• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Laternentrager

Status
Not open for further replies.

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Website
www.military-power.net
Ok. "The Bell" was a German secret project code named "Laternentrager" or "lantern holder". It's other code name was "Chronos". The Bell was made of a hard heavy metal and was filled with a mercury like substance that was violet in color, code named "Xerum 525". The Xerum 525 was stored in a meter tall thermos flask encased in three centimeters of lead (possibly the Xerum 525 was radioactive?). Also used were thorium and beryllium peroxides.
"The Bell" was an experiment with torsion fields. All spinning objects create torsion fields to some extent, the trick is to get a big enough torsion field to get a large enough torsion field to study. Theory says that if you can generate a torsion field of sufficient magnitude you can bend the four dimensions of space around the generating object. The more torsion you generate, the more space you disturb, and when you bend space, you also bent time. "Chronos" They were trying to build a time machine???
The tests involved placing various plants and animals within the Bell's influence. Almost all of them were destroyed: "A crystalline substance formed within the tissues, destroying them from the inside; liquids, including blood, gelled and separated into clearly distilled fractions." The plants lost their color very rapidly and apparently "decomposed" into a substance with the consistency of axle grease. People in the program also suffered from "sleep problems, loss of memory and balance, muscle spasms and a permanent unpleasant taste in the mouth." Many of the scientists even died as a result of their exposure to the activated Bell.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,174
Reaction score
1,382
Dear KnightTemplar - I really think that we must separate sci-fi from reality. "Laternentrager" is from the first category, so this forum is not quite right place for it.
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
118
Website
theavgeeks.com
Hey that was in that last Star Trek movie! The bad guy rotted out practically the entire Romulan Senate with some green energy field.

Yeah, that's what came to mind. Rot rays!!
 

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Website
www.military-power.net
flateric said:
Dear KnightTemplar - I really think that we must separate sci-fi from reality. "Laternentrager" is from the first category, so this forum is not quite right place for it.

I do not wish to come across as rude, but might I ask why you think this? There is, while I won't say considerable, at least enough information on the web, and even some from respectable sources on this. Also, the place I first heard about it was a book written by an individual who has considerable credibility, Nick Cook. Please explain why I should believe that all of these people, including some reputable sources, are just writing sci-fi or flat out lying?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,973
Reaction score
5,288
KnightTemplar, please read for example this review of Nick Cook's Hunt for Zero Point.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/index.html

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, but this is the place for off-topic discussions so...
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
118
Website
theavgeeks.com
overscan said:
KnightTemplar, please read for example this review of Nick Cook's Hunt for Zero Point.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/index.html

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, but this is the place for off-topic discussions so...
Great article, Paul. Thanks for linking to it!

Thought this was a nice "bottom line" on Cook's book:

In the end, Cook's argument boils down to the old proverb he invokes several times -- Where there's smoke there must be fire. But sometimes, someone's just blowing smoke.
 

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Website
www.military-power.net
Well, I can tell, from the comments I have received from this thread, that my "outside the box" thinking is not welcome here and probably would be best at a site other than this one. Though I would like to leave you with a few things to ponder....

First, conspiracy theories. I wouldn't consider myself a "conspiracy theorist". I don't think that the government is engaging in mind control and is responsible for 9-11, I don't think the Queen of England is a reptilian, I don't believe in aliens, and I think that the New World Order stuff is a lot of bull. However, I do believe that the government isn't going to tell the average person about their best technology, (they would be stupid to) and if someone theorizes on the existence of said technology I do believe they would do whatever they could to keep it quiet. For example, if you worked on some top secret project (as some people on this forum have/are) and someone theorizes on something that is a major component of the project and is "Top Secret" are you going to come out and openly say, "you are right" and compromise the project? No. You would do everything you could to discredit the individual so that no one believed what they said, and probably even give some excuses, lame as they may be, as to why that couldn't be the case. So, is it so far fetched that there are "conspiracies" about "Black Projects"?

