Talk:Hutchison effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hutchison effect article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article was on votes for deletion, the consensus was to keep it. See the archived discussion for further details.
Archive
Archives
  1. Antiquity – May 2005

Contents

_

[edit] Relevant discussion

May I suggest diverting this conversion back to the topic at hand, namely the "Hutchison Effect". The opinions of an anonymous contributor with no credentials and an obvious disrespect for science in general is irrelevant and appears to be being used by the more critical skeptics in this discussion to prove some sort of conspiracy on behalf of Mr. Hutchison and his associates. While this is certainly a possibility, I don't believe that any significant proof of fraud has been submitted which cuts through the ambiguity of this topic.

I further suggest that instead of rehashing the same old lame arguments that have been made by Mr. Hutchison without any corroborating evidence, that the arguments be elaborated in a critical, but unbiased manner. I suspect that shedding some light on the characters that Mr. Hutchison uses as references and witnesses to these effects might help resolve this dispute.

For instance to start off, are there documents which are available in library archives or via the FOIA which might corroborate Mr. Hutchison's story from an objective standpoint? Who are the people which Mr. Hutchison claims were involved in the original experiments and what were their credentials? Is there anyone currently claiming to have duplicated any of these effects, and if so, who are they and what are their credentials?

Has there been a critical analysis and investigation of Mr. Hutchison's claims already? Newspaper articles purportedly printed around the time of these events should be freely available to anyone for a token expense. Who is this "Dr." Winfield and can his credentials be verified? The conflict between Mr. Hutchison and "Dr." Winfield should be elaborated mercilessly to bring the true nature of the relationship between these two to light. What are these papers that journalist Nick Cook apparently found compelling and can copies of these documents be retrieved by official sources? What are their relevance to the claim?

I have my BS filter on and am awaiting more unbiased evidence.

responses to the abouve well posed relevant questions above:

P.A.C.E has done an independent unbiased investigation and report, but they want to sell the report for a couple bucks online. Google it perhapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.73.154 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between mel and john was based on their similar interests, and when john made his discovery, a piece of equipment used to create the original effect was a gift from mel to john, and caused mel to try and steal john's thunder. mel is an arrogant egomaniac, educated, but so superior to all of his peers has no one interested in working with him, even interviewers scrap the gibberish he utters. as it stands right now, john will prank call him on occasion pretending to be a journalist, or filmographer and set an appointment for a grand interview to get him all puffed up.. as for the letter from john admitting this or that, it is real, unaltered and authentic. however, the context was ya ya what ever you say mel, take this note to a bank... sure whatever. mel has no way to pressure john to do anything, john has just been mocking him for almost 25 years. Anyone who knows john can substanciate their relationship.

Ken Shoulders is the most notable north american scientist with credibility that will authenticat john's work, and has followed it up extensively. Thats who you need to communicate with to authenticate things. John really doesnt take any controvercy seriously, he believes it doesnt matter. In real r&d circles, everyone knows for a fact he is legit. The offers are incessant. So everything else is all just more exposure, good or bad, he doesnt care.

alot of these papers Nick mentions are on johns website in the photogallery, but how far would you go to authenticate them if you yourself had them? carbon dating? finger print analysis? If its true, its all true. if its BS, its all BS. All anyone can do is pick a piece of the puzzle they feel they can authenticate or not, and satisfy themselves. Ask your self just how many people would have to be lying to substanciate this nobody clown if it was a sham, and where is the money to motivate everyone?? the BS theory doesnt seem to compute. I am not john, yet he managed to satisfy me. I have been paid nothing for my attention to this matter, I am just very interested in the sciences, he told me every single thing I ever asked, and gave me a crystal battery. I am not a beliver, I know. I was at his lab in 2006 during his most recent experiment as well. My knowledge doesnt make me biased, I just know for a fact, is that a bias?? Perhapse, but it is certainly a relevant bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.73.154 (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

as for omegatrons claims of no one asking john times and dates... I have known him since 1999, and spent days and days with the man, building stuff, scanning documents, and documenting every detail. Why else would I be here? Because I dont like people named omegatron?? to take guesses? I have been given entire permission from john to keep and maintain records of every single aspect of all of this, I have been digitizing it all for 2 years. would you like his phone number? how about mel's?

omegatron as you might glean from his handle is a narssicistic armchair knowitall making false claims. He has never been privy to anything at all. his negative bias cut and paste bs article is a disservice to john, a good friend of mine. of course im going to set this record straight. John and I have discussed his presence here, he would like this to reflect the truth, but wont lose a wink of sleep if omegatron persists in reverting his BS. I really dont make much time for silly persons doing silly things for silly reasons either, I just thought since I made many changes recently I should at least join the discussion to shed light on our perspective before I revert this article incessantly back to its neutral state. keep the negative allegations of fraud under the heading charges of fakery. that section definitly belongs there, its part of the story. I am not the us gov spin docktor trying to put a flowery facade allover, but being the only editor of this page who speaks with john daily, my facts carry real weight in this article. I will continiously make this article reflect facts. anything else anyone wants to see here? any of the storyline I can illuminate? I am NOT here to be a career wikipeedian, I am very busy. I dont mind intelligent discussion not based in some wikipedians narssicistic ego.

