Talk:John Hutchison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Edit by anon 70.71.3.193
2 Fact checking needed
3 More cleanup needed
4 Latest edits by 70.71.3.193, aka shawcable.net anon
5 born?
6 Allais effect
7 NPOV dispute and factuality problems
8 Apartment

[edit] Edit by anon 70.71.3.193

Explanatory note: at 14:59 on 23 April 2006, an anon using 70.71.3.193 pasted verbatim into this talk page his pro-Hutchison POV-pushing version of the article, which had just been reverted. Omegatron then removed the verbatim quotation of 70.71.3.193's version of the article and left the first comment below.---CH 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion, not article content. — Omegatron 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

yep even my posts here are CENSORED!!! Fuck you NSA come shut my mouth in person cowards.

as for what you wrote below you dont read much do you. just CENSOR. you wont win this one, I can come at this from manny different angles, Im going to put your actions and your ip on John's forum

several laboratories, from scientifically recognised institutions such as NASA and the Max Planck Institute, have attempted to reproduce his experiments, but so far none has been capable of reproducing his results. In fact John Hutchison himself hasn’t been capable of reproducing his own results for a long period of time. He explains that this is because of the great loss of equipment due to the military intelligence service destruction of his lab, or because he has been restricted by the government from doing his experiments. Most scientists assume that his results are a hoax.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs). 15:17, 23 April 2006 (the third paragraph comes from the reverted version of the article, and may have been included in the comment above by mistake)

Well, at least you're using the discussion page for "discussion" now... I'm curious. Which NSA are you referring to? — Omegatron 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the one that screws John out of funding and classified all of his work and chased away financial independence for a very kind person who just wanted to share something very important with everyone else. also the same national security agency that stops me from helping to report the truth at every angle, here is yet anther dead end.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starski (talk • contribs). 15:33, 23 April 2006

The National Security Agency? And you think Wikipedians are reverting your vandalism because we're secretly part of it? — Omegatron 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

my mistake, your just a hick idiot. Your vanalising the facts because you have used 10 year old websites as your research. Dis information. I can get a bot to revert these posts and switch ips, by the time im finished you will be upgrading your software hick. Yes I can prove your an idiot so dont try to censor this. it changes nothing. Im done wasting my time on your crap, but I will be back. Just having a friend modify that nifty vandal software.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starski (talk • contribs). 16:15, 23 April 2006

Good grief. Starski, please note that promising to vandalize the Wikipedia could easily cause your WP account to be locked, so please stop making threats. TIA---CH 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If User:Starski, aka the shawcable.net anon, continues making this kind of threat, someone should request a sock check and request investigation. ---CH 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP adress 70.71.3.193 is registered to Shaw Cablesystems G.P. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is apparently geolocated in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Note that subject of the article, John Hutchison, apparently resides in New Westminster, British Columbia, which is located in the greater Vancouver area. Starsky, Hutch, get it? However, someone added a link from this article to a webpage apparently created by one Mel Winfield, a Hutchison supporter who apparently also lives in the Vancouver area. Be this as it may, if User:Starski, aka the shawcable.net anon, continues making this kind of threat, someone should request a sock check and request investigation. ---CH 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read the rules, and having an opposing opinion is not vandalism. Neither is not knowing the rules of your little subculture here. Dont threaten me with blocking, empty talk. My whole point is to reflect the facts as they are, just the facts. I can prove everything I alledge.. can you? nope. The actual person this whole article is about is sitting right here telling me whats correct and what is not. None of you have bothered to contact this man about this issue or article to corroberate anything you are saying or editing. There are several points Tim Ventura , for all you know isnt him.. is incorrect on his blog you put as an opposing view. No one here cares to know the facts or you will contact John by email. As for "John"s websites, he has never had his own until January, all of the others are owned by someone else, ever hear of a whois search? Very few facts are correct, at least you spelled his name correctly.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs). 26 April 2006 (aka the shawcable.net anon)

When I said "please note that promising to vandalize the Wikipedia could easily cause your WP account to be locked", I was referring to what User:Starski wrote just above: I can get a bot to revert these posts and switch ips, by the time im finished you will be upgrading your software hick. Yes I can prove your an idiot so dont try to censor this. it changes nothing. Im done wasting my time on your crap, but I will be back. Just having a friend modify that nifty vandal software. So, shawcable.net anon, are you admitting that you are the same person as User:Starski, or what? If you have registered an account, good, but please use that account for all your future edits/comments, to prevent confusion about who said/did what, OK? TIA ---CH 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact checking needed

