClO2. I guess you're now banging your head at the monitor, struck by the sheer dumbness of it. Feel free to do so, maybe you will accidentally open your mind a little to the alternative explanations, or induce yourself a mystical experience in coma. Remember, academic freedom requires to invite all sorts of theories for study, regardless how they might seem strange to someone else.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
Luminon wrote:
Me and my dad took MMS and got sick

 I'm not surprised.  If the high doses you took were enough to cause violent expulsion of your stomach bacteria you were bound to feel like shit.  That doesn't mean you were being detoxed though!

Might I repeat that it somehow miraculously removed the big cysts of skin grease from under my face? They are otherwise very persistent and are not removed by the organism on a normal basis. Anyway, my case is not a proper way of using this. I was in hurry, but normally this kind of sickness doesn't occur, if it is taken properly. If taken properly, people can take even 15 drops per day (which means 109 drops in 15 days) without negative effects. They only complain about it's taste, which is quite a small thing compared to what should they suffer, but they doesn't. One of the reports of MMS user includes among other positives a withdrawal of chronical catarrh, which is something I also look forward to.


MichaelMcF wrote:
 
Luminon wrote:
What I mean is, if someone is trustworthy, then there is no reason to doubt their last statement, even if it is unusual. For example, good friends don't lie to each other, so I can trust my friends that if they would see UFO, and that they wouldn't try to spice up their description. We are adults, we know each other for years, we don't have any ambitions, we're not after money or media attention, and so we can freely share all the cases of UFO we saw.

Friends do lie to each other.  They do it all the time.  But even if we assume that friends always tell the truth we have to accept that they can be deluded and wrong.

Well, if they would lying, deluded or wrong, then I'd know it as one of the first people on the world and I could rule them out as a source of information. But so far, they showed themselves to be pretty reliable.  And we of course choose our friends carefully. We all work for the common cause. We know how to deal with people. People are not a mystery, they can be trusted once you know them.

MichaelMcF wrote:

 

Except it doesn't.  We've been able to show which of DaVinci's devices work and don't.  We've found the ones which are practicable.  The important point that when the idea was ahead of its time DaVinci himself couldn't claim to build it.  That's not the case with the claims around Tesla.  We're expected to believe that he was able to build something which can't be built (or shown) with technology many years advance (and advance on an exponential scale)

 I think there is no technical problem with building Tesla's technology. The problem may be rather political, taking care that nobody sniffing into this will get a proper funding. This is why people research it privately, in secrecy and with their own tiny income. The problem is also theoretical. It assumes, that most of what we know about physics and electrotechnics is wrong. What we consider to be pillars of our reality (like the matter itself) is more like anomaly, an exception from the world. And surprisingly, scientists do return to the old notion of it. They seem to do it secretly, describing vacuum, black holes, white holes, worm holes, antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, and so on, but direct use of the soliticing term of "aether" is still a death trigger in academic circles. Tesla's forbidden technology is not terribly advanced as such, it's based on more advanced understanding of the world. There is no single notion of "advancedness", there are ways of development, and some are blind.
Excuse me, I again go to read the alternative theory of the universe based on aether. It is fascinating, because the author somehow followed exactly my thoughts and his theory of gravity is literally what I've been thinking about some time ago.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1a. Anyone is entitled to

1a. Anyone is entitled to make a claim. You and these folks are asking people to believe the truth of their claims solely on their academic credentials.

1b. Seeing weird objects in a telescope does not automatically imply extraterrestrial life.

2a. I have another alternate hypothesis for the results of your self-medication. You got lucky.

2b. Was this a homeopathic preparation (in which case you drank water only) or did you put the drops straight into the water (in which case see 2a)?

3. You would know if they were lying, deluded or wrong? What about Heron's beard (accept it until proven wrong)? Or do you have a crap detector that you got from a supernatural realm?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1a. Anyone is

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. Anyone is entitled to make a claim. You and these folks are asking people to believe the truth of their claims solely on their academic credentials.

1b. Seeing weird objects in a telescope does not automatically imply extraterrestrial life.


1a. No, not everyone can make a claim. Those who saw the UFO are the right people to give a report about it. Who else?
1b. Sure it does not imply extraterrestrial life, but it makes it more likely as an explanation. Specially when these objects are not of earthly origin. It is a fact that we don't have (at least officially) a technology to build such a things.

jcgadfly wrote:
2a. I have another alternate hypothesis for the results of your self-medication. You got lucky.

2b. Was this a homeopathic preparation (in which case you drank water only) or did you put the drops straight into the water (in which case see 2a)?

It is not homeopathic, and it stinks as hell. The drops are activated by citric acid and then drank with water.
So what's your alternate explanation for the many other people who also got lucky? Such a corrosive liquid as MMS is should leave no survivors behind, unless I am correct.


jcgadfly wrote:
3. You would know if they were lying, deluded or wrong? What about Heron's beard (accept it until proven wrong)? Or do you have a crap detector that you got from a supernatural realm?
I know they have no motivation of lying. We don't reward our friends to bring us still new messages, neither we scorn them if they don't see or feel anything. We've got a group of equal, self-reliant adults who have a common interest.
To beluded requires a longer period which I'd know of. We know which of our associates are deluded and to what degree, and we keep those at check. Delusion can't be hidden, because the deluded person doesn't know he's deluded and doesn't try to hide it.
And as for being wrong, this is not about being right or wrong. It's about reporting what we see, accurately. Our observations are therefore correct, if they are accurate. Then there is of course the evaluation of it, but for that we can apply various theories and see which one fits...

By the way, we have both supernatural and natural methods how to find the truth. The natural methods are similar to the police method of separate interrogation of witnesses. The supernatural method includes a highly clairvoyant associate of ours, who's verity and usefulness had been confirmed through many years of cooperation. However, this person has no desire of being publically available for study or ridiculing.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, I can make a claim

Luminon, I can make a claim of seeing a UFO without actually seeing one - it's called a lie. It's like the hypothetical woman who claims to lift a 1500 pound cow over a fence twice a day. If you ask her about it, she'll show you the fence she lifts the cow over.

The people at the conference are showing you the fence and you're assuming they lift the cow over it without actually seeing them do it. This is something that can be too easily faked to accept with alacrity.

The "supernatural" methods of truth detection are what I'm more interested. That can also easily be faked (much like facilitated communication for the autistic) or lied about (if your clairvoyant friend supports the ideas he/she is being asked to check for veracity).

As for your experiences in self medication, Luck is not a unique phenomenon. I know Christians who handle snakes and drink poison in their services. The fact they're not dead is luck.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Luminon wrote:

 the big cysts of skin grease from under my face

 

 

ewwwwww ewww eww eww ewww ewwwwwwwww!

 

 

God Lumi use SOAP, and then maybe an exfoliating rub.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Luminon, I

jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon, I can make a claim of seeing a UFO without actually seeing one - it's called a lie. It's like the hypothetical woman who claims to lift a 1500 pound cow over a fence twice a day. If you ask her about it, she'll show you the fence she lifts the cow over.

The people at the conference are showing you the fence and you're assuming they lift the cow over it without actually seeing them do it. This is something that can be too easily faked to accept with alacrity.

It's not something that has to be lied about. UFO is seen relatively often. I have seen it, my friends have seen it, and their friends too, multiple times. Even this year. The frequency of UFO observation increases worldwidely. It would be a great miracle, if none of the qualified people, like military men or astronomers wouldn't see them. But they do, like everyone else I know, so there is nothing suspicious about it. The problem is in risking the career by saying it out loud publically. It is common that in totalitarian regimes certain things are not welcomed publically. Today we don't have such a tight totalitarian regime, but still the principle is similar, certain things are not welcome. We have an illusion of freedom, but it has limits, and UFO, and specially a friendly, harmless UFO is near such a limit. Mass media are very hesitant to publish anything serious on that topic.

jcgadfly wrote:
The "supernatural" methods of truth detection are what I'm more interested. That can also easily be faked (much like facilitated communication for the autistic) or lied about (if your clairvoyant friend supports the ideas he/she is being asked to check for veracity).
Explaining how we work is rather diffcult, it's highly esoteric. Most often, the clairvoyant person can determine an usefulness of a certain life choice. It is based on a fact, that human beings are tools and detectors of their souls in physical reality. The souls have a plan, and the personality should behave according to it, to live most fulfilling and happy life. (even if this life should be spent in a prison or battlefield) This advice was proven to be very valuable, because that person is a part of a small software corporation and helps it to avoid bad business choices and to do choices good for the company. For example, one man wanted to be an employee there, but the supernatural test showed him to be unsuitable, so he was rejected. Several months after that he was diagnosed a cancer.

jcgadfly wrote:
As for your experiences in self medication, Luck is not a unique phenomenon. I know Christians who handle snakes and drink poison in their services. The fact they're not dead is luck.

Well, there is currently a whole online community testing this chemical substance, and so far the results are not bad. People take it for like two weeks (and then the maintaning dose) and they don't suffer or die.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:jcgadfly

Luminon wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon, I can make a claim of seeing a UFO without actually seeing one - it's called a lie. It's like the hypothetical woman who claims to lift a 1500 pound cow over a fence twice a day. If you ask her about it, she'll show you the fence she lifts the cow over.

The people at the conference are showing you the fence and you're assuming they lift the cow over it without actually seeing them do it. This is something that can be too easily faked to accept with alacrity.

It's not something that has to be lied about. UFO is seen relatively often. I have seen it, my friends have seen it, and their friends too, multiple times. Even this year. The frequency of UFO observation increases worldwidely. It would be a great miracle, if none of the qualified people, like military men or astronomers wouldn't see them. But they do, like everyone else I know, so there is nothing suspicious about it. The problem is in risking the career by saying it out loud publically. It is common that in totalitarian regimes certain things are not welcomed publically. Today we don't have such a tight totalitarian regime, but still the principle is similar, certain things are not welcome. We have an illusion of freedom, but it has limits, and UFO, and specially a friendly, harmless UFO is near such a limit. Mass media are very hesitant to publish anything serious on that topic.

jcgadfly wrote:
The "supernatural" methods of truth detection are what I'm more interested. That can also easily be faked (much like facilitated communication for the autistic) or lied about (if your clairvoyant friend supports the ideas he/she is being asked to check for veracity).
Explaining how we work is rather diffcult, it's highly esoteric. Most often, the clairvoyant person can determine an usefulness of a certain life choice. It is based on a fact, that human beings are tools and detectors of their souls in physical reality. The souls have a plan, and the personality should behave according to it, to live most fulfilling and happy life. (even if this life should be spent in a prison or battlefield) This advice was proven to be very valuable, because that person is a part of a small software corporation and helps it to avoid bad business choices and to do choices good for the company. For example, one man wanted to be an employee there, but the supernatural test showed him to be unsuitable, so he was rejected. Several months after that he was diagnosed a cancer.

jcgadfly wrote:
As for your experiences in self medication, Luck is not a unique phenomenon. I know Christians who handle snakes and drink poison in their services. The fact they're not dead is luck.