Response to the above unsigned post:

At the beginning of this section a number of well posed questions about the HE were asked in a very straightforward way. Instead of your off topic response why don't you just answer the questions? If you have the verified data why don't you post it. I have looked at the Hutchison web site and the links it contains. There is nothing there to support ANY of the claims being made.

In science an experiment is conducted to test a theory. If the results support the theory a paper is published citing the theory, the steps of the experiment undertaken to prove the theory (with controls if necessary), the observed results of the experiment and finally the conclusions based upon the observed results. This paper is then published in a relevant major journal such as science, nature or the like. At this point the article is available to the public at large and more importantly to the scientific community. Only after this last stage, assuming that the majority of those qualified have agreed on it's viability through independent testing, should the theory be deemed valid and claims be made. Even at this stage later investigation can always change or even negate the theory if new facts to support such an outcome are found.

Wikipedia is not an amateurs forum for anyone to use as a "look at what I did" billboard. It contains information that has been vetted by a world wide group of experts and laymen who are sharing the goal of being a reliable, up to date, and fully supportable compendium of facts. Articles like HE, which lack valid references, create doubt about the other content on Wiki and as such cannot be allowed to remain. Allowing that would create a lack of credibility concerning the rest of the articles in WP which is surely something we can all agree that no one wants. comment added by: Cmin7b5 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A bill board eh? NOT! childish edits. Who is the fool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.97.251 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to the above unsigned post:

Man are you immature or what? And once again you are off topic.

Who is the fool?

Thomas Burch McMorran is my name, why don't you post yours for a change. Still don't want to respond to any of the reasonable questions posted by me and the other people on this page eh? Why not I wonder? Cmin7b5 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I tried to clean up the article, which was badly organized and dreadfully written. This wound up taking much too much time and I have given up in disgust without finishing.

I suggest that future editors keep some points in mind. This topic seems to attract tellers of tall tales, so it is important to provide all information needed by a skeptical reader to evaluate the reliability of each claim made in the article. For example:

  1. don't just link uncritically to websites without providing any information at all about them (see how I tried to provide some context in the current version for the websites mentioned in the external links),
  2. don't paste in images of unknown provenance (people have pasted in an alleged still "from a TV show" and a photograph from God knows where without any explanation even in the image history page).
  3. try to keep the information organized in reasonable, well balanced sections.
  4. try to use a uniform style (e.g. I adopted the {{quotation|QUOTE|AUTHOR}} template for both quotations in the article).