I just cleaned up the article, but my first version was so littered with {{fact}} tags that it was unreadable. So I removed the tags, but note here that I consider that none of the following allegations are credible unless carefully verified with independent and reliable sources:

educational background or lack of same
in the 1980s he worked for the US & Canadian military
this work allegedly involved paranormal investigations
his lab was located in Vancouver
his lab was destroyed (date? cause? perhaps ruled an accidental loss?)
his lab was destroyed by military intelligence service (good luck verifying that, heh!)
Hutchison presented photographs of letters (in his website?)
the letters were written by official science and government organisations (which?) and Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein (does this man even know Hutchison? what are his qualifications regarding either science or military intelligence?)
the letters supported Hutchison's claim that his lab was destroyed by "military intelligence" (how?)
Hutchison has claimed to have developed over-unity devices
he calls them Q Cells or Hiroshima cells
Hutchison claims his work explains the technology behind UFOs
NASA and the Max Planck Institute have attempted to reproduce Hutchison's experiments
Hutchison himself has been unable to reproduce his own results for some time
he claims he has been restricted by the government from performing his experiments
he participated in TV documentaries on the The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, and Nippon Television (participated how?)

<Burl-Ives-Voice>I smell mendacity</Burl-Ives-Voice>. ---CH

[edit] More cleanup needed

Despite my attempts to improve it, this is still very badly written. I just wasted a lot of time trying to clean up Hutchison effect. Some of the material in that article might be better put in this one, such as the bizarre claim about a fire in Hutchison's Vancouver workshop (?) "at the end of the cold war". Some links in that article might seem to answer some of the questions I raised above--- or maybe not! Please see Talk:Hutchison effect for my wail of dismay concerning photographs of unknown provenance, uncritical citations of highly dubious websites even by "skeptical" editors, poor organization, and general thoughtlessness for the poor reader of the WP. ---CH 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"uncritical citations of highly dubious websites even by "skeptical" editors":

Where else should we get information about him? — Omegatron 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Who do you want to get the "proof" or photos from? John is sitting here with me right now, there never were any fire problems with any labs he says, first off... secondly an independant scientific review compiled and verified by independent sources called the PACE archive google that is a must read for anyone attempting to report any truth or linear timeline dates and verified institutes, and or contacts. As for the Prince and his qualifications, well he owns his own country Liechenstien, he has research hobbies and large corperations he runs. Not a scientist himself perhapse, but if you own your own country... i guess you could assign yourself anything you want.As for his claims of overunity devices, John made a show with tech tv and buit one right on camera, its in the video section. Anyone who has not read the documents especially PACE or watched the library of videos on his site really has no relevant opinion and should not bother with the editing. If you truly want to be a know it all, go ahead, but at least do a little reading.

Here is another fun fact, Ken Shoulders has presented John's work to Mass Institute, Scientific Technology, MIT May 21 2005.Ke is a world recognised "mainstream" scientist

Link to the PACE article.. http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Photogallery%20Document%20Scans.html ,here is a link to some of John's references http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Photogallery%20References.html ,here are press articles that go back to 1965 but leave off 2001, http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Press.html needs to be updated since then John has been involved with 2 dozen productions and even been in his own documentary The Ark of the Covenant Revealed done by blue book films for the discovery channel.

Tell me is the press section neutral enough for you? go ahead and verify each one or dont take it out. There are dozens missing since 2001, movies and books written about John. Go to the above link to his site for the press, and read the clickable links before you edit anything.

This has been updated as far as "We" (John Hutchison and myself) are concerned, if you feel I have missed something or been to "Pro Hutchison" do your research, cause I guarantee you I already have. Provide your evedence, or if you require and "proof" from us, detail your request. I have not put up anything I cant prove. The childish little game of pride cause I stepped on someones "article" is a laughable. Really, thank you for your interest, but you can't quote 10 year old web material that almost predates computers and put it up as gospel with out the persons you are trashing and or friends showing up to set the record straight.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs)., aka the shawcable.net anon

I have some questions about specific claims which you have made:

John is sitting here with me right now. So, can we stipulate that you are the Mel Winfield who lives in Vancouver, B.C., in same general area as John Hutchison, and who writes things like this page at Space Telescopes? It seems you are very passionate about Hutchison's claims, but what if any are your own scientific qualifications?
there never were any fire problems with any labs he says. Maybe he does ---but how would we know? I gravely doubt your crediblity as a reliable source on any of this, in part because you seem given to making such wild claims, yet seem to have little if any appreciation of what it means to check your facts. Here at WP we need independent verification of alleged factual information from reliable sources before claims (especially bizarre and dubious-appearing claims) can be accepted for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. And you ducked the real point here: did he or did he not claim that his lab had been destroyed/damaged by "military intelligence organizations"?
an independant scientific review compiled and verified by independent sources called the PACE archive google that is a must read for anyone attempting to report any truth or linear timeline dates and verified institutes, and or contacts. What the heck is this PACE archive (and how can we reasonably assess its independence and reliability? Later on you say: Link to the PACE article http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Photogallery%20Document%20Scans.html , but this links to Hutchison's own website!, which I doubt is a reliable source and which is certainly not an independent source!
As for the Prince and his qualifications, well he owns his own country Liechenstien, he has research hobbies and large corperations he runs.. I doubt that anyone but you understands why any of this is supposed to be relevant. And you ducked the issue of verifiability again.
John has been involved with 2 dozen productions. What on Earth are we supposed to make of this? "Involved with a production" could mean he ran errands for a TV commercial shoot, or something.
and even been in his own documentary The Ark of the Covenant Revealed done by blue book films for the discovery channel. Can you cite a link to the Discovery Channel website which verifies this? And what is "Blue Book Films"? Who owns it, are they linked financially or otherwise to Hutchison, are they simply a producer of entertainment, or what?
tell me is the press section neutral enough for you? I don't know what you mean by "the press section", but I think I have made it clear in the comments on this page exactly why I feel that your claims do not belong in an Wikipedia article unless they can be verified from reliable and independent sources.