Well, there is currently a whole online community testing this chemical substance, and so far the results are not bad. People take it for like two weeks (and then the maintaning dose) and they don't suffer or die.

 

 

1. UFOs don't automatically mean aliens (unless you want them to beforehand)

2. So, someone makes decisions either by chance or being a good observer of human nature and you automatically attribute it to the spirits?

3. People can take arsenic for years without ill effects (they die when they stop or the last dose overwhelms them). Again, lucky bastards

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:jcgadfly

Luminon wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon, I can make a claim of seeing a UFO without actually seeing one - it's called a lie. It's like the hypothetical woman who claims to lift a 1500 pound cow over a fence twice a day. If you ask her about it, she'll show you the fence she lifts the cow over.

The people at the conference are showing you the fence and you're assuming they lift the cow over it without actually seeing them do it. This is something that can be too easily faked to accept with alacrity.

It's not something that has to be lied about. UFO is seen relatively often. I have seen it, my friends have seen it, and their friends too, multiple times. Even this year. The frequency of UFO observation increases worldwidely. It would be a great miracle, if none of the qualified people, like military men or astronomers wouldn't see them. But they do, like everyone else I know, so there is nothing suspicious about it. The problem is in risking the career by saying it out loud publically. It is common that in totalitarian regimes certain things are not welcomed publically. Today we don't have such a tight totalitarian regime, but still the principle is similar, certain things are not welcome. We have an illusion of freedom, but it has limits, and UFO, and specially a friendly, harmless UFO is near such a limit. Mass media are very hesitant to publish anything serious on that topic.

jcgadfly wrote:
The "supernatural" methods of truth detection are what I'm more interested. That can also easily be faked (much like facilitated communication for the autistic) or lied about (if your clairvoyant friend supports the ideas he/she is being asked to check for veracity).
Explaining how we work is rather diffcult, it's highly esoteric. Most often, the clairvoyant person can determine an usefulness of a certain life choice. It is based on a fact, that human beings are tools and detectors of their souls in physical reality. The souls have a plan, and the personality should behave according to it, to live most fulfilling and happy life. (even if this life should be spent in a prison or battlefield) This advice was proven to be very valuable, because that person is a part of a small software corporation and helps it to avoid bad business choices and to do choices good for the company. For example, one man wanted to be an employee there, but the supernatural test showed him to be unsuitable, so he was rejected. Several months after that he was diagnosed a cancer.

jcgadfly wrote:
As for your experiences in self medication, Luck is not a unique phenomenon. I know Christians who handle snakes and drink poison in their services. The fact they're not dead is luck.

Well, there is currently a whole online community testing this chemical substance, and so far the results are not bad. People take it for like two weeks (and then the maintaning se) and they don't suffer or die.

 

 

 

 

People 'see' Elvis all the time too.  Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you think he really didn't die so maybe making that point doesn't help.

 

"Explaining how we work is rather difficult, it's highly esoteric."  *sigh*

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Everyone knows Elvis is alive. I saw him last week hanging out with Michael Jackson and a few of "The Grey". 

 

Those aliens have the WORST sense of humor. I swear.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I guess we'll

Luminon wrote:

I guess we'll differ on that, because I think that these people are qualified to make such a statements. So are astronomers, who observed weird objects by their telescopes. Like the one living in this region, interviewed by a member of our group.

You're not getting this are you?  Just because you're qualified doesn't mean your opinion carries any weight.  Until there is some form of corroboration then that's all it is, opinion.  It is anecdotal.  These men may believe 100% that what they are saying is true and I have all the sympathy in the world for that position.  But believing something is true doesn't make it true.  Nor is an opinion true even if it comes from a high ranked source that genuinely believes it to be true.

It's a fallacy.  End of.


Luminon wrote:

MMS and it's active ingredient, ClO2 is SOMEHOW selective. People researching this do report a positive effects. And they report taking high doses every day for weeks without any violent negative effects. I also did describe a positive effect, and the negative effects can be well ascribed to the sudden excess of pathogens being removed from the body.

When MMS seems to bring on any bad condition that is always a good indication as any change is an indication that MMS is doing its job which is killing bad bacteria, viruses, mold, yeast, or parasites and leaving poisons caused by the dead organisms.  These poisons cause a reaction know as the herxheimer reaction.

Can these positive effects - with no proper medical diagnosis of the outcome - be attributed to the placebo effect?  How controlled are these studies?  How much care is taken to ensure that MMS is the only thing having an effect?

There is no control in these tests.  You have no idea what may be causing what is perceived as a positive effect.

 

Luminon wrote:

I have mentioned the pH theory because such is an official version, but since you find it lacking, I do have an alternative hypothesis on why it is selective. Why it does attack pathogens and not the healthy human cells.
All organisms radiate light. This is not the black-body radiation, neither it is ambigous or uniformous. This light that the organism radiates is very specific and may reflect the nature of organism, or it's health state.

You know, that chemical reactions are either endothermic or exothermic. And you should know, that it means producing photons and absorbing photons. (infrared light = heat) Here, the light may work as a catalyst. A chemical reaction of some kind might require a light at a certain frequency as a catalyst. It is not measurable on small molecules, but with big molecules like proteins or DNA, it might be. In that case, a presence of light of a suitable frequency might greatly enhance certain biochemical reactions. Theoretically, regeneration of tissues might be speeded up by exposing them to light source of suitable frequency. Two authors already mention this as a future healing technology.

Once again you make the mistake of strolling into an area I know quite a lot about.  Photocatalysis - the ability of light to promote a reaction - is a well known, documented effect which can be observed on small molecules.  In fact there's a whole industry around the use of nano-particulates to promote synthesis and degradation reactions.  But I get ahead of myself.

 

1.  Infra-red = Heat.  True but not always.  Heat can be transferred by the absorption of any wavelength of light.

2.  Infra-red can only tell you two things about any organism or material.  On the macro scale it can help tell us how hot something is.  On the  micro scale we can use infra-red radiation to determine the nature of chemical bonds.  This would only indicate a health state if the observed temperature was well above normal for an organism of that type, and only if you could assume the organism in questions has all the bio-feedback mechanisms associated with a fever.

 

Luminon wrote:

But we're not interested in this kind of reaction now. Basically, all pathogens do radiate light with much lesser frequency than human body. We people vibrate much faster than a parasite or bacteria. If our light vibration decreases thanks to being in a bad shape, the body becomes a suitable place for pathogens to inhabit, and vice versa.

This means absolutely nothing.  You blatantly have no idea about the properties of light.  All the pathogens you mentioned?  Made from the same materials as our body.  That means an infra-red analysis of one of our broken down cells and a broken down pathogen would look incredibly similar.  You simply cannot say that we vibrate at higher frequencies that anything.  I think you'll find many of the chemical bonds in your body vibrate over a range of frequencies which are higher, lower and similar to any chemical vibration you can think of.

 

Luminon wrote:

This is something that contemporary medicine ignores.

Because medicine concerns itself with things that actually happen.  Medicine doesn't deal with these bizarre vibrations you've invented because they don't exist.

 

Luminon wrote:

And this light vibration might be, what ClO2 requires as a catalyst. It may react with pathogens thanks to their low-frequency light radiation. This would make human cells quite safe from it, and similarly, no pathogen is safe to disguise from this oxidant.

This is without a doubt one of the dumbest things you have ever said.  I'll try and break this down for you, pointing out what you are suggesting and why these things are wrong.

 

1.  Pathogens made up of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur and many other common elements somehow vibrate and emit heat/light that is different from that generate by a organism made up of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur and many other common elements.  Using the same types of molecular bonds no less.

A.  This is a physical impossibility.  The molecular vibrations of biological molecules, if only seen as light/heat without a filtering system, are indistinguishable from one another.

 

2.  ClO2 can detect the vibrations of pathogens.

B.  Where to begin?  When the ClO2 enters your body it will be surrounded by sources of vibration and electrons.  The very first thing it comes into contact with is likely to be reacted with.  There is absolutely no mechanism that would stop this.  To suggest it can detect a molecule which is miles away, in a biological sense, is like suggesting that you could find a light source that has a 2nm gap in its emission range in a building who's entire interior is made of mirrors and arc-lamps so bright that they can blind you.

 

3.  ClO2 is somehow unaffected by the detection of these vibrations.

C.  A physical impossibility.  The very nature of the interaction would constitute a chemical reaction, meaning the ClO2 would break down.

 

4.  ClO2 is somehow capable of identifying the source of vibration and moving through the body toward this pathogen.

D.  Heat does not travel far in the body.  Any heat emitted by a molecule will be picked up by anything adjacent to it, causing it to vibrate and emit heat and so on and so forth.  Once you get to the end of the chain, when all you have is heat, how do you know where the chain started.  Even if the ClO2 could do all the impossible things you outline above it has no mechanism for long-range identification.

 

In short you're assigning a very simple molecule the capabilities of a spectrometer, which it simply cannot have.  Nor have you any understanding of how a chemical reaction works.  An oxidizing agent that simple will oxidise the first thing it comes across that it can.  It cannot select or identify.

 

Luminon wrote:

Remember, academic freedom requires to invite all sorts of theories for study, regardless how they might seem strange to someone else.

Yes it does, and I welcome academic freedom.  However, academic freedom does not mean that all ideas are created equal.  Your hypothesis is based on a poor grasp of thermodynamics, molecular bond vibrations and light theory.  The grounding for your hypothesis is unsound, a physical impossibility and not worth further investigation.

 

Luminon wrote:

Might I repeat that it somehow miraculously removed the big cysts of skin grease from under my face? They are otherwise very persistent and are not removed by the organism on a normal basis. Anyway, my case is not a proper way of using this. I was in hurry, but normally this kind of sickness doesn't occur, if it is taken properly. If taken properly, people can take even 15 drops per day (which means 109 drops in 15 days) without negative effects. They only complain about it's taste, which is quite a small thing compared to what should they suffer, but they doesn't. One of the reports of MMS user includes among other positives a withdrawal of chronical catarrh, which is something I also look forward to.

