gravity waves found

[gravityblock]

Scotty. The lights from the truck were just illuminating the dust and or water vapor (humidity) in the air of the workshop (workshops do tend to be dusty). You didn't actually see the air itself, you just saw the light reflecting off particulates suspended in the air.

You can't rule everything out based on dust or humidity in the air. Take a look at this video, Spectacular orbs in the sky. If someone was explaining this video to you about the orbs in the sky, then I'm sure you would say it was just the light reflecting off dust particles suspended in the air. Now, after watching the video, can you see there could be other possiblities other than light reflecting off dust particles?

GB

[solrey]

Hi all. I'm one of the people from Thunderbolts forum who was critical of the claims that David was making. First I want to admit that a couple of months ago I screwed up over a legitimate concern about the hazards of zinc dust and zinc oxide fumes from galvanized metals when I got confused about who was doing what to galvanized pipe. David wasn't exactly clear about how he built his rig in the beginning and I was honestly worried about people getting into something they were not fully informed about, i.e. zinc dust/fumes. I apologized to David for that error, he even mentioned that concern briefly on this thread, yet he still wants to call me a liar over an honest mistake and something I thought we cleared up a long time ago.

The thread on TB forum was locked, not due to subject matter, but after David's second immature rant, which contained veiled threats such as:

trust me, you will be remembered for what you have done

My advice is to avoid making extraordinary claims if you can't handle a little critical evaluation of said claims.

I never called anyone an "uneducated hillbilly" as David accuses in that rant, I simply stated: "As I said before, not even a rudimentary understanding of basic physics."

I suppose I did poke fun at this statement from earlier in this here thread:

Mainstream have never actually been able to define 'fire'. Plenty to say about it's heat and how to measure that. But no explanation for the property of the 'flame' itself.

That's funny to me because it's well known that fire (combustion) is just an exothermic chemical reaction. For example, the formula for methane combustion is CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O
It's also well established that a flame is a lightly ionized plasma and will be affected by an electric field. No surprise or mystery there.

We also have a digital imaging expert on TB forum that explained the effects seen in Davids images and movies. That digital imaging expert has even written software to correct for the Moire effect, a common problem and one that is evident in some of Davids videos. Another "anomaly" is the distortion while spinning caused by a rolling shutter, and that's the one that folks here are still using as evidence for some kind of effect. It's just distortion from a rolling shutter caused by movement of either the subject or camera. I noticed that David has yet to mention any of this on energetic forum, even after folks here were trying to figure out if what they were seeing on video was real or an artifact of digital imagery. Why?

That imaging expert has got the creds too:

received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1993. His technical areas of expertise revolve around imaging, image acquisition, and image processing and analysis, and include areas such as optics, analog, RF, and power electronics, digital camera design, computer vision and optical metrology, and the application of digital imaging in diverse industries including medical imaging, scientific imaging and instrumentation, and industrial automation and machine vision.

So we're basically left with claims of seeing a "glimmer" or something. Given the imperfections in human vision the possibility of the monochrome pattern of the pipes playing tricks on the eyes can't be ruled out at this point. I suggested to David to do a proper scientific blind test with his rig and a mock up to determine if there's a "placebo" effect. I and others have also suggested several ways to quantify/measure the claims of a change in weight, etc. Still waiting on that.

[gravityblock]

We also have a digital imaging expert on TB forum that explained the effects seen in Davids images and movies. That digital imaging expert has even written software to correct for the Moire effect, a common problem and one that is evident in some of Davids videos. Another "anomaly" is the distortion while spinning caused by a rolling shutter, and that's the one that folks here are still using as evidence for some kind of effect. It's just distortion from a rolling shutter caused by movement of either the subject or camera. I noticed that David has yet to mention any of this on energetic forum, even after folks here were trying to figure out if what they were seeing on video was real or an artifact of digital imagery. Why?

No, you are completely wrong about it being a distortion from a rolling shutter caused by movement of either the subject or camera. David's device was sent to a respected member of this forum, Bruce, and Bruce says he and his family sees the glimmer effect with their own eyes.......so how can the glimmer be a camera effect or an artifact of digital imagery?

GB

[solrey]

GB. I hear what you're saying, but Scotty didn't describe orbs of any sort, much less orbs in the sky. He described exactly what one would expect to see when a bright light shines into a dusty/humid workshop.

If someone was explaining this video to you about the orbs in the sky, then I'm sure you would say it was just the light reflecting off dust particles suspended in the air.