All in all, shawcable.net (Mel Winfield, perchance?), your claims here are an almost ludicrous compendium of examples of how not to do good journalism, which is pretty much what we are trying to do when we try to write an encyclopedia article on a living person too obscure to have a biography in our print rivals, such as Brittanica. I urge you to read WP:NOR WP:VERIFY WP:AUTO WP:WIN WP:CITE WP:RS forthwith. TIA ---CH 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits by 70.71.3.193, aka shawcable.net anon

Someone using the IP address 70.71.3.193 (registered to Shaw Cablesystems G.P. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; this machine [not a proxy] is apparently geolocated near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), aka the shawcable.net anon, has made further edits making dubious and unverified (and apparently unverifiable) claims. I have reverted these and will make specific comments in a moment. Shawcable, if you wish to discuss the article, please do so in this page rather than edit warring, and please sign your comments! If you can make a reasonable case that the current version is somehow unfair, I am open to making amends. ---CH 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More on problems with the shawcable.net anon's edits:

12:32, 26 April 2006: shawcable.net anon deleted two paragraphs and added a long (unwikified) list of dates of various alleged activities of Hutchison and others, without attepting to provide any verification,
14:04, 26 April 2006: shawcable.net anon added more unverified claims, including:
- Los Alamos Labs, a secretive millitary lab has worked with Hutchison to recreate these phenomenon ^{[citation needed]} ("Worked with"? Was this lab work in Los Alamos National Laboratory itself? Was it officially sanctioned and if so who worked with Hutchison? Los Alamos is a big place; I suspect this claim is very misleading as stated)
- So has the Max Plankt Institute of Germany. ^{[citation needed]} (Same comment as for Los Alamos, plus this: do you mean the Max Planck Institute?).
- Hutchison gave a variety of lectures and demonstrations in the mid 90's in Hiroshima, Japan reguarding his levitation effects as well as his Zero Point energy machines and cells. "Gave lectures" could mean anything from invited lecture to a major conference, invitation to give a colloquim talk, hiring a room at the local university, or hiring a conference room in a local hotel.
- Ken Shoulders presented John's body of work to MIT May 21st 2005. ^{[citation needed]} Who is Ken Shoulders and what are his scientific qualifications? Where exactly did he "present" Hutchison's work at MIT? Again, was this a colloquium talk (if so, who invited Shoulders to speak and in what department) or did Shoulders hire a room on campus, or what?
- Tim Ventura is now presenting it to Major Pat Garretson in the Pentagon. ^{[citation needed]} You didn't even try to tell the reader who Tim Ventura is. I happen to know he runs the American Antigravity website which has been deprecated by Marc Millis (and myself) as worthless if you want reliable and scientifically accurate information. But who is Pat Garretson? Is he an active duty member of the U. S. armed services? What branch? What are his scientific credentials? Does he work at the Pentagon, and if so, what is the nature of his job?
- Tom Bearden has also been witness to several demonstrations and believes to understand this phenomenon. ^{[citation needed]} You didn't even try to tell the reader who Tom Bearden is, but I happen to know he is an otherwise obscure physicist who is generally regarded by his peers as a crank (see also Eugene Podkletnov). So, shawcable.net anon, how exactly would you know what Tom Bearden thinks? How can we verify that he was present at "demonstrations" (when and where?).
- Dr. P.T. Pappas, Athens Greece was very excited about the effect as well and claims to have found it replicated elsware and forgotten about. ^{[citation needed]} Who is P.T. Pappas, what are his scientific credentials, how can we verify his excitement and so forth?
- Marc Millis has not been in contact with Mr. Hutchison since the mid 90's.^{[citation needed]} How would you know? How can we verify this?