And so forth, hopefully you get the idea.---CH 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the images. What info do you want about them? — Omegatron 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm the only one who has done the research nessecary to know fact from fiction, also I know what can be proven and what is alleged, I also keep the most exhastive non- government record of every video, or piece of info on this effect then it seems up to me to make these changes. John himself is going to give me background of the photos. John Hutchison is aware of all of the claims and such surrounding him, however, he is more than a little put out to find a "supposed neutral" spat of unverified out dated info here. Double negatives all the way through it. This is very un neutral. An opposing view was offered by someone who found "Tim Ventura" on some supposed open to the public call your self what ever you want blog. This person contradicts everything he said in the public blog in an earilier article he wrote on the american antigravity site in the first 5 lines of the article. Nothing is being verified. Fine read this then read the blog. Search hutchison effect on that same site and fing independent march 2006 video of John reproducing the effect. I am going to carve this article into a nuetral truth and until you check your facts, dont change anything to what you cant verify! As i said on the other talk page, no one has even emailed him to clarify anything, times dates, nothing. No research worth making any of this public. Those who insist on being knowitalls without doing the reading are just discrediting themselves. Now there is some attention from other members, tow the line and do your research before you neutralise any more of my own efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs) (aka the shawcable.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC)
this statment is absolutly not permitted and or out dated!!!
Hutchison sells (for about one hundred fifty dollars each) videos illustrating his "effect", and has released some shorter video clips online.[1][2]
I suggest you do not contribute to the THEFT of John Hutchison's copywritten videos, you may with permission from John Hutchison and Peter Von Putkamer (Gryphon Productions) reference any of his videos from his website. All others are illegal infringments. John has given you permissions, do not over step. Here is the contact information to purchase any video, as I have said dozens of times already DO YOUR RESEARCH! http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Friends/Canada%20Gryphon%20Productions.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs) (aka the shawcable.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC)
Can you clarify the permission given for use of videos or images? In other words, what do you mean by "reference"? The pictures are currently being used under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law (called "fair dealing" in Canada) for criticism and comment, but it's always nice to have permission, too, if possible. — Omegatron 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as permission goes, John Hutchison would like you to reference his video's from his own site only, all of them are there. Any others that get created, we will update the list. this way John can explain to Peter Von Putkamer what the details are of his permission from John to provide links to use these copywritten videos here on this site. Peter goes after some of the sites you were referencing for illegally distributing those videos. This simplifies things for this site, and you don't need to worry about dead links when and if those pirates get cleaned up. John does give permission to this site to reference his video's for use and direct linking on this site. He says go ahead with the photos too. Neither are edited or altered in any way, just organised and compiled there. The press articles are copywritten by others as are the articles, we have no say over those and tread lightly ourselves, mostly provide links. Any number of persons affiliated with this site may email John for verification of these permissions if they choose to, and or any other facts as well.
70.71.3.193 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (aka the shawcable.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC)
Omegatron, about the images, I wanted reliable indication of who made the images, when, where, some indication of whether the person who took the images is associated with Hutchison, in general, anything bearing on credibility (or rather, incredibility) of these purported photos/videos. ---CH 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Shawcable.net anon, you say
  • As far as permission goes, John Hutchison would like you to reference his video's from his own site only. Can you clarify your relationship to John Hutchison, please?
  • John can explain to Peter Von Putkamer. Who is he and how is he involved in this?
  • Peter goes after some of the sites you were referencing for illegally distributing those videos. You seem to be concerned (on Hutchison's behalf) about some extra-Wikipedia financial dispute concerning something like copyrights. While I don't think that what you wrote here is a legal threat, to avoid future problems please be careful violating WP:NLT. In any case, note that linking to an external website is not a copyright infringement.---CH 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Media section", alleged copyright vio by external websites

I added clean up to the Media section ... this is NOT readable. --Jon Cates 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I will put a link to an html page that organizes it better and has links to some of the articles, same in the other section.
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs) (aka the shawcable.net anon; geolocated in Vancouver, BC)
Questions, questions:
  • John Hutchison and myself. So who are you? Do you have a financial relationship with Hutchison, perhaps? I think you should disclose that, if so.
  • I guarantee you I already have (done research, on what topic is not quite clear). The problem is that we doubt your credibility, reliability, independence, and judgement.
  • if you require and "proof" from us, detail your request. What on Earth do you think I have been doing in this page? Sheesh!
  • you can't quote 10 year old web material that almost predates computers. What on Earth are you talking about?
Shawcable.net anon, please take a breath and try to answer at least some of the questions I have asked you on this page. Your relationship to Hutchison would be a good place to start. TIA ---CH 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on Shawcable and Hutchison to provide the info needed to verify your claims. The only reason they are being disputed at all is because you have posted claims that are not supported by reliable, vetted data. You have failed to provide even the bare minimum of facts necessary to support the claims you have made otherwise people would not have a problem with your article. Either you do this or people will continue to shed light on the fraudulent nature of the HE claims! And once again you have failed to respond to the very excellent questions posted here, I think doing so would help eliminate much of the skepticism we all feel. Sheeeesh! Cmin7b5 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior of shawcable.net anon

Shawcable.net anon, you claimed somewhere above that you have "read the rules" (apparently meaning WP policy guides), but you seem to be violating several widely accepted norms of WP behavior. For example (in no particular order):

  • This edit line apparently addressing myself: "Cant read can you? Just another weird cult of wannabees who got picked on in school. Where is your verification fool?" Similarly, this edit line in Talk:John Hutchison, also apparently addressing myself: "screw with someone elses research you jealous moron." This line in Talk:John Hutchison: "Do some reading you Jerk.". Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
  • "All others are illegal infringments. John has given you permissions, do not over step." This is edging closer to making a legal threat.
  • Apparent violation of WP:3RR in John Hutchison.

Contrary to what you said someplace above, WP is not defenceless and these rules are not entirely unenforceable. Your account and your IP could very well be blocked, for example, if you behave badly. Please try to play nice, OK? ---CH 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegedly", yadda, yadda, yadda

Omegatron, I don't disagree that all those usages of "allegedly" are distracting, although not as distracting as all the {{fact}} templates I was using at one point. I was struck the quite amazing number of specific claims which our anon had made in the article, apparently without any recognition of just how bizarre and dubious they appear. Anyway, you are probably right that after the first few "allegedlies", most readers will get the point :-/