I maintain without controlled study you have no way of being sure that a placebo or some other agent was responsible.  And dude, those cysts just sound like deep spots.


Luminon wrote:

I think there is no technical problem with building Tesla's technology. The problem may be rather political, taking care that nobody sniffing into this will get a proper funding. This is why people research it privately, in secrecy and with their own tiny income. The problem is also theoretical. It assumes, that most of what we know about physics and electrotechnics is wrong. What we consider to be pillars of our reality (like the matter itself) is more like anomaly, an exception from the world. And surprisingly, scientists do return to the old notion of it. They seem to do it secretly, describing vacuum, black holes, white holes, worm holes, antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, and so on, but direct use of the soliticing term of "aether" is still a death trigger in academic circles. Tesla's forbidden technology is not terribly advanced as such, it's based on more advanced understanding of the world. There is no single notion of "advancedness", there are ways of development, and some are blind.

And once again you hide in the last bastion of those whose ties to an idea are emotional rather than logical - "It's not that my idea is wrong, it's that vested interests are keeping it opressed!!!!".  Without any evidence for these political shenanigans you're just making blank statements.

 

And Tesla had a more advanced understanding of the world?  A theory is only a theory.  Machines don't work just because of what you think about them.  If Tesla's devices worked then they should be explainable, even if that explanation blows our understanding of physics out the water.  Yet there is no explanation.  No way of reproducing anything.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Everyone

ClockCat wrote:

 Everyone knows Elvis is alive. I saw him last week hanging out with Michael Jackson and a few of "The Grey". 

 

Those aliens have the WORST sense of humor. I swear.

So now it gives sense. Astral realm is the dimension of the recently dead and also of illusory thoughtforms. So those who saw Elvis and Michael Jackson and whatever, have astral vision. Astral sensitivity is an anachronic form of clairvoyance, which persists in some people from ancient times of shamans and gypsy witches. No wonder that people see Elvis, they see whatever they want (or are afraid of) in astral realm. If you have astral clairvoyance and keep seeing or hearing things, I suggest you cure yourself from that, by doing a lot of earthly manual work, like molding ceramic pots, mugs or bongs Smiling



MichaelMcF wrote:

You're not getting this are you?  Just because you're qualified doesn't mean your opinion carries any weight.  Until there is some form of corroboration then that's all it is, opinion.  It is anecdotal.  These men may believe 100% that what they are saying is true and I have all the sympathy in the world for that position.  But believing something is true doesn't make it true.  Nor is an opinion true even if it comes from a high ranked source that genuinely believes it to be true.

It's a fallacy.  End of.

Well, and can we realistically have any better guarantees than that? Even scientific studies are not better, the only thing that remains when they end is a paper and a bill for expenses. Only the people involved there knew what was happening, and their testimony is anecdotal. Studies are repeated, but every time, nobody but a narrow circle of scientists has a chance to see them in action. And what they say is again anecdotal. Unless you admit that in reality we often have to operate on the basis of authority, anecdotes, trust and specially, personal experience. 
Seriously, I have no idea how it was ever any different and how can you not see this.

MichaelMcF wrote:

Can these positive effects - with no proper medical diagnosis of the outcome - be attributed to the placebo effect?  How controlled are these studies?  How much care is taken to ensure that MMS is the only thing having an effect?

There is no control in these tests.  You have no idea what may be causing what is perceived as a positive effect.


People report an increase in vitality, better sleep, disappearing of astma and eczema, and sinus, whatever it is. You should  also check out this study of MMS effect on cancer. This is mainly about cancer, although MMS was initially tried with great success on malaria and AIDS. 75 000 of cured people, that's a nice number. Again, I do NOT ask anyone to believe this. This is totally unbelievable, so the only correct action (besides non-action) is trying it for yourself, or better said, myself.
Local community of testers AFAIK does not yet have any person with cancer, AIDS or any other such a bane, so there are only relatively small ailments to be cured. For example, a case of varicophlebitis progressing into venous ulceration was cured during a standard procedure, which is about 2 weeks. But most of it was cured within 3 days. That person then reported feeling like for 20 years younger, as one of those who reported an increased vitality.

The positive effects are initially complemented by increased mucus production, ocassionally headache, temporarily lesser vitality, increased temperature, nausea, weird feelings and so on, all within the premise that pathogens and toxins are being destroyed and dumped. Which may involve also peeling off the colon surface infested with parasites (amoebas) and subsequent diarrhoea. These effects are obviously caused by MMS, not likely to be caused by placebo, but they're counted as positive, if they're kept in reasonable limits.
I think I have enough of testimonies, which do not vary from my individual experience. I can definitely say that there is something about MMS. And we should try to find out, how it is possible.
 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Once again you make the mistake of strolling into an area I know quite a lot about.  Photocatalysis - the ability of light to promote a reaction - is a well known, documented effect which can be observed on small molecules.  In fact there's a whole industry around the use of nano-particulates to promote synthesis and degradation reactions.  But I get ahead of myself.

1.  Infra-red = Heat.  True but not always.  Heat can be transferred by the absorption of any wavelength of light.

2.  Infra-red can only tell you two things about any organism or material.  On the macro scale it can help tell us how hot something is.  On the  micro scale we can use infra-red radiation to determine the nature of chemical bonds.  This would only indicate a health state if the observed temperature was well above normal for an organism of that type, and only if you could assume the organism in questions has all the bio-feedback mechanisms associated with a fever.

So infra-red light is not necessary, it can be any light. That's even better than I thought, I see no problem here. Light emission of organisms may determine if the chemical reaction is triggered or not, that might be the trick. What about that?

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

This means absolutely nothing.  You blatantly have no idea about the properties of light.  All the pathogens you mentioned?  Made from the same materials as our body.  That means an infra-red analysis of one of our broken down cells and a broken down pathogen would look incredibly similar.  You simply cannot say that we vibrate at higher frequencies that anything.  I think you'll find many of the chemical bonds in your body vibrate over a range of frequencies which are higher, lower and similar to any chemical vibration you can think of.

OK, try some constructive thinking. It is a lesser virtue to say why something can't work, than saying why something can work. Don't limit yourself on infrared light only. What about the ultra-weak photon emission, a.k.a. biophotons? Or any other goddamn light or energy that the living organism radiates? Whatever? Use your professional intuition.

As for vibrating faster or slower, this is something well possible. You surely have heard of the device called "zapper", Rife's microscope, and so on. It is all based on a fact, that a special frequencies resonate with different organisms. Zapper can thereby resonate with pathologic organisms in our blood stream up to the point of their destruction. You know the effect, for example a singer can break a crystal glass with her voice, while the surroundings remain undamaged.
As for Rife's microscope, it is a device which uses a special polarized light that resonates with microorganisms and makes them glow - therefore, they're much more visible than in a common microscope. This is how even viruses can be optically observed in real time.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Because medicine concerns itself with things that actually happen.  Medicine doesn't deal with these bizarre vibrations you've invented because they don't exist.

Medicine concerns itself with things that can be sold and controlled. If something is too cheap, too available or too healthy, it's not a commercial success, it would destroy the market. If nearly a million of Iraqi citizens can be killed for oil, then why a few guys couldn't be killed for the whole pharmacologic industry?

 As for something existing or not, I remind you, I'm the person who is clairvoyantly sensitive to subtle "energies", which basically VIBRATE in a different ways, which gives them various properties and qualities. If I remember, string theory predicts something like this, that a string vibrating in a certain way can form something that is not a string.

MichaelMcF wrote:

1.  Pathogens made up of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur and many other common elements somehow vibrate and emit heat/light that is different from that generate by a organism made up of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur and many other common elements.  Using the same types of molecular bonds no less.
 

A.  This is a physical impossibility.  The molecular vibrations of biological molecules, if only seen as light/heat without a filtering system, are indistinguishable from one another.

Yes, but what about the whole molecules or organisms? A combination of their elements is always different, in both quantitative and spatial composition. An organism is not a sum of it's chemical elements, the rule is that a system is more than just sum of it's parts. The difference is not only in their composition and arrangement, but also, let's say, in their temperature, electric charge, degree of entropy, biophoton emission, or whatever.
It is about how the organism behaves as a whole. Even a size of it may play a significant role.
Even if all the cells are made of the same elements, they resonate with pulses of different frequency, when the body is exposed to them. (by zapper for example)  There are frequencies, at which the whole human body can resonate. When singing or pronouncing certain sounds, for example speaking French (yes, I learn my 5 or 6th language at school) I can feel sometimes the whole torso resonate, which doesn't happen with common sounds or speech, no matter how loud they are. And if my body can resonate, then microorganisms can resonate as well!

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
 

2.  ClO2 can detect the vibrations of pathogens.

B.  Where to begin?  When the ClO2 enters your body it will be surrounded by sources of vibration and electrons.  The very first thing it comes into contact with is likely to be reacted with.  There is absolutely no mechanism that would stop this.  To suggest it can detect a molecule which is miles away, in a biological sense, is like suggesting that you could find a light source that has a 2nm gap in its emission range in a building who's entire interior is made of mirrors and arc-lamps so bright that they can blind you.

I don't say that ClO2 can detect vibrations, I guess that it is more likely to react in presence of a suitable catalyst, which hopefully happens to be a light emission of low frequency, belonging to a pathogen. The contact is not made by active searching, but rather by passive circulation in the blood stream and "bumping" into many various candidates for oxidation.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
   3.  ClO2 is somehow unaffected by the detection of these vibrations.

C.  A physical impossibility.  The very nature of the interaction would constitute a chemical reaction, meaning the ClO2 would break down.

  It surely does, in several hours it becomes salt. But until then, it gets soaked into majority of the body. Again, there is probably no detection of vibrations as such, but rather presence or absence of the catalyst.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
 

4.  ClO2 is somehow capable of identifying the source of vibration and moving through the body toward this pathogen.

D.  Heat does not travel far in the body.  Any heat emitted by a molecule will be picked up by anything adjacent to it, causing it to vibrate and emit heat and so on and so forth.  Once you get to the end of the chain, when all you have is heat, how do you know where the chain started.  Even if the ClO2 could do all the impossible things you outline above it has no mechanism for long-range identification.