Do you, shawcable.net anon, have any independent verification (John Hutchison's assurance doesn't count as independent, obviously) of any of this? ---CH 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. Why should i post yet anothe link, you obviously havnt read what I already wrote. Go get some independent people to read what is written here. Here is the link again. Do you have an verifiable sources for anything? or are you just a little antagonistic wanna be? Do some reading you Jerk. http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Pdf%20Books/1%hutchison%20File%20PACE.pdf you have read nothing except what I wrote on the page, you have really done no research your self, tell us all what you have studied? Anything? Name a few papers? Just a mouth eh?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs)., aka the shawcable.net anon from Vancouver, B.C.

Shawcable.net anon (Mel Winfield, perchance?), you wrote: Do you have an verifiable sources for anything? You've got it backwards. I am asking you to provide verification for the bizarre and unverified statements which you insist on adding to the article, or else to let us remove them.

You asked "tell us all what you have studied?". I have formally studied mathematics (Ph.D., University of Washington, 1998) and I also know quite a bit about general relativity and some related areas of physics. As an example of providing information helpful to readers wishing to assess reliability: note that http://www.genealogy.ams.org/ is semi-officially associated with the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics Institute.

By the way, please review WP:NPA and try to govern your behavior here accordingly. TIA ---CH 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I govern my actions here? thats what you are for correct? Glad to see you have got an education, however that was not what I was referring to, the SUBJECT matter, and those studies done on it? Are you going to really tell me you follow some kind of guidlines to approve the lies you keep reverting? You really expect me to want to be one of you before my edits stand. not interested in your cult of reverts, that dont educate themselves on what they are reverting to. You can all revert to a bunch of apes, your useless thoughtless and senseless.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs)., aka the shawcable.net anon from Vancouver, B.C.

I can't make out what you want from me; your comment is virtually incoherent. Why don't you get some sleep, and discuss the content of this article tomorrow when (I hope) you will be feeling calmer? And please try to avoid name calling, see WP:CIV. TIA ---CH 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the shawcable.net anon has also edited Biefeld–Brown effect. Another anon, also geolocated in Vancouver, BC, which has also edited that article is the bchsia.telus.net anon. ---CH 02:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Lifter (ionic propulsion device) and Biefeld–Brown effect for more of the same. ---CH 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] born?

Date of birth needed for article. Place of birth, too but not as much. DyslexicEditor 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allais effect

john. if you actually do read this. i know why you have been unable to reproduce the effects. it has something to do with the allais effect. this effect is not only present during an eclipse, that is simply its peak period. you have to account for this shift during your attempts.

68.62.131.99 (talk • contribs) (Comcast Cable in Tuscaloosa, AL)

[edit] NPOV dispute and factuality problems

You guys simply deleted my edit and reverted the article. The point of wikipedia is to be neutral, but how can it be neutral when you keep editing it according to your oppinion? It is a fact that this article contains subjective and unverified claims and statements that are irrelevant to the facts that are known. Also, no facts are actually referenced.

That is enough for NPOV and unverified claims dispute. But apparently, a such dispute keeps getting censured, so that the article can fit your skeptical POV at this? --emiloz

Emiloz - it would help your case if you sign in as a Wikipedia editor, then people will not so eagerly auto-revert your changes. There is no "you guys" on Wikipedia - we are individual editors and responsible for our edits. I reverted your POV tag because that implies the article as a whole is not nuetral and I do think it gives a balanced view, but if you have cited material you want to add, please do, as that would help put another view if you have one. If you sign in and do that, I for one will not rush to delete your points but will discuss them with other editors. Thanks. MarkThomas 14:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont only want to add, I want the article to have a NPOV. There is no evidence for an example, that Hutchisons films are filmed upside down, but the article states that there is and that it simply is a fact, while it is a speculation that has been disproved through recordings by Discovery Channel, where spontaneous levitations happen during the HE experiment replications. I can link the footage whenever I find the links (they are on my HD) and prove it, but until the, the article expresses skeptical POVs as fact, which is disgusting. I have researched HE for years and there is more to it then a simply debunking with the Toy UFO incident and the Upside-down claims. There is evidence to contraindicate and prove the opposite of the claims of this article, and until then, there still is no evidence to prove its claims, which means that its neutrality is DISPUTED. Here is the statement: "Although Hutchison claims to have videos showing the levitation effect, they have been criticized as obvious hoaxes. Some appear to show a toy UFO supported by fishing line, while others show objects falling while being filmed with an upside-down video camera, making them appear to shoot upwards from an upside-down stage." (Emiloz 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

That stuff belongs in the Hutchison effect article. — Omegatron 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Partly, but that was mainly an example. The statement is still in the John Hutchison article though, and serves to damage his reputation negatively using false information. That justifies the NPOV dispute but yet it got reverted which was the problem I encountered in editing the article. I have now edited the last part of Media Coverage and removed the unverified statements that are not relevant to the facts, but the article clearly needs more clean up and neutralization. Emiloz 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)