Yeah, it kind of falls under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If we're going to say "allegedly" we really need to say who is alleging it. — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One specific point though: in the caption I wrote Purported photograph of a butter knife embedded in, allegedly, a metal plate. because who the heck knows what the photograph really shows? Perhaps a piece of wood painted silver? ---CH 04:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by "purported"? "It's purported to be a photograph of a butter knife embedded in metal, but who knows what it is"? — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmin7b5 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Double Standard?

you dont have to follow any of your rules do you? nor do you have to read any of the links I already put? I dont want to exchange banter, thats why I left links. You are violating copywrite for the videos by making claims that he is selling these videos for a hundred and fifty. The permissions given to you have been re considered. Peter Von Putkamer is the only one who has a business relationship re: media, videos. I never made a cent Re: Hutchison, nor will I. in otherwords no one is paying me to put up with this. Peter does not go after everyone who violates copywrite, just those foolish sites with money, perhapse this one makes enough to qualify. As for who I am... where, yep Vancouver, dynamic ip: google wardriving. If I decide to make an issue of this revert war, there are more available ips than i could list. I dont want fame, or money, just the truth. Who I am is none of your business. The truth could have been objectivly outlined here, but small mindedness prevails here. Go ahead and spit on someone who tried to take on the oil companies and was debunked discredited and ripped off royaly because he would not weaponise his tech. I told him already this planet is run by appethetic egomaniac warmongers. This planet will go down in flames before anyone will see it coming. You are without any credibility. No one here has followed the links I already left.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.193 (talk • contribs) The shawcable.net anon near Vancouver, BC 11:31, 29 April 2006

You are violating copywrite for the videos by making claims that he is selling these videos for a hundred and fifty.

We certainly are not.
Perhaps you misunderstand that quote and think that we are selling copies of the videos. We aren't. We're linking to a website which gives instructions on how to write to Hutchison himself and order the videos from Hutchison's home address. There's no way that that site is violating copyright by sending people to Hutchison's home address, and there's no way we're violating copyright by linking to that site. — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Who I am is none of your business.

Agreed. I'm certainly curious, but everyone has the right to contribute anonymously here.
(Though note that editing under your IP gives away some of your personal information. Editing under a user name is more anonymous, as I pointed out on your talk page.) — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If I decide to make an issue of this revert war, there are more available ips than i could list.

Is that a vandalism threat? Keep in mind that your IP and the time you were assigned it is public knowledge and website defacement is illegal. — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The truth could have been objectivly outlined here, but small mindedness prevails here.

Wikipedia doesn't deal in "Truth"; only in objective, verifiable facts (which is the closest we can get to Absolute Truth in a neutral way). See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
This "truth" will be objectively outlined here, with or without your help. If you calm down and contribute according to our rules, some of your contributions will likely remain in the article forever. If you choose to ignore our policies, make personal attacks, and trample over our edits, you will be banned, and the article will be written without any input from you at all. You're very close to being banned. Take your pick. — Omegatron 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am still trying to locate a tiny piece of common ground with our self-described Vancouver, BC "wardriver" 70.71.3.193 (talk · contribs), aka the shawcable.net anon, apparently aka Starski (talk · contribs), as in Starsky and Hutch--- is it any wonder some of us suspect that, despite his strenuous disavowals, he might be in some kind of partnership with Hutchinson?
Be this as it may, if I might offer some good advice to the shawcable.net anon: don't let your apparent hatred of "Big Oil", "military intelligence", the militarization of technology, and so forth, distract you from the real question here: does Hutchinson's alleged device work as he claims? Framed like that, you should see what the answer is. Don't be discouraged, for it is only by focusing on genuine new technology--- new technology which has a chance of being developed to the point of being competitive with petroleum--- will we eventually be able to mitigate the many ills which flow from current dependence on oil. Fair enough? ---CH 05:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

anon,what you might have gotten wrong here is nobody will ever give you fame or money. in fact, someone who is too much of a coward to tell people who he is and has to wardrive (you biiiig hacker,i am amazed,just a hand full of people on this planet are capable of that!congratulations!!)to post a comment for some inventor who isnt taken serious by any real scientist and never will be, just does not deserve the truth as you like to call it. but i have to admit, i think the warmongers will lead us to the end sooner or later but not because some inventor did not get recognition for coming up with a more than questionable theory which he could not even reproduce.. 82.82.167.216 (talk · contribs) the arcor-ip.net anon (Arcor AG & Co.KG; geolocated near Bochum, Westphalia, Germany)

so,greetz from nowhere and noone
incognito isnt it?
---MindTrap (talk · contribs)

[edit] MISSING IMFORMATION I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE

I have been reviewing the articles at this site on John Hutchinson. What appears to be missing in importance is that the United States Government ASKED him to go to the US, and demonstrate his work, from the very beginning. Each time he set up his equipment, and waited until the "brass" appeared, the demonstations would inexplicabley fail. Back in Canada, reconstructing his apparatus, he discovered that his equipment was cleverly sabbotaged - obviously between the time he set it up and had it working in the US, and the day or so later, when the "brass" appeared. The fact that the U.S. Government asked him to ship all his equipment down in the first place, highlights the point that he had earned international "attention".

