IUBio

Mindforth

Venom8 JustSpamYourNutsOff at home.splurt
Mon Jan 27 19:38:08 EST 2003


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





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net