Wasn't this at the Ripley's museum?
"jmdrake" <jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e20a4a47.0301271238.3dab76e8 at posting.google.com...
>gdpusch at NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message
news:<givg0fri02.fsf at pusch.xnet.com>...
> > jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) writes:
> >
> > > Richard S. Norman <rnorman at umich.edu> wrote in message
news:<9cgavuoqegjfgckbf6dcom9snt1to85ui0 at 4ax.com>...
> > > > And anyone who claims to work with
> > > > antigravity is deserving the label "crank".
> > >
> > > Then are you ready to add NASA to your "crank" list?
> > >
> > >
http://popularmechanics.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=21872586&E
XTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2Ecfg&host_id=1&page_id=2900&query=antigravity&hiw
ord=ANTIGRAVITY+
> >
> > 1.) You are using "Argument From Authority" --- a known logical
fallacy.
>> Bullcrap. You're using the "guilt by association" argument which is
> even more of a fallacy! Your argument is that because some people
> who are investigating this believe in UFOs that somehow ALL who are
> investigating this fall into that category. That's just silly.
>> > 2.) Your link is not to NASA, but rather to _Popular Mechanics_ ---
> > a publication whose credibility and reporting accuracy has
degenerated
> > to to point that it is now on the par of _The National Enquirer_.
>> Bullcrap # 2. You're coming to this discussion a day late (well rather
> a month and a half late) and a dollar short. Long ago I provide links
> from NASA's own site! So to try to argue against the link I provided
> is just goofy. But just to satisfy your infantile curiosity here's
> the link from NASA. Happy now?
>>http://technology.nasa.gov/scripts/nls_ax.dll/twDispTOPSItem(111;TOP8-80;0;1
)
>> > 3.) The quality of science and engineering at NASA are also no longer
what
> > they once were. Some of the "research" NASA is funding these days
under its
> > so-called "Breakthrough Propulsion Programm" is indeed crackpot
nonsense.
> >
> >
> > -- Gordon D. Pusch
>> Bullcrap #3. First your charecterization of the "Breakthrough Propulsion
> Program" is itself utter crackpot nonsense. That project is based on
> investigating "what ifs". Such "what ifs" will have to be considered
> if interstellar space travel ever becomes reality. Most of the projects
> they are investigating have already been scientifically proven (such as
> the existence of antimatter.) And the scientists at NASA look at
> "breakthrough" with a very critical eye. The difference between them
> and you is that they at least look with an OPEN critical eye. They
> have a page of explanations as to why certain "breakthroughs" don't
> work.
>> Second your third point is bullcrap because I'm talking about already
> proven technology! This isn't some "well if we can ever find enough
> element X we can build it" warp drive. Real people have done real
> experiments with real results. And the results so far have been
> that it can be explained simply by ion wind. Does that mean it's
> antigravity? Nope. Just that there must be something at work other
> than ion wind. What is "crackpot" is to assume, as you seem to have,
> that the only two possibilities are ion wind and antigravity.
>> Regards,
>> John M. Drake