Second, pseudoscience. As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Beyond the initial introductory analyzes offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way. As far as "classified" information goes, the science behind it will always be "pseudoscience" as long as the information is classified because, going back to the conspiracy theory portion of my post, those who are experts in the science behind it would be sworn to secrecy and you wouldn't be able to get your "testability requirement" satisfied. Some criticisms that lead to the accusation of pseudoscience are also true to some extent of some new genuinely scientific work. These include:
* claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results
* claims which contradict experimentally established results
* work failing to operate on standard definitions of concepts
* emotion-based resistance, by the scientific community, to new claims or theories
The last of those is definitely true of anti-gravity, gravity shielding, electrogravitics, or whatever you want to call it. Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and, at least as it relates here, I tend to believe him. For this section I would like to leave you with the following things to ponder. First, "science" is often wrong. Case and point, "the world is flat", "the Earth is at the center of the galaxy and everything revolves around us", and "Earth's atmosphere is too dense for meteors to penetrate" just to name a few. Second, many things regarded today as "Science" should be classified as "pseudoscience", case and point, There is no physical evidence that gravity is proportional to, and therefore a property of mass. There is no way to prove that an object will move in a straight line unless a force acts on it to change that motion and, in fact, nothing moves in straight lines. The historic swirling mass of gas claimed to impart its motion to matter in the solar system and therefore account for the rotation and orbiting of planets is just an ad hoc fantasy that fails to explain any of the chaotic movement that is the solar system, and the off-the-wall assertion that chaos provides the solar system with the stability it needs if it were formed out of a swirling mass of gas is as nonsensical as the unfounded belief that particles that repel each other hold matter together. Even the measurable facts Empirical Science claims as validation are opposed by measurements in physical reality. Light, which can be physically measured to diminish out of existence with distance on Earth travels forever in space so that we can see stars at the end of the universe and the beginning of time. Objects, which come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them on Earth are claimed to move without current force in space. Energy is always consumed on Earth but gravity, which forces objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, is not used up when it bends the straight-line motion of the planets into circular motion. Momentum, which is always overcome by gravity on Earth is not affected by gravity in space allowing planets in space to be bent into perpetual circular orbits. In putting numbers to things, Empirical Science can only approximate the stars in galaxies and the atoms in matter in the billions, but can tell with precise accuracy the number of electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atom of any element. It uses parallax measurements to determine interstellar distances when the errors that have to be taken into consideration to compute the measurements exceed the measurements themselves.

Third, and finally, I would like to ask what the purpose of this forum is other than to consolidate information that is scattered around the internet and other books and, with a little bit of research, one could find without resorting to this forum? It seems a little, I won't say hypocritical because that is a little strong but how about, inconsistent, that you would so easily dismiss this because, from your own source, "we're bombarded with a hodgepodge of information trawled up from the Internet, other books and UFO and anti-gravity enthusiasts, along with some firsthand reporting" when this site itself is solely "a hodgepodge of information trawled up from the Internet, other books and secret project enthusiasts, along with some firsthand reporting."

I have been told that several people here have come here from ATS. I think you can go from one extreme to the other, which is what I personally believe has happened here. ATS is of the extreme that anything goes and the world is a big conspiracy so say whatever you think and it is even better if there is some fact that can be twisted to support your case. I believe this site has reached the other, equally horrible extreme, where theorizing and posting your thoughts or the thoughts of others that coincide with your own are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and just plain science fiction if the information doesn't fall int the realm of "common knowledge" I know that this probably makes me seem like a "nut case" or "crackpot" to probably everyone here, and that is fine with me, I really don't care anymore. And in conclusion, I'll leave you with the following to consider.

Disinformation works best when mixed in with a little truth.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,973
Reaction score
5,288
KnightTemplar, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to cite your sources. What is your evidence for the existence of this project? Have you seen primary source materials, or are you basing your assertion on a website or a book? Simply stating -

"The Bell" was a German secret project code named "Laternentrager" or "lantern holder".

does not allow anyone to judge the information you present. How should I trust that this project existed? Should I accept your word?

If you can answer these questions, then we can investigate these sources and come to our own conclusions about this topic.
 

Andreas Parsch

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
246
Reaction score
21
Maybe I shouldn't answer to this drivel, and wait until you go back to ATS (where they'll love your talk), but still...

KnightTemplar said:
* emotion-based resistance, by the scientific community, to new claims or theories
I'm a physicist by education, and I can only say that this is complete nonsense. Every scientist's dream is it to come up with revolutionary new theories! You get a Nobel Prize, international attention etc.

... There is no physical evidence that gravity is proportional to, and therefore a property of mass.
With all due respect, and I apologize to everyone else here for my choice of word, but this is absolute bullshit! :mad:

There is no way to prove that an object will move in a straight line unless a force acts on it to change that motion and, in fact, nothing moves in straight lines. The historic swirling mass of gas claimed to impart its motion to matter in the solar system and therefore account for the rotation and orbiting of planets is just an ad hoc fantasy that fails to explain any of the chaotic movement that is the solar system, and the off-the-wall assertion that chaos provides the solar system with the stability it needs if it were formed out of a swirling mass of gas is as nonsensical as the unfounded belief that particles that repel each other hold matter together. Even the measurable facts Empirical Science claims as validation are opposed by measurements in physical reality. Light, which can be physically measured to diminish out of existence with distance on Earth travels forever in space so that we can see stars at the end of the universe and the beginning of time. Objects, which come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them on Earth are claimed to move without current force in space. Energy is always consumed on Earth but gravity, which forces objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, is not used up when it bends the straight-line motion of the planets into circular motion. Momentum, which is always overcome by gravity on Earth is not affected by gravity in space allowing planets in space to be bent into perpetual circular orbits. In putting numbers to things, Empirical Science can only approximate the stars in galaxies and the atoms in matter in the billions, but can tell with precise accuracy the number of electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atom of any element. It uses parallax measurements to determine interstellar distances when the errors that have to be taken into consideration to compute the measurements exceed the measurements themselves.
And this looks like one of those spam e-mails, which are automatically generated using an algorithm which mixes keywords from a single area (in your case: physics and astronomy) with some grammatical glue to create a text which looks at first glance like one written by a human being.