Again, I don't necessarily insist that it must be heat - it can be any other form of light or some medium, which can and does have a specific frequency, or is different between healthy human cells and pathologic organisms, including cancerous human cells. There does not have to be a long-range identification, physical contact of molecule with a cell is should be just fine, either it bounces off, or it reacts. Possibly, ClO2 rides the red blood cells, like oxygen. That might also mean something.
 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
 

In short you're assigning a very simple molecule the capabilities of a spectrometer, which it simply cannot have.  Nor have you any understanding of how a chemical reaction works.  An oxidizing agent that simple will oxidise the first thing it comes across that it can.  It cannot select or identify.

I merely hypothetize about a suitable catalyst for the reaction.
But hey, you're supposed to think constructively to explain the positive results. Think how it can work, not how it can't. Who wants, seeks for a way how, who doesn't want, seeks for a reason why.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
  
Luminon wrote:
Remember, academic freedom requires to invite all sorts of theories for study, regardless how they might seem strange to someone else.

Yes it does, and I welcome academic freedom.  However, academic freedom does not mean that all ideas are created equal.  Your hypothesis is based on a poor grasp of thermodynamics, molecular bond vibrations and light theory.  The grounding for your hypothesis is unsound, a physical impossibility and not worth further investigation.

Academic freedom also means, that all studied ideas are considered worthy of analysis, no matter of their alleged equality or unequality. It is therefore possible to discuss on academic grounds things like alternative methods of schooling or Nazism, without propagating them.

My hypothesis is not perfect, but I don't insist on details. I insist on proper testing, this is why I do it personally. I can not trust a test performed by someone in public, who can be bribed or threatened to change the results.
MMS is diffcult to be tested, because it is claimed that it can cure all diseases caused by infection or pollution of organism. This is not only highly suspicious, but also dangerous if it's true, because it violates domain of one of the greatest industries on Earth. In any other area everything is for sale, (starting with human lives) why not in science? This is something unbelievable. "No other group blocked so many new methods of healing, as conspiring physicians." This is a quote by some wise guy who I don't remember.

 
MichaelMcF wrote:
  

And once again you hide in the last bastion of those whose ties to an idea are emotional rather than logical - "It's not that my idea is wrong, it's that vested interests are keeping it opressed!!!!".  Without any evidence for these political shenanigans you're just making blank statements.

If you want an evidence, what about food test? Let's say, aspartame. It is a common sweetener in many "healthy" products, not containing sugar. Also, many beverages containing it are cheap, even much cheaper than a bottled water. It is obviously an approved sweetener.
Aspartame and acesfultame (these two go in pairs) are quite harmless, unless they get into a very acidic or alkalic environment, like human stomach. Then they break down on poisons like formaldehyde, and cause all sorts of problems, like dementia, rapid aging of organism or brain cancer. And of course, it's not good on phynylketonuria.
And then, there is an alternative. Sweet grass, or in latin stevia rebaudiana is sweet because it contains a sweet protein. It is widely used by indigenous people and in some countries (surely Japan and possibly also Hungary) it's a common sweetener for beverages or chewing gums. Stevioside is sweet, harmless, doesn't cause cavities like sugar or dementia like aspartame. And yet, it's forbidden in Europe as a food additive. It didn't pass through tests. I only had a few packages of it, because some company practically smuggled it here disguised a preparate for oral hygiene and refreshment.
So it's diffcult to buy anything to drink here, either it's really expensive, or it contains aspartame, acesfultame, and a few other nasty chemicals, like phosphoric acid. Really, the more of these chemicals the bottle contains, the cheaper it is.
This is how reliable are the controlled tests. They're controlled, but by someone's money. 

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
   And Tesla had a more advanced understanding of the world?  A theory is only a theory.  Machines don't work just because of what you think about them.  If Tesla's devices worked then they should be explainable, even if that explanation blows our understanding of physics out the water.  Yet there is no explanation.  No way of reproducing anything.
Surely there is no hope of early change, when the science is in hands of such a people as it currently is. Oppression of innovations and alternatives for various reasons -financial, political or personal- is a very real problem everywhere, not only in science.

I can only speak for the situation in my country. Local skeptics and propagators of science are united in a club. This club was proven of violating the academic freedom. Their home page says they're non-political, and yet on the second page they write about 'sending their suggestions, petitions and complains to ministries, central medical and schooling organizations and state controlling organs.'
They express a specific political and ideological direction by suppressing certain methods and supporting other, for example genetic engineering or nuclear energetics. But instead of using scientific method, they use emotional persuasion - ridiculing, haughtiness, acting literally as infallible and all-knowing. When they try to use scientific method, their technical objections are based on ignorance, not on knowledge of the subject. They are no authorities in the subjects they criticize, usually because they never studied nor practiced them. They wrote highly emotional criticism on lectures at which they weren't even present, they (at most) had read their title.
They claim a right to express their collective distaste over any chosen individual by interviews or anti-prize, which are well featured in local media. But nobody else has a chance to give an anti-prize to them, or to have his response in the media. These and many other are the unethical practices of the local self-appointed representatives of rationality and fighters against irrationality. This is how it is in my country, this is how the "thinkers" introduced themselves to this country. Initially, they were intellectual, but they had eventually degenerated into this emotional form of fanatism, bigotry and feeling of superiority over non-members of the club. Can science be biased and dogmatic? Well, I have living proofs that it can be. Whole club of them. (any similarity to Rational Response Squad is not intended, purely coincidential and not real)
You see, I didn't make my opinion out of nowhere. Part of what I wrote is a reference from an open letter of the Palacky's university which found itself under criticism of the skeptics' club because they didn't like topics of several of 90 voluntary workshops on the Pedagogic faculty. The chancellor in return decided to analyze briefly their own activities and this is something of what she had found out. This analysis is of course not nearly complete and the whole letter is intriguing by it's brilliance and thoughtfulness.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Well, and can

Luminon wrote:

Well, and can we realistically have any better guarantees than that? Even scientific studies are not better, the only thing that remains when they end is a paper and a bill for expenses. Only the people involved there knew what was happening, and their testimony is anecdotal. Studies are repeated, but every time, nobody but a narrow circle of scientists has a chance to see them in action. And what they say is again anecdotal. Unless you admit that in reality we often have to operate on the basis of authority, anecdotes, trust and specially, personal experience.  Seriously, I have no idea how it was ever any different and how can you not see this.

It's because you're missing a very important distinction.  There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, as long as that appeal is not fallacious.  For example:  

 

Scientist A, a physicist,  makes a discovery and his work his published.  Scientists B to Z all repeat his work, find it to be true and, in some cases, successfully expand on it.  Mr Layman, having read about the very interesting work going on, tells all his mates about it down the pub one night.  When challenged about the facts Mr Layman says "...well in the paper it said that Scientists B to Z have tested it and it's proven to work!".  This appeal to authority is fine.

 

At a public speaking engagement Scientist A opines that swans have no bones in their necks.  This isn't true but he's saying it as part of an anecdote/story or whatever.  Mr Layman, perhaps because of drink, struggles to remember all the speech but remembers Scientist A saying swans have no bones in their neck.  He goes to the pub and says "swans have no bones in their neck".  When his friends (rightfully) call bullshit on this Mr Layman says "I'm telling you it's true, the famous Professor A even said so".  This is an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

If you make an appeal to authority based purely on someone's name or reputation it is fallacious.  If you make an appeal to authority based upon someone's demonstrable knowledge of the subject, it is not fallacious.

 

The reason the video you're linking to would be considered an appeal to authority fallacy is that we're asked to believe that there is a government programme hiding alien technology from people because these men are ex-government employees, some of whom even had top secret clearances.

  • Each man discusses very different events with very little corroboration.
  • Each man only speculates on the existence of this technology.  None has any credentials or states any connection to the technology itself.
  • The evidence presented connects to UFO on radar, which is no proof of alien.

These men have no demonstrable knowledge of alien technology, not have they given any reason to believe they are expert in this technology or alien sightings.

 

The only way this video wouldn't be an appeal to authority is if the statements were made from the White House press room.  If the men had the implicit backing of their paymasters - the men allegedly responsible for hiding the aliens - then you'd have every right to say "The americans have been hiding aliens.  These men said so" because they did it with the permission of the men they're implicating.


I have to get back to work so I'll comment on the rest of your post later.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: People

Luminon wrote:

 People report an increase in vitality, better sleep, disappearing of astma and eczema, and sinus, whatever it is. You should  also check out this study of MMS effect on cancer. This is mainly about cancer, although MMS was initially tried with great success on malaria and AIDS. 75 000 of cured people, that's a nice number. Again, I do NOT ask anyone to believe this.

I would be more convinced by these claims if a couple of things had happened.  First, the proposed study should have been carried out with larger numbers of people and in comparison with a group not taking MMS.  Second, the proposed study should have ideally been blind.  That way if there are any positive results you have more statistical confidence in what you're seeing.

 

I'd also like to see links to a published paper detailing the results.  And before you get on your "held down by da establishment" high horse.  For chemicals this cheap, and with a group of patients already in contact with doctors, it would be remarkably easy to have your work published in a relevant journal as long as your methods were ethical and your conclusions were sound.

 

Also, I'd believe this if I wasn't finding several web-sites repeating the one story about this Delwyn woman surviving cancer.  If MMS is so good why are we only hearing about this one woman and a handful of others?

 

Could you link to these studies on AIDS?  Seriously dude, if it was that effective we'd be hearing about it.

 

Luminon wrote:

So infra-red light is not necessary, it can be any light. That's even better than I thought, I see no problem here. Light emission of organisms may determine if the chemical reaction is triggered or not, that might be the trick. What about that?

I mentioned the fact that other light can generate heat to be picky.  The majority of the heat coming from your body and the organisms inside, if it's not doing some sort of 'work', will be IR.

 

And trust me, unless you've been doing something weird there aren't any organisms inside your body that emit any other kind of light.

 

Luminon wrote:

OK, try some constructive thinking. It is a lesser virtue to say why something can't work, than saying why something can work. Don't limit yourself on infrared light only. What about the ultra-weak photon emission, a.k.a. biophotons? Or any other goddamn light or energy that the living organism radiates? Whatever? Use your professional intuition.

As I said.  There's nothing in your body that is bioluminescent.  And what other energy do you think organisms radiate?  Bear in mind I'm talking about real energies here.  You're talking about physical things and using physical science to deal with them so the energies you're talking about better exist in the physical world.