Other important information that is missing from the articles is the horrid treatment by the Canadian Government. His apartment was illegally entered on numerous occasions - neighbours saw not only clearly suited policemen, but groups of men in black suits carrying briefcases, and when John arrived home, he found that not only were things not missing or destroyed, but that the apartment was swept, cleaned, dishes washed and put away, and everything looking like there was a photographic session taken place, with the entire apartment " Picture Perfect ". Finally, there was the report that John's TONS of equipment was confiscated by the Canadian Government, and that there were GAG orders under threat of TREASON ( ie, all legals rights for complaint are revoked ) so that the illegal actions of the Canadian Government could not be viewed or accessed or commented on by anyone...

These events are more important by far than whether a photograph of a spoon is real or not, or who is violating who's copywrite, and other such trivia. The United States Government has issued a statement that they cannot duplicate John's experiments, indicating that John himself may ( in some wierd psycho-kinetic blah blah way) be PART of the experiment... ( ie., we can't do it, and no one else should bother trying ) What John needs is funding to boldly continue without jealous, dubious "help" from military and "government research interests ". He also needs a damned good lawyer who is able to deal with behind-the-scenes Governmet and Military "Men in Black".

A few hundred years from now, ( unless the governments erase his history ), he will be hailed as one of the new pioneers in the work he is doing. With Ed Witten's Stringy Universe, experiments at CERN's Large Hadride Collider, and similar breakthroughs, showing that the primitive scientific view of our universe is about to dramatically change, John Hutchinson is actively playing with dimensions and properties of " matter" that others are just now beginning to see in theoretical equations. John is probably making Military and Government agencies "nervous", since he is years ahead of their own laboratories.

I would like to see just ONE certified detail as to why the Canadian Government stole TONS of his equipment, and why they refuse to give it back. What is behind THIS aspect is far more important than the authenticity of a spoon, and other topics discussed repeatedly on this website.

I also notice that the " Scientific Community" whether it be the multi billion dollar funded Military machine, or the " International Established gurus of Physics and Science " remain distant, delivering little barbs or semi-humorous insults. Even articles on this website are loaded with " Purported "s etc. and cover only a tiny amount of information in a clearly biased format. All postive, celebrated achievements that John HAS clearly demonstrated, are missing entirely. There is a much bigger issue surrounding John, and his work, and this Social / Political / Military / Security "whatever" is the key to understanding how he is presently portrayed, and, ultimately, will determine his success in the future. ( For example, if he is gagged, and ordered by the Candian Government to cease and desist all activity on anti-gravity and altering dimensions etc. who would know? -- Moreover, who has the "right" to order such determinations? Is the Canadian Government acting on its own merit, or is it answering to the wishes of the U.S. Military Machine... I am Canadian, living in Canada, and the politicians I know, wouldn't know an "M " theory BRANE string if they sat on one. Why would they confiscate tons of John's Apparatus when they don't even know what it is? Clearly they are acting on " Someone's Advice ", and are gagging their actions to hide their ignorance - they cannot defend their actions since they have no idea what any of the science involved is about, in the slightest ! )

signed , robin -

Robin, what you wrote above reads like a science fiction conspiracy novel. Please stay on topic. If you have valid proof for any of the statements above please cite it. Cmin7b5 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Robindustygraves 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) robin_graves@yahoo.com Robindustygraves 05:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, at a time when John was just starting to get international attention. Like millions of interested people around the world, I am not John's friend or associate. Dozens of people I met in the Vancouver area all knew John, and told me that I should talk with him, since we have similar interests. I have been following the rather complex "string" of events surrounding the " Hutchinson Effects " for some time.

---206.80.249.37 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)robin_graves@yahoo.com, the totftds.ext.distributel.net anon (DISTRIBUTEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.; this machine is apparently geolocated near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, which of course does not contradict the admission by our anon that he resides in Vancouver)

I cleaned up your rant to get rid of all those accidental quotes - read the editing help next time - Leszek 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Gentle totftds.ext.distributel.net anon from Vancouver, you wrote:
  1. "the United States Government ASKED him to go to the US" and "U.S. Government asked him to ship all his equipment" and "the United States Government has issued a statement"; the U. S. Government is a rather big organization: can you be more specific and precisely what person/agency did all this asking and issuing? Similarly for "the Canadian government".
  2. "His apartment was illegally entered on numerous occasions - neighbours saw not only clearly suited policemen, but groups of men in black suits carrying briefcases, and when John arrived home, he found that not only were things not missing or destroyed, but that the apartment was swept, cleaned, dishes washed and put away, and everything looking like there was a photographic session taken place, with the entire apartment "Picture Perfect". So picture perfect implies someone surreptiously entered and photographed? You certainly have a distinctive style of reasoning :-/
In future, please sign your talk page comments (look at the top of this talk page for easy instructions)---CH 01:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for cleaning up the strange formatting that appeared in my finished version - I have no Idea where it came from.

