H3Tec discussion

[Don Jose de La Mancha]

Afternon J-Play : you posted --> In order to detect an extremely weak signal, this signal must first exist
****************
Obvious? Every activity of your brain produces a transmitable wave, we need look no further for our example. So, does telepathy exist?

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

[J_Player]

Afternon J-Play : you posted --> In order to detect an extremely weak signal, this signal must first exist
****************
Obvious? Every activity of your brain produces a transmitable wave, we need look no further for our example. So, does telepathy exist?

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

Interesting question.
If telepathy exists, then it could be theoretically be used to detect an impossibly weak signal from a distant location that already completed several revolutions of a universe which bends on itself.
On the other hand, telepathy could theoretically also detect a signal that did not exist, or that fizzled out and stopped after travelling some finite distance.

So does telepathy exist?
According to many proofs seen on the internet, it definitely exsists.
But then, according to many other proofs seen on the internet, it definitely does not exsist.

This raises the question: What can we believe?
Are we stuck in the perpetual condition of eternal torment "catch-22" style?
I suppose the question of the existence of the universe is more basic than the question of the existence of telepathy.
So I would say we must first determine if the universe actually exists before we can make presumptions about the existence of telepathy or proofs thereof.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

On the other hand, maybe the signal does exist.

Post #172

Ummmm, art....
You forgot something. ...Like the following lines that shows the actual context of my post:

On the other hand, maybe the signal does exist.

The question then becomes:
Can you show me how you detect this signal when I cause the signal to happen in the location I choose without your knowledge?

So can you?

Best wishes,
J_P


P.S. Hint: Forum-101, (the course)

[Art3811]

The question then becomes:
Can you show me how you detect this signal when I cause the signal to happen in the location I choose without your knowledge?

A simple experiment created by Dr. Paul Doppler in 1939 proves that objects produce a signal that can be measured. This experiment can be done by anyone who wants to know the truth. You can duck and dodge and try to change the subject but alas…the proof is still there. Post #172 will clearly prove to you that these signals are produced but first you have enough balls to do the experiment…Art

[Don Jose de La Mancha]

HI J_player be bk shortly, guests.

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist":.

[J_Player]

A simple experiment created by Dr. Paul Doppler in 1939 proves that objects produce a signal that can be measured. This experiment can be done by anyone who wants to know the truth. You can duck and dodge and try to change the subject but alas…the proof is still there. Post #172 will clearly prove to you that these signals are produced but first you have enough balls to do the experiment…Art

Hi Art,
That is an interesting story about the history of Doppler, and your claims of duck and dodge seem misplaced.
But nothing in your post answers my question whether you can detect the signal when I cause the signal to happen in the location I choose without your knowledge.

The question was: "So can you?"
Hint: The answer is Yes or No.

Best wishes,
J_P

P.S. Hint #2: Forum-101, (the course)

[Art3811]

To prove that objects emit energy or a signal is simple. Use a quart jar. Take some liquid rubber and dab it onto the center of the lid. Pull it away from the lid to create a thin string that looks like the strand of a spider web. This is the hardest part of the test. Attach a 1/2 inch Alum foil disk to the rubber strand. Screw the lid on the jar.

Place a protractor on the table with the 90 degree mark pointing to north. Set the jar on the protractor and alien the disk in a north south direction. Place a gold nugget beside the jar on the 0 degree mark of the protractor and wait for the disk to turn. Now try placing other objects by the jar one at a time. I found that a slice of onion gave off the strongest signal of anything that I tried.

What turned the disk? I can only conclude that objects emit energy.....

[Rudy]

Rudy, Ladies and Gentlemen: Just how far can a 1 micro volt signal travel?

Don Jose de La Mancha

A micro volt doesn't travel. A Volt is a derived unit for electromotive force. You can think of it as a potential difference.

You may be thinking of an electromagnetic field?