 

Luminon wrote:

As for vibrating faster or slower, this is something well possible. You surely have heard of the device called "zapper", Rife's microscope, and so on. It is all based on a fact, that a special frequencies resonate with different organisms. Zapper can thereby resonate with pathologic organisms in our blood stream up to the point of their destruction. You know the effect, for example a singer can break a crystal glass with her voice, while the surroundings remain undamaged.

 

Yes I've heard of the Zapper.  And it's bollocks.  Never mind the connection to orgone or other science woo, the reasoning behind it is ridiculous.  The claim made by those that support the zapper is that parasites and unhealthy flesh are positively charged.  The zapper induces a weak electric current through the body.  This current adds electrons to the positively charged flesh which somehow encourages it to heal, yet it also magically "reverses the polarity" of the parasitic molecules.

 

I will say this slowly.  These claims are made by people who don't understand the following:  charge, current, polarity, the healing mechanisms of the body... oh, and science.

  • Remember our little chat about the nonsense theory of MMS and how not all parasites and "toxins" and whatever else have a low pH?  Same thing here.  Not all parasites are positively charged.  I knew this to be true, but a quick google search can easily confirm it.  Even if it were true, why does the zapper not magically reverse the polarity, and destroy, the many positively charged materials in your body that actually do you good?
  • The addition of a an electron to a positively charged species doe NOT reverse polarity.  It reduces that species - in the chemical sense of gaining electrons - but it does not reverse anything.

 

Unless of course there's a magic other zapper out there you can tell me about...


Luminon wrote:

As for Rife's microscope, it is a device which uses a special polarized light that resonates with microorganisms and makes them glow - therefore, they're much more visible than in a common microscope. This is how even viruses can be optically observed in real time.

Again bollocks.  Rife never built a large number of his microscopes - which were never shown to be reproducible - and the devices around today that bear his name have tenuous connections at best to him.  You can look at a virus using standard microscopes today.  It's no big deal.

 

Luminon wrote:

Medicine concerns itself with things that can be sold and controlled. If something is too cheap, too available or too healthy, it's not a commercial success, it would destroy the market. If nearly a million of Iraqi citizens can be killed for oil, then why a few guys couldn't be killed for the whole pharmacologic industry?

Except you have nothing to back up this claim.  People see the pharmaceutical industry, see profits attached to it and jump to "Big Pharma is teh SUxKor!  Illuminati" Wurld Ordur!  Evuuulz!".  This is absolute nonsense.  If that was true why are there controls in Britain and other countries to stop pharmaceutical companies profiteering?  Why are deals put in place so that the people that need medicines most that can't afford them can get access to them?  Why am I able to get whatever medicine I require without paying a single penny?

More importantly - how do you expect the people that develop medicines to thrive if they don't make a profit?  Profits in business are there to be reinvested and to help a company expand.  Every time a new medicine is developed there is a risk.  The company could sink $75 million into the development only for it to fail a clinical trial.  They need to make profits on the the successes they get to cover the losses made on the 9 failures beforehand

 

If you're going to claim there's some sort of "Big Medicine" conspiracy to do nothing but make a profit then, I'm sorry, you're an idiot.

 

Luminon wrote:

As for something existing or not, I remind you, I'm the person who is clairvoyantly sensitive to subtle "energies", which basically VIBRATE in a different ways, which gives them various properties and qualities. If I remember, string theory predicts something like this, that a string vibrating in a certain way can form something that is not a string.

Yes we had this conversation before and I told you then it was nonsense.  You've attached vague bullshit to the equally vague - although defended mathematically - string theory.  I could attach anything I wanted to string theory.  It doesn't mean it's true.

 

Luminon wrote:

Yes, but what about the whole molecules or organisms? A combination of their elements is always different, in both quantitative and spatial composition. An organism is not a sum of it's chemical elements, the rule is that a system is more than just sum of it's parts. The difference is not only in their composition and arrangement, but also, let's say, in their temperature, electric charge, degree of entropy, biophoton emission, or whatever.

*Sigh*  An organism is exactly the sum of its parts.  Everything it does, has or constrains to is decided by those parts.

 

But you're missing my point.  The point I was making is that all those individual parts go towards making remarkably similar wholes.  We are able to look at a molecule and say "The charge is this, its IR frequencies are this, its bond length is this...etc. etc."  ClO2, as an electron donor, cannot do this.  All it will respond to, assuming it's an oxidising agent, is easily removed negative charges.  Everything else doesn't matter.

 

Luminon wrote:

I don't say that ClO2 can detect vibrations, I guess that it is more likely to react in presence of a suitable catalyst, which hopefully happens to be a light emission of low frequency, belonging to a pathogen. The contact is not made by active searching, but rather by passive circulation in the blood stream and "bumping" into many various candidates for oxidation.

Aspirin and other medicines get around your system because they are chemically complex.  They act, generally, by inhibiting or interacting with specific biological sites that they're a good chemical match for.  That does not mean to say they will only go to these sights.  It just means a high percentage will go there.  It's like a lock and key mechanism.

ClO2 is not chemically complex.  It's an oxidising agent.  There are thousands of things in your body it's capable of reacting with.  It is not complex enough to differentiated between active sites.

 

Luminon wrote:

It surely does, in several hours it becomes salt. But until then, it gets soaked into majority of the body. Again, there is probably no detection of vibrations as such, but rather presence or absence of the catalyst...

 

...Again, I don't necessarily insist that it must be heat - it can be any other form of light or some medium, which can and does have a specific frequency, or is different between healthy human cells and pathologic organisms, including cancerous human cells. There does not have to be a long-range identification, physical contact of molecule with a cell is should be just fine, either it bounces off, or it reacts. Possibly, ClO2 rides the red blood cells, like oxygen. That might also mean something...

 

...I merely hypothetize about a suitable catalyst for the reaction. 

Ok, so you're saying the vibrations are the signal they're the catalyst.  And the ClO2 only activates when it reaches this?  I've already explained why it wouldn't be passive in the blood stream.

 

Catalysis.  Oh Boy.

 

Ok.  For your theory to work here's what has to happen (I'll ignore the difficulty of the ClO2 travelling through the body for this exercise):

  1. The pathogen has to absorb energy somehow.
  2. This energy will be used for some kind of work, but some has to be expelled as a photon of infra-red light
  3. This photon manages to travel far enough to hit a ClO2 molecule OR our pathogen is lucky enough to be neighbouring our active agent.
  4. The ClO2 absorb the photon putting it into a highly reactive excited state.
  5. This excited state is then able to react with the pathogen.

This is how photochemistry largely works.  Light excites one molecule to make it reactive and away we go.  There is one statement to be made here that blows this theory largely out the water but I'll list all your problems:

  1. Most the energy absorbed by a molecule will make it vibrate, cause other mechanical work, or allow it to react.  When heat is generated it will be transferred to immediately neighbouring molecules.  Pathogens don't exist in vacuum.  They're sitting in a chemical soup.
  2. We've already discussed the non-specifity of the ClO2 to the system.  The chances of this active agent getting close to a pathogen are only high in the immediate surroundings of your gut.  Not all pathogens sit in your gut.  Not all things in your gut that the agent can react with are pathogens.
  3. Here's the big one.  To enter a reactive excited state the molecule that is absorbing the photon must be capable of a reconfiguration in its electronic structure.  ClO2 already exists as a resonant radical.  There's nothing more you can do to the electronic structure of this species to excite it.  Any absorbed photons (which have to be of a very specific energy) will either make the bonds vibrate or destroy them (and destroying them is not the same as making them react).  ClO2 cannot be photocatalysed.

 

Luminon wrote:

But hey, you're supposed to think constructively to explain the positive results. Think how it can work, not how it can't. Who wants, seeks for a way how, who doesn't want, seeks for a reason why.

Untrue.  I investigated all the ways that are suggested for this to work and simply assessed whether or not they were possible.  If they had been possible based on the rules of chemistry then I would have heartily agreed with you.  Unfortunately the two suggested mechanisms throw up physical impossibilities.

 

You're assuming I don't want this to work.  That is untrue.  I would desperately like this to be true.  I've lost several members of my family to cancer in the last 8 years.  I'd love MMS to be the miracle cure.  But it's not.

 

Luminon wrote:

Academic freedom also means, that all studied ideas are considered worthy of analysis, no matter of their alleged equality or unequality. It is therefore possible to discuss on academic grounds things like alternative methods of schooling or Nazism, without propagating them.

I couldn't agree more.  Many things can be studied and opened to query without propagating or condoning them and academics should be unafraid of investigating ideas.

My point is that ideas should only be investigated when there is a strong hypothesis behind them.  The ideas you are discussing are base don pure woo.  There's no evidence to back up the initial assumptions and poor scientific theory so I'm not going to investigate the bigger idea.  What should be investigated in this instance is the background.

For example:  The Zapper.  It's bollocks.  I'm not going to bother with it because the theory behind it is blatantly ridiculous.  What I would accept an investigation of is a study on the effect of current on microorganisms.  If someone wanted to go back and investigate the background theory I'd have no problem with that.  I could take a guess at what the outcome would be but I wouldn't try to stop them.  I'm all for honest inquiry.

 

That's not what generally happens though.  What happens is this:  

New Ager - "we've discovered a waffle-splatter that cures all diseases!"

Scientist - "How does it work?"

NA - "Some guy back in 1864 said that disease was caused by chutney monkeys.  Our waffle-splatter banishes the chutney monkeys"

S - "Er... we've never seen chutney monkeys.  Are you sure this is legit"

NS - "Well our group tried out the waffle-splatter and some of them felt better.  I've also heard other people say it works"

 

This isn't honest inquiry.  In this case a claim is made, tenuous proof is found for the claim and the background theory is shoe-horned in.

 


Luminon wrote:

My hypothesis is not perfect, but I don't insist on details. I insist on proper testing, this is why I do it personally. I can not trust a test performed by someone in public, who can be bribed or threatened to change the results.
MMS is diffcult to be tested, because it is claimed that it can cure all diseases caused by infection or pollution of organism. This is not only highly suspicious, but also dangerous if it's true, because it violates domain of one of the greatest industries on Earth. In any other area everything is for sale, (starting with human lives) why not in science? This is something unbelievable. "No other group blocked so many new methods of healing, as conspiring physicians." This is a quote by some wise guy who I don't remember.

There's your problem.  You don't insist on details.  How can you know anything if you don't look for the details?  And if you're not going to trust the tests of someone in the public domain because you're paranoid about "BIG EVULZ PHARMA" then why should anyone trust your opinion?  I could argue that yo're desperate for this to work so your tests are already biased?  You should only removed trust from someone if you have a proven reason not to trust them.