I have been collecting information in files on The Hutchinson Effect, and will make better references when I get a chance to go through each article in question... Generally I have many more QUESTIONS than I do answers, since so many bizzare things have happened to John. As for the platoon of Men in Black, and the super cleaned apartment, I, and John, can only guess. If the place was trashed, the answer would be easy, but Cleaned? By men in Black suits with Briefcases? If anyone can speculate a better answer than a photo shoot, I would gladly add it to a very short list of explanations !

--- Robindustygraves (talk · contribs)

Actually, you should have typed ~~~~, but I am beginning to think you know that. May we presume that your new user name is a pun? If so, I don't think I get the point.---07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, Robin has clarified his "middle name" on his user talk page. ---CH 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Robin, regarding the wild claims of persecution above, please review WP:RS and note that anything added to the article should not accept such claims uncritically. ---CH 17:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to put this in context so you understand the dilemma that any naturally skeptical individual would be having right now. See, it seems that all of your claims are unverifiable. If mysterious "men in black" figures entered John's apartment than how can I verify this? Did John manage to get something published about this shortly after the time these events purportedly occured? Can this be verified by independant witnesses? Perhaps neighbors of John's at the time who claim to have seen these people What does this have to do with anything, BTW? Clearly something like this could be staged in the event of a hoax.

Uuuuuum just asking about the two things firstly the reproduceing of the effect is shown here at the end of this documentary http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8943205214784769158&q=free+energy the bit where he moves small things around on a tile on the floor. is that the hutchison effect or something he says is like the hutchison effect? go to 1:22:00 for the footage, he mentions piezo-electrical effect, so is this the hutchison effect or not? Robin

Hah. You can do that yourself with parts from Radio Shack. Piezoelectric crystals are the things that make your computer beep or that you use to generate ultrasound for ultrasonic cleaners, etc. If you put one under a hard surface and run it with an oscillator (like a sound card) at low frequencies, things will move around because of the vibrations.
Real scientists use the "slip-stick" effect of piezoelectric crystals to make motors and nano-scale robots and such.
It's so pathetic that he tries to technobabble that into some new effect that he discovered. No wonder no one pays attention to him. His "effects" are a painfully obvious hoax. — Omegatron 00:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So its as i thought, that the hutchison effect might just be ultrasonic levitation, and hes just doesnt realise it. thanks robin

The piezoelectric thing he shows is not levitation. He just put a bunch of objects on a solid surface and then vibrated the surface with the big cylindrical thing in the center. As the surface wiggles up and down, probably a few hundred times a second, the objects slip and stick, which causes them to move around.
As for the levitation, you can believe whatever you want, but it's obvious to me that most of his videos are just an upside-down camera taping objects falling from an electromagnet. The others, like the toy UFO, are very obviously held up by a string that he's pulling frantically to make it fly around.
But hey, there's a lot of money to be made from people who will believe anything. If you want to be one of those people, go for it. It's a pity because there are so many fascinating things happening in the real world of science, and we could use the minds of the intelligent people who get duped by this stuff and waste their brain power chasing after hoaxes. — Omegatron 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

actually the big thing at the center is moving around as well, its like omegatron said he is useing the thing hes pointing, which is peizo-electrical crystal[or something to move them with the same force used in acoustic levitation, i was thinking maybe the large levitations are a big version of acoustic levitation as i have seen some of the videos and an upside down booth and strings just dont cover it , like stuff floating sideways then stoping and changing direction, i dont think its a new law of physics or zero-point i think its just acoustic levitation caused by all his wacky equipment he cant use properly. Robin

I'd like to know which levitation videos you don't think can be explained by the booth or a string. I haven't seen any yet.
As for acoustic levitation, I don't know if it exists for macroscopic objects just sitting in the center of a room, and if it does exist, I'm sure it couldn't be done by accident. I am going to do some reading about it... — Omegatron 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the ultrasonic levitator manual here http://www.tec5hellma.com/Download/Literature/Documents/Systems/Manual_Levitator.pdf i read claims that it works in ambient air without a process chamber[see pages 10 and 11,] which means it works in any enviroment, not specific ones. http://otsuka-lab.ee.cit.nihon-u.ac.jp/ken2-e.html heres a few pics of it happening in normal enviroment on macroscopic objects, and further research here http://www.ia.csic.es/sea/revista/VOLXXXIII34/02.pdf claims it can lift upto 10 kilograms, and thats stable continuas levitation, not just flinging things about which wouldnt need a reflector and could happen by accident caused by all the peizo-electrical equipment he has going crazy at the high voltages he sets them at. isnt that what he was doing with the pointer and the plate of stuff? hope i have put in anough sources. as for the vids i cant explain watch this one it has stuff spinning and flying about and around 33 seconds in a plastic black box flys in screen then changes direction and leaves the screen on the left again, and in the bigging stuff flys past to fast to be on strings and goes down then up,so cant be upside down camera as something . http://www.hutchisoneffect.biz/Videos/ObjectFlying.html