How do you know that I would respond that way? Based on the fact that I think headlights shining into a workshop are reflecting off dust/moisture in the air? Those are two completely different scenarios so each would merit their own unique response.


cheers

[gravityblock]

@Solrey:

You ruled everything out in Scotty's description of what he saw based on one possible explanation of light reflecting off dust particles and you have also ruled out the glimmer effect with Dave's device based on artifacts of digital imagery. You have taken one possiblity, and use that one possiblity to rule everything else out (This is the wrong way to do things).

Please tell me how the glimmer in Dave's device is a camera effect or an artifact of digital imagery when it is seen with one's own eyes? This rules out the artifact of digiatal imagery, does it not?

[solrey]

GB. I'm completely right about the rolling shutter, regardless of whether the "glimmer" effect is real or not. Snap a picture of a spinning disc with a camera utilizing a rolling shutter and you get the same distortion as seen in Davids image. That's from our resident digital imaging expert who I'm sure has a heck of a lot more knowledge about digital imagery than all of the folks on this thread combined.

[solrey]

How do you know the "glimmer" is real and not just a trick of the eyes due to a monochrome pattern of cut pipes? Human vision is far from perfect so the possibility of optical illusions can't be ruled out until a proper double blind test with a mockup is conducted. Like I said previously, regardless of whether the "glimmer" is real or not, that does not nullify the known artifacts of digital imagery. "Glimmer" or no "glimmer" the digital camera artifacts are the same. In the one video with the screen behind Davids rig those colored bands would still remain even if the rig was removed because those bands are due to the "Moire effect" from the pattern of the screen.

Anyways, I got stuff to do besides

[gravityblock]

How do you know the "glimmer" is real and not just a trick of the eyes due to a monochrome pattern of cut pipes? Human vision is far from perfect so the possibility of optical illusions can't be ruled out until a proper double blind test with a mockup is conducted. Like I said previously, regardless of whether the "glimmer" is real or not, that does not nullify the known artifacts of digital imagery. "Glimmer" or no "glimmer" the digital camera artifacts are the same. In the one video with the screen behind Davids rig those colored bands would still remain even if the rig was removed because those bands are due to the "Moire effect" from the pattern of the screen.

Anyways, I got stuff to do besides

I guess the eyes and the mind are playing tricks on us also when a force is felt when holding non-magnetic objects over the device due to it's monochrome pattern of cut pipes?

GB

[solrey]

Just remembered I wanted to post something real quick regarding Leedskalnins utilizing the secrets of gravity and leverage.

I pulled a 4x4 fence post that was 2' deep in the ground straight out of the soil so I could replace it with a new one without digging a bigger hole. I just used the new 4x4 as a lever with a 6x6 for a fulcrum placed about a foot away from the post, to which I had nailed a scrap piece of 2x4 to give the lever something to grab onto. That allowed me to transfer almost 1,000 lbs. of force with my 150 lb bodyweight on the end of the lever around 7' from the fulcrum. Removing that post was easy knowing how to use the force of gravity and leverage to my advantage.

[solrey]

Then measure it with a scale, a balance or something, GB. Otherwise it's just anecdotal and therefore confirmation bias can't be ruled out.

[gravityblock]

Just remembered I wanted to post something real quick regarding Leedskalnins utilizing the secrets of gravity and leverage.

I pulled a 4x4 fence post that was 2' deep in the ground straight out of the soil so I could replace it with a new one without digging a bigger hole. I just used the new 4x4 as a lever with a 6x6 for a fulcrum placed about a foot away from the post, to which I had nailed a scrap piece of 2x4 to give the lever something to grab onto. That allowed me to transfer almost 1,000 lbs. of force with my 150 lb bodyweight on the end of the lever around 7' from the fulcrum. Removing that post was easy knowing how to use the force of gravity and leverage to my advantage.

Use this same technique to lift your car and put it on the rooftop of your house, then you'll have my attention.

GB

[gravityblock]

Then measure it with a scale, a balance or something, GB. Otherwise it's just anecdotal and therefore confirmation bias can't be ruled out.

If it can be felt, then that is a good enough for me to know there is a force there. A scale or a balance is not needed in order to know there is a force between two magnets when holding them in your hands, correct?

GB

[david lambright]

my imagination?

sorry everyone, i guess my mind has not only played tricks on me, but has also played tricks other people as well, i must have one hell of a strong mind to do this over long distance?....mind control who would have thought?.....i just hope magnetic aluminum is not a product of my over active imagination also ......david

[david lambright]

gravity block

just wanted to say thanks and email me if you want [email protected], ive got to work today, controlling minds, i will be back this evening.....thanks, ...david

[Jetijs]

lol David
I am with you!
How stupid must a person be to not able to distinguish the effect from light in a dust cloud? I am sure Loadstone is not the case
Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged!
Jetijs