[J_Player]

To prove that objects emit energy or a signal is simple. Use a quart jar. Take some liquid rubber and dab it onto the center of the lid. Pull it away from the lid to create a thin string that looks like the strand of a spider web. This is the hardest part of the test. Attach a 1/2 inch Alum foil disk to the rubber strand. Screw the lid on the jar.

Place a protractor on the table with the 90 degree mark pointing to north. Set the jar on the protractor and alien the disk in a north south direction. Place a gold nugget beside the jar on the 0 degree mark of the protractor and wait for the disk to turn. Now try placing other objects by the jar one at a time. I found that a slice of onion gave off the strongest signal of anything that I tried.

What turned the disk? I can only conclude that objects emit energy.....

Hi Art,
That is another interesting story about how you claim you can detect a signal of an onion slice placed next to a quart jar.

But nothing in your post answers the question from my post that you quoted, where I asked whether you can detect the signal when I cause the signal to happen in the location I choose without your knowledge.

My question was: "So can you?"
Hint: The answer is Yes or No.


Best wishes,
J_P

P.S. Hint #3: Forum-101, (the course)

[Art3811]

The answer is Yes...But..I chose who I preform for...Art

[J_Player]

The answer is Yes...But..I chose who I preform for...Art

Thanks for the answer Art. I don't believe you can. But you are correct that you not required to accept any challenge that proves you can do what you say you can.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Art3811]

Thank you J Player…Carl offered me $25,000 if my rods would cross when I stepped on a coin. I made a movie of the rods closing when I stepped on a coin…Still waiting on my money
http://www.youtube.com/user/aarthrj3811...100 0163.mov

[J_Player]

Thank you J Player…Carl offered me $25,000 if my rods would cross when I stepped on a coin. I made a movie of the rods closing when I stepped on a coin…Still waiting on my money
http://www.youtube.com/user/aarthrj3811...100 0163.mov

Excellent movie, Art,
But have you considered you again took Carl's offer out of context and omitted the conditions he specified under which he would pay you prize money?
In fact, you are misrepresenting what Carl offered. It is the same as telling a lie in the Geotech forum.
Carl never said he would pay you any money at all if you produced a film showing your rods cross when you step on a coin.
He offered to pay the prize money if you could pass his test as follows:

"Take 10 small pieces of plywood, say 4"x4", numbered 1-10. Carl-NC will attach a silver dollar under one of them, chosen randomly. You step on each piece of plywood and determine which one has the silver dollar. Repeat several times. Carl-NC will pay you $25,000 if you are successful".
See here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...425#post119425

What you posted was a lie.
You have no reason to wait for prize money because you never took Carl's test.
You never found coins that Carl hid under pieces of plywood, so you have no prize money coming.
Based on reports of your previous photo editing shenanigans, I would not expect Carl or anyone else to believe your video wasn't a fake, or to believe that you could successfully locate which piece of plywood Carl hides a coin under several times.

Of course, you could end all the debates by simply taking Carl's test and proving him wrong, and also proving wrong the millions of readers who think you are an idiot who is all fake talk, fake photos and fake videos, but no action.
But we see you have historically never done this. You have carefully avoided any possibility of double blind testing, and substituted photos and videos that you make.
Ummm... can we see the out-takes from your video that you left on the cutting room floor?

As Carl-NC said:
"I expect a complete rejection, along with alibis, because you cain't do it. And I'm sure Hung will say this is an impossible test".
And we see you did not take his test, but submitted a video in lieu of taking an actual test for which you expect him to pay you.

Do you really think any engineer at Geotech is as stupid as you are?
Would you pay $25,000 for a video of an amazing performance?
Isn't this kind of like paying $25,000 for a video of a dream vacation instead of paying the $25,000 for an actual dream vacation?

Just as an idea, why not go back to Tnet, and stop posting your lies in Geotech.
The people at Tnet are much more tolerant of liars than us folks.