 

And mystery quotes from a dude who's name you can't remember?  Please.  Here's one I remember hearing from some guy once "I invented esoterics its true.  It's easier for people to accept the credulous than deal with the truth".  Totally straight up guy.  He said it hundreds of times.  Years ago.  Not sure what his name was though... get my point?

 

Luminon wrote:

Aspartame and acesfultame (these two go in pairs) are quite harmless, unless they get into a very acidic or alkalic environment, like human stomach. Then they break down on poisons like formaldehyde, and cause all sorts of problems, like dementia, rapid aging of organism or brain cancer. And of course, it's not good on phynylketonuria.

except the concentrations of daughter products produced by the bodies stomach are biologically negligible and you've not provided evidence for their causing these problems.  And they cause problems for people with a very rare genetic disorder?  Oh Noes!  Scientists are teh evul!  Or it's just unfortunate

 

Luminon wrote:

And then, there is an alternative. Sweet grass, or in latin stevia rebaudiana is sweet because it contains a sweet protein. It is widely used by indigenous people and in some countries (surely Japan and possibly also Hungary) it's a common sweetener for beverages or chewing gums. Stevioside is sweet, harmless, doesn't cause cavities like sugar or dementia like aspartame. And yet, it's forbidden in Europe as a food additive. It didn't pass through tests. I only had a few packages of it, because some company practically smuggled it here disguised a preparate for oral hygiene and refreshment.

 

yeah.... stevia wasn't used because it was a suspected genotoxin.  No-one wants anything in their drink that might have mutagenic, and possibly cancerous, effects.  Thing is, since the WHO announced in 2006 that stevia wasn't a genotoxin moves have been made to allow it as a food additive.  It's already accepted in New Zealand, Australia and the US.  Coke and Pepsi are using stevia mixtures as sweetners (as of 2008 I believe).  It won't be long before it gets clearance here.

Oh Noes!  Oppressions!  Oh wait...
 

 

Luminon wrote:

Surely there is no hope of early change, when the science is in hands of such a people as it currently is. Oppression of innovations and alternatives for various reasons -financial, political or personal- is a very real problem everywhere, not only in science.

Yes it is.  But you've yet to show any evidence for these bias opinions being the reason your beliefs are not validated.  I fully accept that some scientists can be corrupted.  I fully accept that some scientists have their own bias.  Hell, Einstein couldn't let go of his all his life.  I am willing to accept this.  My only addendum is that the method is not biased.  Men can try to manipulate results but, as we've seen in recent years, they are largely caught out and science progresses.

 

If I'm willing to accept that scientific results can be twisted, will you at least accept that sometimes the reason for an alternative theory not being published isn't scientific conspiracy - sometimes the ideas are just wrong.
 

Luminon wrote:

When they try to use scientific method, their technical objections are based on ignorance, not on knowledge of the subject. They are no authorities in the subjects they criticize, usually because they never studied nor practiced them.

Dude.  Do you have any self awareness at all?

 

Luminon wrote:

The chancellor in return decided to analyze briefly their own activities and this is something of what she had found out. This analysis is of course not nearly complete and the whole letter is intriguing by it's brilliance and thoughtfulness.

er... maybe I'm missing something here, but what did the chancellor find out?

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Man, I admire your

Man, I admire your persistence!

 

It is like watching a fight between Mr. T and Urkel.

 

Hmm...I think you are British.  Ah, yes.  It is like watching a fight between Arthur and the Black Knight!

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

mellestad wrote:

Hmm...I think you are British. Ah, yes.  It is like watching a fight between Arthur and the Black Knight!

 

 

Ouch...

 

 

Well, you heard him Michael. I'm sure you'll make a rousing Englishman. Have a few more drinks.

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:mellestad

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hmm...I think you are British. Ah, yes.  It is like watching a fight between Arthur and the Black Knight!

 

Ouch...

Well, you heard him Michael. I'm sure you'll make a rousing Englishman. Have a few more drinks.

 

 

British?  Yes.  English?  No.  Despite my britishness I know whoe Mr T. and Urkel are Eye-wink

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Yes yes, however the monty python reference, Arthur is not generally known as a Scotsman.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Yes yes,

ClockCat wrote:

 Yes yes, however the monty python reference, Arthur is not generally known as a Scotsman.

 

Oh yeah, point taken!

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:ClockCat

MichaelMcF wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hmm...I think you are British. Ah, yes.  It is like watching a fight between Arthur and the Black Knight!

 

Ouch...

Well, you heard him Michael. I'm sure you'll make a rousing Englishman. Have a few more drinks.

 

 

British?  Yes.  English?  No.  Despite my britishness I know whoe Mr T. and Urkel are Eye-wink

 

Well, I try to be culturally sensitive with my pop references.

Besides, in this case I think the latter example is best.  I can just hear Luminon saying, "It's only a flesh wound!" as he sets fingers to keyboard and responds to his latest textual beating.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

mellestad wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Hmm...I think you are British. Ah, yes.  It is like watching a fight between Arthur and the Black Knight!

 

Ouch...

Well, you heard him Michael. I'm sure you'll make a rousing Englishman. Have a few more drinks.

 

 

British?  Yes.  English?  No.  Despite my britishness I know whoe Mr T. and Urkel are Eye-wink

 

Well, I try to be culturally sensitive with my pop references.

Besides, in this case I think the latter example is best.  I can just hear Luminon saying, "It's only a flesh wound!" as he sets fingers to keyboard and responds to his latest textual beating.

 

I know, I was just playing obtuse for the humor of painting you calling a Scotsman an Englishman without meaning to. Coming from an Irish family background, I find this hilarious.

 

I suppose I shouldn't expect anyone to get that. Aww well, I had my fun so that's all that matters to me. :3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I know, I

ClockCat wrote:

I know, I was just playing obtuse for the humor of painting you calling a Scotsman an Englishman without meaning to. Coming from an Irish family background, I find this hilarious.

 

I suppose I shouldn't expect anyone to get that. Aww well, I had my fun so that's all that matters to me. :3

 

Well I really should have picked up on it.  Unfortunately for you, your'e dealing with a dim-witted Scot Eye-wink

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:I would be

MichaelMcF wrote:

I would be more convinced by these claims if a couple of things had happened.  First, the proposed study should have been carried out with larger numbers of people and in comparison with a group not taking MMS.  Second, the proposed study should have ideally been blind.  That way if there are any positive results you have more statistical confidence in what you're seeing.

That's right. But I wonder who will pay the doctors and who will gather volunteers.
 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
I'd also like to see links to a published paper detailing the results.  And before you get on your "held down by da establishment" high horse.  For chemicals this cheap, and with a group of patients already in contact with doctors, it would be remarkably easy to have your work published in a relevant journal as long as your methods were ethical and your conclusions were sound.
It should be, but if the results will be anything else than OBVIOUS, then they're necessarily false. There is no way how they can naturally differ from a community of the people who test MMS separately. The one way I know how the results can be faked  are high doses of vitamine C, which would neutralize MMS.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Also, I'd believe this if I wasn't finding several web-sites repeating the one story about this Delwyn woman surviving cancer.  If MMS is so good why are we only hearing about this one woman and a handful of others?

Could you link to these studies on AIDS?  Seriously dude, if it was that effective we'd be hearing about it.

You hear about it NOW. Nothing comes quickly, things take their time. People usually don't hear about anything new, because they watch only their few trusted sources of information. You surely don't watch the news of a woo-woo medicine, right?
So far, I'm reading through the tenths of pages of people's experiences with MMS. There was the link on the cancer study I already posted, but most of is focused on the users, their adventures and miraculous healings from serious ailments treated for decades unsuccesfully by various medicines.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

I mentioned the fact that other light can generate heat to be picky.  The majority of the heat coming from your body and the organisms inside, if it's not doing some sort of 'work', will be IR.

And trust me, unless you've been doing something weird there aren't any organisms inside your body that emit any other kind of light.

Really? So what about the biophotons, and what about the aura photography or Kirlian's photography?

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

As I said.  There's nothing in your body that is bioluminescent.  And what other energy do you think organisms radiate?  Bear in mind I'm talking about real energies here.  You're talking about physical things and using physical science to deal with them so the energies you're talking about better exist in the physical world.

It seems to me that mitochondria in cells or the DNA itself does radiate light. Something like that. If not, then the definition of physical world should be broadened as soon as possible. Bioenergetic radiation of the body reflecting it's health state belongs to the very basics in alternative medicine.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Yes I've heard of the Zapper.  And it's bollocks.  Never mind the connection to orgone or other science woo, the reasoning behind it is ridiculous.  The claim made by those that support the zapper is that parasites and unhealthy flesh are positively charged.  The zapper induces a weak electric current through the body.  This current adds electrons to the positively charged flesh which somehow encourages it to heal, yet it also magically "reverses the polarity" of the parasitic molecules.

  I have a friend who uses Zapper regularly and I've been told nothing about a positive or negative charge. Somehow, all that I have heard are the special frequencies of pulses, used to destroy the parasites, probably through the effect of resonance.


 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Again bollocks.  Rife never built a large number of his microscopes - which were never shown to be reproducible - and the devices around today that bear his name have tenuous connections at best to him.  You can look at a virus using standard microscopes today.  It's no big deal.

All right. But Rife wrote something about the end of tests on animals and humans, if we can just observe the living tissue with viruses optically. Why can't we do that today, with our superior microscopes?