Acoustic levitation in any setting of macro-objects seems to exist, at least acording to modern science, and access science.com claims that lifting something the size of table off the ground useing acoustic levitation is not inconceivable, http://www.accessscience.com/Encyclopedia/0/00/Est_006200_frameset.html?doi whether the hutchison effect utilises it however, still remains to be seen. Could i apply to write the entry for acoustic levitation? Robin

That's pretty awesome. You don't need to "apply" to write an article. Just start writing it! I would love to see an article on acoustic levitation. Try to focus on mainstream academia stuff, first, though. — Omegatron 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding a String

Why can't these hucksters ever figure out how to hide a string. Simple tricks have been used for years, even on low budget kids shows:

1) Film upside down so the string is at the bottom of the screen where people are not looking. 2) Make a set and film from below so the string is behind the object you're filming. 3) Film sideways so the string is hidden by the "smoke" of your rocketship model that, when viewed, looks like it's correctly shooting straight out from your "rocket ship" and isn't being effected by "gravity" that shouldn't be in "space".

sinewaveTalk   18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And have you seen a video of the Hutchison Effect with a string in it? Hackwrench 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to necessarily see it, ever seen the trick where people claim to be moving a cup with telekinesis, they put a string between both of their hands, a very thin string that's hard to see The snare 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's one of the toy UFO videos that used to be on americanantigravity. I think you can still find it on wayback machine. If you can't, you might be able to find someone who has a copy... — Omegatron 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Hutchison

The part that used "The Ultimate Hutchison", [1] used a statement in it that was said so that the writer could swat it down. As it was used in the context of the article, it was as if the statement had been made as a valid criticism. If it is to be readded, a source should be found that uses it in that context and refutes the criticism in the current text. Hackwrench 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this use of the reference. Please don't remove useful information from articles like this. — Omegatron 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove paragraph?

Another problem with Hutchison's effect is that many of the effects shown, such as the levitation and heating of objects, can be produced by other physically established laws, such as the Lorentz force and acoustic levitation (which uses ultrasonic waves to levitate objects of up to ten kilograms, and can work on any material, including water, wood, metal and stone) [3][4][5]

This is just original research. It hasn't been claimed by anyone but the Wikipedia editor who added it. I think it should be removed, but it's a borderline case. Thoughts? — Omegatron 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is original research which is a violation, plus the actual claim is unclear -- ie. refers to many of the effects shown, only mentioning heating and levitation that may account for other of the phenomena. Will remove the paragraph. Emiloz 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I think it should be titled the HE Hoax. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof Carl Sagan Cmin7b5 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Att: Serious Problems with this Article

There are needs and problems with/in this article:

1 There is plausible evidence that even if the 1980 videos were shot upside-down (which, though, is impossible in some cases where witnesses are seen in front of the levitations), 2006-footage shot independantly by Discovery Channel/TTV displays a non-disputable spontaneous levitation, shot during experiments of recreating the effects. This video, though, is copyrighted.

2 Copyrighted material from LA&V again displays evidence of the Hutchison Effect that cannot be debunked by means of the upside/down-camera explanation, and which is shot independantly by LA&V.

3 Even pieces of video released on the internet, also shot independantly, shows such evidence, but have not been referenced.

4 The article references only quotes from persons with a skeptical contra point of view, and does not represent the pro point of view (other then in external links) which disrupts the balance and disputes the neutrality of the article. Even though there are links to pro-Hutchison sites, the article labels it pseudoscience and AAG folklore.

5 There are other similar problems with the article that imbalances the neutrality. For an example, some established facts are ignored and labeled "claims", such as the fact that Hutchison has worked with BPP and highrank military specialists who have witnessed the anamolous phenomena (for this case, documented on both interviews with the military specialists, letters and video). Another example is the fact that the Max Planck institute has been unable to explain molecular structural (and even elemental) mutations in samples from H-Effect-inducted material, and meltings at low temperatures, which isnt even mentioned, only a claim that Max Planck Institute couldnt reproduce the H-Effect from the John Hutchison article. Yet another example is how the article states that Hutchison "claims" that he has reproduced the H-effect in year 2006, "promoted" by video material - even if the H-effect was insignificant or fakery, the fact that he has reproduced it in year 2006 is established, both by the mentioned video material, but also by other nonmentioned video material.