Best wishes,
J_P

P.S. New hint:
Get therapy to learn to stop taking things out of context. Learn to tell the truth.
Learn to see things for what they are, not what you wish to craft them into.
There are therapists who can do wonders. You could become a better person.

[Dave J.]

How the L-club works

It goes beyond "more tolerant", J_Player. On Tnet I often encourage them to lie so everyone can see what liars they are. That way, people who are trying to figure out what they want have a clearer choice between the truth and the lie, and those who prefer the lie know right where to go.

And since liars hang out with liars (some of y'all may remember the L-club on the old Tnet LRL forum?) they all have a good time getting what they want. Since they are actually getting what they want out of the deal, proving they're liars changes nothing, they already knew that and were happy with it.

That's human nature.

You've probably noticed a difference between dowsers and LRL'ers. There's a reason for that.

You don't have to be a liar to be a dowser (although of course some are liars and many are just confused). A lot of dowsers are folk who would not cheat you out of a dime.

LRL's are a different ballgame. LRL'ing begins with the proposition that you have to lie about dowsing. And then you have to maintain that pseudoscience fairy tales are just as true as anything that reason has produced-- even truer! Well, how can you argue with something as stupid as that? Reason won't help, reason has already been rejected as a matter of basic principle. It's rare to find an LRL proponent who is just honestly confused. The mental process that led them to LRL'ing required first lying to oneself and then lying to everyone else.

And that's how you can get to a fellow claiming on a publicly visible forum that Carl owes him $25K because his rods crossed when he stepped on a coin. Heck, I can cross my fingers when I step on a coin, I don't even need coathangers. I can cross my eyes when I step on a coin. Nobody's impressed! Carl doesn't even owe me a dime!

I guess the next step is for Artie to demand Randi's $1 million for a movie showing he can touch his nose when he's drunk. Blindfolded!

--Dave J.

[J_Player]

It goes beyond "more tolerant", J_Player. On Tnet I often encourage them to lie so everyone can see what liars they are. That way, people who are trying to figure out what they want have a clearer choice between the truth and the lie, and those who prefer the lie know right where to go.

And since liars hang out with liars (some of y'all may remember the L-club on the old Tnet LRL forum?) they all have a good time getting what they want. Since they are actually getting what they want out of the deal, proving they're liars changes nothing, they already knew that and were happy with it.

That's human nature.

You've probably noticed a difference between dowsers and LRL'ers. There's a reason for that.

You don't have to be a liar to be a dowser (although of course some are liars and many are just confused). A lot of dowsers are folk who would not cheat you out of a dime.

LRL's are a different ballgame. LRL'ing begins with the proposition that you have to lie about dowsing. And then you have to maintain that pseudoscience fairy tales are just as true as anything that reason has produced-- even truer! Well, how can you argue with something as stupid as that? Reason won't help, reason has already been rejected as a matter of basic principle. It's rare to find an LRL proponent who is just honestly confused. The mental process that led them to LRL'ing required first lying to oneself and then lying to everyone else.

And that's how you can get to a fellow claiming on a publicly visible forum that Carl owes him $25K because his rods crossed when he stepped on a coin. Heck, I can cross my fingers when I step on a coin, I don't even need coathangers. I can cross my eyes when I step on a coin. Nobody's impressed! Carl doesn't even owe me a dime!

I guess the next step is for Artie to demand Randi's $1 million for a movie showing he can touch his nose when he's drunk. Blindfolded!

--Dave J.

I see,
Maybe this is why I don't bother to read the TNet LRL forum.
It is full of lies and whining about who's lying and who's not, but little or no real information worth reading.
It is kind of like reading pages full of a bunch of nothing.
I think Carl said it best: "I dearly wish you would waste your time on TNet rather than here. Unlike some of the other LRL advocates, you bring absolutely nothing to the party".

I suppose if a person loves lies, the TNet LRL forum could be fascinating reading with stars such as Art.

Best wishes,
J_P