... And in conclusion, I'll leave you ...

That's perfectly fine with me ;D! Have a nice day!
 

KnightTemplar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
Website
www.military-power.net
overscan said:
KnightTemplar, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to cite your sources. What is your evidence for the existence of this project? Have you seen primary source materials, or are you basing your assertion on a website or a book? Simply stating -

"The Bell" was a German secret project code named "Laternentrager" or "lantern holder".

does not allow anyone to judge the information you present. How should I trust that this project existed? Should I accept your word?

If you can answer these questions, then we can investigate these sources and come to our own conclusions about this topic.

I did, at least in my second post where I stated I heard this from "a book written by an individual who has considerable credibility, Nick Cook" though I admit I didn't state the name of the book, you obviously realized which one I was referring to by your next post linking to a review of Nick Cook's Hunt for Zero Point.

I'm sorry if I don't take the opinions of a man who has written such articles with titles such as "Most scientific papers are probably wrong" and "Marijuana Might Cause New Cell Growth in the Brain" and for whom I cant find any more information on than that he is a free-lance writer who lives in Baltimore over someone who has been associated with Jane's Defense Weekly for a number of years as Aviation Editor and currently as Aerospace Consultant, has won four writing awards from the Royal Aeronautical Society, is widely regarded as an expert on military "black projects", and who adopts a non-judgmental stance when interviewing subjects who clearly believe in UFOs, alien contact, conspiracy theories, and other unusual phenomena and as a result, cannot be classified as either a skeptic or a believer. The last of which I feel more people could try to emulate, even if they personally are a skeptic or a believer.

As for you Andreas Parsch, it was the people like you (arrogant, pretentious, and having to resort to attacking the individual who made comments they don't like rather than proving the comments incorrect) that drove me away from ATS (and hey, if that is the atmosphere you want to create here that is up to the Admins and Mods), but, I was apparently under the false assumption that this site would be different (just to be clear, I don't blame the site staff, all forums have their "bad apples"). As for my comments being wrong and me "using algorithms", if so, PROVE them wrong (if you really are a physicist as you claim to be, AND they truly are false as you claim, it should be no problem for you, but I postulate that you can't because, though it may very well be the case, the very principles behind them are unprovable, which was my point to begin with). And, as for my "emotion-based resistance, by the scientific community, to new claims or theories" comment you so wonderfully took out of context, I am not saying that every scientist resists all new claims and theories, but that even the mere mention of "anti-gravity" in scientific circles almost always immediately puts you into the "crackpot" category.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,250
Reaction score
1,910
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Andreas Parsch said:
Every scientist's dream is it to come up with revolutionary new theories! You get a Nobel Prize, international attention etc.

Indeed so. Some years ago I worked for a tiny aerospace company on some advanced projects... and as a result every nut with a warp drive would bombard me with their half-baked notions. I'd *love* for them to be true. They never were. Similarly, a common "Creationist" arguement is that scientists are "religious" about maintaining the "dogma" about Darwinian evolution. Couldn't be further from the truth... proving that evolution is bunk would garner the scientist a Nobel prize and ensure his name lives forever.




With all due respect, and I apologize to everyone else here for my choice of word, but this is absolute bullshit! :mad:

In my five volumes worth of APR, I tried hard to not write the way I speak (I use considerable slang and *lots* of expletives). Tried to keep in professional. But in my last issue, I dealt with the notion of "Nazi flying saucers." IIRC, I used "bullshit" twice when describing the idea. Sometimes... the blunk approach is the right one.


And this looks like one of those spam e-mails, which are automatically generated using an algorithm which mixes keywords from a single area (in your case: physics and astronomy) with some grammatical glue to create a text which looks at first glance like one written by a human being.

Are you looking for Natural Male Enhancement???
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
596
Reaction score
118
Website
theavgeeks.com
"Hi, I'm Chief Mbembele of a smal tribe on the Nigerian coast. I have come into a considerable sum of money through means I cannot discuss at this point but wish to share with you the fruits of this wealth....."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top