 


 

MichaelMcF wrote:
Except you have nothing to back up this claim.  People see the pharmaceutical industry, see profits attached to it and jump to "Big Pharma is teh SUxKor!  Illuminati" Wurld Ordur!  Evuuulz!".  This is absolute nonsense.  If that was true why are there controls in Britain and other countries to stop pharmaceutical companies profiteering?  Why are deals put in place so that the people that need medicines most that can't afford them can get access to them?  Why am I able to get whatever medicine I require without paying a single penny?
The controls in Britain and other countries are there for the reason that they are needed. Obviously, the pharmaceutical companies do not control everything. But they control enough to produce a medicine which sometimes has side effects worse than the original disease itself. It helps one organ, but ruins several others, specially those concerned with removing the medicine away from the body. Reputedly, some chemotherapy substances are chemically nothing else than herbicides. They're also cancerogenous by themselves. I've done some googling and it seems that a suicide attempt offers much better chance for survival than the chemotherapy, or radiotherapy Sticking out tongue Nobody knows, that a tumor is merely a symptom, not the problem itself. Devastating the body by standard methods of patient torture will not bring good results. Or maybe someone knows that, but keeps selling the poisons. I don't know how about you, but I've never seen anybody who would praise the doctorous medicine, but a plenty of people who got disillusioned by it.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
More importantly - how do you expect the people that develop medicines to thrive if they don't make a profit?  Profits in business are there to be reinvested and to help a company expand.  Every time a new medicine is developed there is a risk.  The company could sink $75 million into the development only for it to fail a clinical trial.  They need to make profits on the the successes they get to cover the losses made on the 9 failures beforehand
So far, these medicines do more harm than good, or they suppress the symptoms. When the symptoms show up again, they're considered and paid as a brand new disease. This seems like an evil system to me, because the forces of market make profit when people are often sick, not healthy. What about doing it as in ancient China? Paying the doctors only if we're healthy? That would steer the marketing forces in right direction.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
  If you're going to claim there's some sort of "Big Medicine" conspiracy to do nothing but make a profit then, I'm sorry, you're an idiot.
Nope. I tell you about the forces of market. They are very, very simple, but also blind, there is absolutely no concept of ethics in marketing and a resistance to regulations. The market will do anything for profit, regardless if it's legal or not. Effects of it are very obvious and well documented. For example, the increasing gap between the poor and the rich (killing tenths of millions per year), and destroying the environment that we depend on with our lives. If you ignore these facts, then in return, you would be an idiot. Economy, marketing and statistics are not boring. They're frightening.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

*Sigh*  An organism is exactly the sum of its parts.  Everything it does, has or constrains to is decided by those parts.

Nope, it is decided by arrangement of these parts, the order of them.  A million of cells missing, or even a few limbs gone will not necessarily destroy it, but a disrupted balance of a tiny ions may kill the organism.

 
 

MichaelMcF wrote:
But you're missing my point.  The point I was making is that all those individual parts go towards making remarkably similar wholes.  We are able to look at a molecule and say "The charge is this, its IR frequencies are this, its bond length is this...etc. etc."  ClO2, as an electron donor, cannot do this.  All it will respond to, assuming it's an oxidising agent, is easily removed negative charges.  Everything else doesn't matter.
Then perhaps there is more to oxidising agents than meets the eye. Some users of MMS attend laboratory tests, which shows that parasites like chlamydia, candida or borelia are specifically alerted by the presence of MMS and march out into the body in large numbers, even though laboratory tests did not detect them before. They of course die by the further treatment, (the parasites) although they fight back and try to protect themselves by changing into spores, or something like that. However, the immunity system is unaffected, it does not fight against MMS. Quite opposite, it is stimulated and does it's work more easily, only by removing the dead bacteries, instead of having to kill them as well. The fact that immunity system can react in a short moment, (allergic reaction, for example) but it does not react on MMS all the day, must mean something.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Ok, so you're saying the vibrations are the signal they're the catalyst.  And the ClO2 only activates when it reaches this?  I've already explained why it wouldn't be passive in the blood stream.

(...)

Well, if this "can't" work, and yet there is an evidence that it does work, then how's that possible? Not by placebo effect, certainly. The placebo effect can't heal a wound in several days, neither it can detoxify the organism from top to toe. Of course, MMS itself does not heal. It mainly removes an old burden from the body and it's immunity system, which starts doing it's work more than it's usual today.

 

 

MichaelMcF wrote:

Untrue.  I investigated all the ways that are suggested for this to work and simply assessed whether or not they were possible.  If they had been possible based on the rules of chemistry then I would have heartily agreed with you.  Unfortunately the two suggested mechanisms throw up physical impossibilities.

Well, then I'm theoretically puzzled. The more I'm curious about the results. I'm currently on 7 drops per day and I feel basically well. My dad's guts protested with merely 1 drop per day, so there is really a difference in using MMS and not using it. I plan to get a day or two of vitamine C for the immunity system, see what happens and then proceed in increasing doses. There is still a long way to about 30 drops daily and ending of the main treatment.

  

MichaelMcF wrote:

You're assuming I don't want this to work.  That is untrue.  I would desperately like this to be true.  I've lost several members of my family to cancer in the last 8 years.  I'd love MMS to be the miracle cure.  But it's not.

No, I don't assume that you don't want this to work. I just keep hearing about scientists thinking in the old, conventional ways, not capable of thinking "out of the box". If they never heard about something, the theory doesn't fit and the alleged results are too good, then is it even possible? I have seen many times that in practice things are very different than in theory, something works against all odds and something not. Therefore, nothing can replace practice and testing things on my own skin.

As for your relatives, the victims of cancer, condolence. That must have been terrible. Here I find any closer question too insensitive.
Only one my relative died on a cancer (a grandmother, before my birth) and that was an evidence, that the cancer is an emotional disease. She was an awful person, but under the threat of cancer she changed herself, and her cancer miraculously disappeared in a few months. But she got encouraged by it and started preaching at church Jesus who reputedly healed her, and started her sanctimonial bitching again. Then the cancer returned very quickly in half a year and killed her. (btw, before her death she kept saying that after every joyful preaching at church she felt worse)

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:

I couldn't agree more.  Many things can be studied and opened to query without propagating or condoning them and academics should be unafraid of investigating ideas.

The way how I imagine the academic freedom is presenting the subject of study fully. There is a certain necessary amount of theory to be learned, before it starts to give sense. Skeptics usually do a mistake, that in the first few sentences they start to call for evidence or references to known and approved theories. They refuse to learn new concepts and technical terms necessary for the theory, calling them vague nonsense. It's not a vague nonsense, it's a damn new, completely unfamiliar concept which must be learned, before it starts to give sense, holy crap! I currently read The letters on Occult meditation, and trust me, this is something that nobody can understand without years of study and developed intuition. It is one of textbooks of occult science, the science of the evolution of consciousness. It's most serious, because the quality of our consciousness determines if we do everything well or wrongly. It's meant to systematically produce a student, who's consciousness will be as perfect compared to an average men, as we are today, compared to cavemen. Such a people then become the great leaders, artists, scientists, charity workers, philosophers, and so on. It is foolish to expect that such an ambitious theory can be judged from a few initial sentences by someone who did not study it before. The academic freedom should provide a necessary calm and free environment for the interested people to learn enough before they can make their opinion.

  

MichaelMcF wrote:
My point is that ideas should only be investigated when there is a strong hypothesis behind them.  The ideas you are discussing are base don pure woo.  There's no evidence to back up the initial assumptions and poor scientific theory so I'm not going to investigate the bigger idea.  What should be investigated in this instance is the background.

For example:  The Zapper.  It's bollocks.  I'm not going to bother with it because the theory behind it is blatantly ridiculous.  What I would accept an investigation of is a study on the effect of current on microorganisms.  If someone wanted to go back and investigate the background theory I'd have no problem with that.  I could take a guess at what the outcome would be but I wouldn't try to stop them.  I'm all for honest inquiry.

All right. In opposite, the practice showed to me, that  phenomena should not be ignored just because they don't have a good theory, that's like judging a book by it's cover. A theory is not a priority and may be changed any time, if it doesn't fit.

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:

There's your problem.  You don't insist on details.  How can you know anything if you don't look for the details?  And if you're not going to trust the tests of someone in the public domain because you're paranoid about "BIG EVULZ PHARMA" then why should anyone trust your opinion?  I could argue that yo're desperate for this to work so your tests are already biased?  You should only removed trust from someone if you have a proven reason not to trust them.

In practice, the details are not as important. Neither it is important how things work, only if they do. If something does work, then I can know it, although I may not know why. That should be left to someone better equipped than me, though I'd be really curious about the results.
I can trust someone in public domain, if the results will be confirmed by private domain, a community of people who seek for a new, heretical alternatives in everything - mainly in medicine and physics. Some people in such a community know, what it is like to have their telephones behave in a strange way, me too. If a bit of innocent, theoretical hereticism can bring a third ear to the telephone, I wonder what a public, practical hereticism would do.
Personally, I am not desperate for this to work. I'd live less or more happily without MMS. I also wouldn't bother with raising an attention to it, if the effects wouldn't be good enough. In fact, I should curse this smelly liquid for turning my guts inside out. But there are hymns on it by people who have tried it, and who are there for years, divorced with a classical medicine and eager to perform experiments.

By the way, when I think about it, I just noticed something. My tendon of Achilles somehow doesn't hurt already, though it did for months. Also, liver spots on my feet disappeared. I'm not sure if that's really the effect of MMS, but I'm certainly not getting worse.

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:
And mystery quotes from a dude who's name you can't remember?  Please.  Here's one I remember hearing from some guy once "I invented esoterics its true.  It's easier for people to accept the credulous than deal with the truth".  Totally straight up guy.  He said it hundreds of times.  Years ago.  Not sure what his name was though... get my point?
No, really, that was someone famous, possibly an American president. But I don't expect you to know that quote. Just like you probably won't be proud of quotes by Albert Einstein, which prove him of being theistic and non-skeptical, more on the New Agey side. Should I translate them here, or you know which ones I mean?

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:

except the concentrations of daughter products produced by the bodies stomach are biologically negligible and you've not provided evidence for their causing these problems.  And they cause problems for people with a very rare genetic disorder?  Oh Noes!  Scientists are teh evul!  Or it's just unfortunate

Personal tests at the Home Laboratories inc. have shown that ingesting products containing aspartame for 1 year made the subject feel old and worn out, while stopping their ingestion made the subject feeling well again....

By the way, scientists are indeed a strange lot. Under their guidance, science solves problems by creating even bigger problems.

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:
yeah.... stevia wasn't used because it was a suspected genotoxin.  No-one wants anything in their drink that might have mutagenic, and possibly cancerous, effects.  Thing is, since the WHO announced in 2006 that stevia wasn't a genotoxin moves have been made to allow it as a food additive.  It's already accepted in New Zealand, Australia and the US.  Coke and Pepsi are using stevia mixtures as sweetners (as of 2008 I believe).  It won't be long before it gets clearance here.

I still wait and read the compound labels on everything. So far, there is no less of the EVULZ chemicals.
 

   

MichaelMcF wrote:
Yes it is.  But you've yet to show any evidence for these bias opinions being the reason your beliefs are not validated.  I fully accept that some scientists can be corrupted.  I fully accept that some scientists have their own bias.  Hell, Einstein couldn't let go of his all his life.  I am willing to accept this.  My only addendum is that the method is not biased.  Men can try to manipulate results but, as we've seen in recent years, they are largely caught out and science progresses.
Yes, the method is not biased. It's a good idea, I couldn't find out anything better. It is perfectly logical, if the input is correct, the result is also correct.