6 The article doesnt directly mention it, but generally labels the H-effect and AAG as folklore and pseudoscience (also by means of category), which is the skeptical POV again being represented, even in form of alleged (by the article) factual establishment.

I hope that you are willing to cooperate in cleaning this article up and getting the facts straight with a NPOV and balanced representation of the different POVs.

Another problem is that my edits, removing disinformation, keep getting reverted by Omegatron and others.

Emiloz 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1a: What witnesses?
1b: The 2006 video is already in the article.
2: The toy UFO on a string can't be debunked with an upside down camera, either. It was on a string. There are a million ways to hoax an antigravity video.
3, 4 and 5: So reference them.
6: They are pseudoscience and hoaxes.
Your edits are only being reverted when they're harmful to the neutrality and credibility of the encyclopedia. Please try to cooperate and edit in a neutral way without damaging the article. — Omegatron 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1a: Witnesses of the 1980 shootings
1b: Yes but the article claims otherwise, that the effects have not been reproduced since 1991 which is false
2: What does that have to do with problem 2?
3,4,5: To the extent possible, I will, but problem 2 is the core of this - copyrighted content is forbidden on wikipedia so it is very limited what I can prove.
6: See thats the problem, you have clearly not understood wikipedia or the term neutrality.. Thats YOUR oppinion, NOT neccesarrily the truth and if thats what you are dictating in this article, of course it is not neutral.
My edits contribute to the neutrality, because your edits are subjective and not neutral, that is reflectd in your problem 6 answer where you make a subjective claim that damages the neutrality.
Emiloz 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1a: What witnesses of the 1980s shootings? Names? Citations? References? Claims? Any evidence whatsoever? You can't just put ridiculous things in the article without any evidence.
1b: The effects have never actually been produced. It's a hoax. All of his claims of reproduction are right in the article, though, including 2006. Please try reading it before editing it again.
2: Exactly.
3,4,5: Copyrighted content is forbidden?? What does that have to do with adding references? What are you talking about? — Omegatron 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Once it can be reproduced by independent experimenters under controlled conditions John Hutchinson will gets his Nobel prize and Wikipedia will change this article. Until this happens, the Hutchinson effect has to be portrayed as nonsense. --Pjacobi 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That wont happen as long as thats the attitude - the majority of all scientists except for military specialists are skeptical and debunks H-effect as pseudoscience, resulting in refusing even to contact him in order to attempt to independently recreating the H-effect. Until then, its a matter of evidence, and what you can conclude from that - not half the pro evidence is displayed here on this article. Emiloz 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1a: Video evidence
1b: Thats a claim, and we arent discussing our personal oppinions here. And if you really believe its false, then a reproduction of the false effect, would still be a very reproduction.
2: ?
3,4,5: References to illegal copyrighted video material on the internet = copyright violation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emiloz (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC).


Video evidence

Video evidence? Of? What are you talking about? You claimed that there are witnesses to the recording of the videos, and it wasn't just John and friends faking them. Can you provide any evidence of witnesses?

And if you really believe its false, then a reproduction of the false effect, would still be a very reproduction.

Huh??

References to illegal copyrighted video material on the internet = copyright violation

That's patently absurd. How could you reference a copyrighted book? A copyrighted scientific paper? Of course you can reference copyrighted materials. You can even copy copyrighted materials, under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law. What does any of this have to do with you providing references for the wild claims you are making? — Omegatron 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to put the videos or images from the videos and they copyrighted, he can't. Wikipedia has a much stricter policy that international fair use law. See set of criteria Sucks, I know, that page also is very hard to understand, no wonder we need lawyers to make sense out of this crap The snare 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Video Evidence

Video Evidence of Army Specialist Statements

And if you really believe its false, then a reproduction of the false effect, would still be a very reproduction.

Read it again if you didnt understand

References to illegal copyrighted video material on the internet = copyright violation

I actually did make a such reference all though I said I wasnt going to do it. And what wild claims are you talking about? I simply claim that there is some evidence to the phenomenom, like respected journalist Nick Cook and Lockheed Martin Skunkworks thinks. But my claims are only a matter of what the sources suggest, not my personal oppinion. And I have provided enough sources for the statements I wanted in the article, so there is no real problem with it, only your apparent lack of agreement or personal satisfaction. 85.82.195.131 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but there are serious problems with this article. When we say references we are talking about independent, non-biased references. I have looked at everything you have posted here and elsewhere and there is nothing to support ANY of your claims. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not speculation and certainly not hoaxes like this. If you want to post it title it like this: "The Hutchison Effect Hoax".Cmin7b5 08:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)