 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:
If I'm willing to accept that scientific results can be twisted, will you at least accept that sometimes the reason for an alternative theory not being published isn't scientific conspiracy - sometimes the ideas are just wrong.
Yes, I can accept that. Ideas can be incorrect and should not be taken more seriously than the actual phenomena they're trying to describe and explain. Similarly, I can be easily wrong in my interpretation, though hardly my observation.
 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:
Luminon wrote:

When they try to use scientific method, their technical objections are based on ignorance, not on knowledge of the subject. They are no authorities in the subjects they criticize, usually because they never studied nor practiced them.

Dude.  Do you have any self awareness at all?

You're right, my self-awareness is very low. I'm the guy who is capable of wearing an awry hat without noticing. This is also obvious from my horoscope, where the left half (ascendant) is almost free of any planets, all of them are on the right half. (descendant) This makes me very aware of other people's needs.

 But the point is, that I and other esotericists generally do not act against science. They act on behalf of the esotericism, but not against the opposition.
 

  

MichaelMcF wrote:

er... maybe I'm missing something here, but what did the chancellor find out?

Violation of academic freedom, violation of their own written articles of a club, and acting in a highly rude and non-democratical way, for example.
Furthermore, I have read an article by one of their members, a professor, "Why astrology doesn't work." Most of the objections there were really trivial. The author did not learn of such a basics like the difference between sideric and tropical zodiac. Or he also claimed, that astrology propagates geocentric model of the solar system. This is even more ridiculous, do we make horoscopes for people living on the sun? Anyway, astrologic programs like ZET can easily display a precise heliocentric model of our solar system with all the planets, planetoids and significant asteroids. Really, that professor H. made a total idiot of himself, together with the whole club.

mellestad wrote:

Well, I try to be culturally sensitive with my pop references.

Besides, in this case I think the latter example is best.  I can just hear Luminon saying, "It's only a flesh wound!" as he sets fingers to keyboard and responds to his latest textual beating.

C'mon, who's fighting? I'm trying to present a broader notion of reality to some intelligent hopefully and interested people. It goes slowly, because of the resistance. If you would have to prove and justify every your step, you would die by old age half way to the work. I'm not trying to prove things, I'm trying to introduce them for study. If a theory is an attention catcher, as Michael writes, then esoteric theory at it's complexity certainly deserves an attention. I just don't like when people call it "vague". This shows a false presupposition, that you may know anything about the subject. You may not. It's a completely new object of study and must be taken as such. Firstly, it must be made sure that it's internally consistent, which can't be done if you don't know the basics. (like sideric and tropical zodiac, LOL)

 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:C'mon, who's

Luminon wrote:

C'mon, who's fighting? I'm trying to present a broader notion of reality to some intelligent hopefully and interested people. It goes slowly, because of the resistance. If you would have to prove and justify every your step, you would die by old age half way to the work. I'm not trying to prove things, I'm trying to introduce them for study. If a theory is an attention catcher, as Michael writes, then esoteric theory at it's complexity certainly deserves an attention. I just don't like when people call it "vague". This shows a false presupposition, that you may know anything about the subject. You may not. It's a completely new object of study and must be taken as such. Firstly, it must be made sure that it's internally consistent, which can't be done if you don't know the basics. (like sideric and tropical zodiac, LOL)

 

There is resistance because what you say doe not make sense. Internally consistent?  Really?  The only ideas that are internally consistent follow the maxim that anything, no matter how silly, is reality.  The consistency is the fact that you will accept anything as truth without any understanding.  Watching this discussion is watching reality meet woo, and reality is far more internally and externally consistent than what you are saying.  Reality can make predictions and solve problems, woo gives us hand-waving causal claims and non-verifiable results that never seem to work when tested openly.

Honestly, your woo is *not* anything new.  If there were any validity to it then the vast millennial history of woo would have produced something unambiguously useful and it has not, although I am sure you claim that there is a vast history of valid woo.  If that were true, human history would be different.  People *want* to believe woo...but woo has never been able to match science for actual results that explain reality and solve problems.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I'd just written out a full

I'd just written out a full response to Luminon when my computer crashed.  I don't have the energy right now to do it all again, but there will be a response - oh yes.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There's something awe inspiring about Luminon

 

Arguing with him seems from a distance to be like trying to sweep up mercury with a straw broom.

Mate - I don't know what you're talking about but don't ever stop believing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
BTW, Luminon - check link at bottom

You might want to visit this link if you haven't done so already!


http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&p=23673
 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Arguing with him seems from a distance to be like trying to sweep up mercury with a straw broom.

Mate - I don't know what you're talking about but don't ever stop believing.

You surely don't know what I'm talking about, because I don't believe. Most of what I'm talking about I know from the first-hand experience. This is why it's so diffcult to shake my faith - I have none. If you want to understand me, understand this. That's my secret.

Btw, as for the link you posted, I'm very skeptical towards hostile aliens, alien abductions, dreamworld and people seeing things or communicating with spirits. Some of these things are not real, and some are very deceitful.


MichaelMcF wrote:

I'd just written out a full response to Luminon when my computer crashed.  I don't have the energy right now to do it all again, but there will be a response - oh yes.

Thanks for your persistence. By the way, Notepad is a wonderful program. I have one file where I back up what I currently write. These texts may take a few days to make and the crashless Microsoft Singularity is still far in the future.

 

 

mellestad wrote:

 

There is resistance because what you say doe not make sense. Internally consistent?  Really?  The only ideas that are internally consistent follow the maxim that anything, no matter how silly, is reality.  The consistency is the fact that you will accept anything as truth without any understanding.  Watching this discussion is watching reality meet woo, and reality is far more internally and externally consistent than what you are saying.  Reality can make predictions and solve problems, woo gives us hand-waving causal claims and non-verifiable results that never seem to work when tested openly.

Again, you think that you can know anything about the subject. You can't. You're taught the reality all your life, but nobody taught to you this subject - the multi-dimensional nature of the world. What you know about the "woo" is necessarily incomplete, this is why it seems inconsistent to you. If you want to disprove it by internal inconsistency, you must learn about it first.

mellestad wrote:
  Honestly, your woo is *not* anything new.  If there were any validity to it then the vast millennial history of woo would have produced something unambiguously useful and it has not, although I am sure you claim that there is a vast history of valid woo.  If that were true, human history would be different.  People *want* to believe woo...but woo has never been able to match science for actual results that explain reality and solve problems.
Whatever I say, you can't verify it, because either you don't know the woo, or you don't know the human history. And I really can't copy and paste whole chapters from a book here. My dad will soon publish one of his books in USA. I'd like to introduce the book here. Read it, and then show me how much do you understand it. You will not get anywhere without learning and reading. It's weird that I, the crazy woo-wooist have to remind you about that.
As for the real or un-real woo... I should remind you, that many of the greatest thinkers of human history were in the first place astrologers or occultists, certainly not rational by your standards. Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, to name a few. (and perhaps Albert Einstein) Were they all just madmen with a few clear moments which got them into textbooks? Esotericism was widespread in human history. There were famous mystery schools on every continent. (gnothi seauton, do you remember?) These civilizations built great monuments which show a great knowledge of geometry, mathemathics, astronomy, and other sciences, and they were built for the purposes of occult teachings. Ancient philosophies like Vaisheksha predicted modern science millenias ago. The reason why do we think of ancient times as a the primitive times, is that the last almost 2000 years of sword, fire and cross systematically destroyed most of the remnants of ancient cultures. Now our archeologists are left with tiny bits of information and ridiculous guesses about "calendary cults" and "ritual items", ignoring everything that doesn't fit into the prescribed history. There was no linear historical development as we're taught, for various civilizations there were ages of darkness and barbarianism, and ages of knowledge and culture.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon,For a person who

Luminon,

For a person who "doesn't believe", you use the same arguments that a Christian does to justify his faith.

You're skeptical of others who claim first hand experience but we're supposed to take your claims of first person experience at face value? Interesting...

On top of that hypocrisy you claim that you and your family and friends have the secret knowledge that the big bad world conspiracy hasn't taught the rest of us. You also claim scientists as actually being members of your group - nothing more than name dropping to try to rob their credibility.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Luminon,For a

jcgadfly wrote:

Luminon,

For a person who "doesn't believe", you use the same arguments that a Christian does to justify his faith.

You're skeptical of others who claim first hand experience but we're supposed to take your claims of first person experience at face value? Interesting...

On top of that hypocrisy you claim that you and your family and friends have the secret knowledge that the big bad world conspiracy hasn't taught the rest of us. You also claim scientists as actually being members of your group - nothing more than name dropping to try to rob their credibility.

 

 

This is almost exactly what I was going to write in my rebuttal.  Luminon, you are saying, "You don't believe because you don't understand, if you understood you would believe."  But when we ask you to prove it, we get nothing but Heron's beard and hand waving.  You are saying I don't believe in woo because no-one has convinced me to believe in woo!

Or, when your back is to the wall you fall back on personal experience that cannot be shared.  You say people need to be born a certain way, or taught a certain thing.  But that is a load of poop, because if you (collectively as woo-people) could actually *do* anything or *predict* anything or *explain* anything with your woo, it would have been done.  In fact, in the past it *was* done...oracles, holy men, mystics, priests...except now we have methods that consistently beat those methods by every measure, so they have been abandoned by most of society.

I keep coming back to it Luminon...show me the money!  You even claimed to be telekenetic at one point and when I told you I would love to see a youtube video I got lame excuses about not having a camera, or you didn't have a friendly woo person around or it wasn't convenient at this time (stars not aligned?).  This is a total cop-out.  The only people you can show your 'proof' to are the people who have already drank the kool-aid.  Or you say the real woo people don't want attention (even though there are millions of woo people), or there are conspiracies (that are usually poorly explained and non-consistent), all very convenient for you.  Unacceptable.

Then the only people who actually show 'proof' are disproved and we get woo-apologists throwing up no true Scotsman fallacies left and right.

You can tell us to read books all day long...it won't matter, because the 'proof' is going to be a bunch of first hand accounts of unverifiable claims.  If woo is real, and you (collectively) ever want to be taken seriously, you need to be public and you need to be open.  Your only proof can't reside in closed rooms full of believers.

Christ, I can't believe I put this much effort into these conversations, but for whatever reason I think I like you enough to put that effort in.  God help me.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.