river fails to support even one point of David LaPoint

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by river, Nov 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Who cares pad .

    What of his ideas ? thats what is important .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He's a quack riv! Just as that other fraudulent character that has convinced you of a nuclear war on Mars...and Von Daniken's fraudulent claims a couple of decades ago.....I mean these quacks feed off gullibility and impressionable excited people!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    You havn't watch the video pad .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I watched enough to confirm this guy is a fraud and why no information on him can be found, alluding to his credentials, qualifications and expertise.
    Sorry riv.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Ah .......

    Your just too religious pad.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, as usual, you fail to supply any support for what you claim and are just trolling again...simple as that.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-considered-the-primer-fields-as-a-solid-theory


    Jeremy Garrett, master's degree in physics, https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremy-garrett-b6665a97
    Written Sat

    What I found in a quick search suggests that it is not being taken very seriously. There are always a significant number of people who claim to have discovered something new about magnetic fields and/or ways to get limitless energy using magnets. A solid education in physics is a good way to understand what makes a theory an strong one or only an interesting one. Many of the claims of “new discoveries” are misunderstandings, many of the others are things that are only new to that particular scientist but which have been understood by other scientists for some time. A good guide for those outside of the particular specialty is this, “If it seems to good to be true, then it probably is.” That adage applies nicely to the “cold fusion” “discovery” from three decades ago that made front-page news all over the world. It also applies nicely to the “discovery” of cellphones causing cancer — someone with a single year of college physics or chemistry can thoroughly explain what cellphones can’t cause cancer.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread921117/pg21
    from the video:
    photon is concentration of energy, made up of many concentrations of energy, which are made of many concentrations of energy.....
    Translation:
    The Primer Field "Theory" is a bunch of nonsense, which is made of nonsense and supported by nonsense.

    In the last few days, I have been doing quite a bit of research on David and his theory.
    To try and answer your concerns about his identity, everything I can find suggests that he "just popped up" In 2008 when he filed for patent (www.google.com...) then only just recently (Jan, 2013) when all of this started.
    Here's my theory.
    If most, all, or even ANY of this is correct, then I can most certainly imagine a "whole bunch" of conspiracy theory type things that could possibly go on. Not one of which leave Mr. LaPoint in too good of shape at the end. (I'm guessing that the Federal Govt. saw this too.
    Because of this, I'm sure that the "David LaPoint" that we're getting to know is actually "Fredrichheimer Neussenbaum" of Suffolk, NJ

    (That was a joke!)
    Seriously though.
    Nobody just "popps up" in the world of social media anymore. It just doesn't happen.
    There's one other thing that lends credibility to all of this, (including the lack of credentials) and that is that I ALSO can not find any previous writings, publications, or even discussions related to ANY of this at all, EVER.
    Nobody has mentioned it over the years of his research, similar theory's, etc.
    AGAIN! Theory's like this do not just "come to you" without 1. Asking others questions. 2. Searching for supporting/defeating information. 3. Discussing or arguing topics related to the field with "SOMEONE"
    Since this started, David has spoken on Youtube (comments) and on F/B quite a bit. He seems to not have any real "shyness" issues. In fact, the times he has spoken, he gets right into it and even claims occasionally that he needs to quit talking and "get back to work."
    AGAIN. Sounds as if someone (???) has gone and cleaned up after him. (I. erased him, created David.
    Now. I know all of this COULD be reasons for someone to disbelieve all of this, (yea right-He's from some kind of movie! ) OR... one could even think..."Hey. perhaps the government sees some real promise to all of this and is doing what they can to protect him.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    If David LaPoint wants to post here on SciFo and make his assertions and defend them, he is welcome to.
    Until and unless he does - you, Riv, are the one bringing the argument here to SciFo. That puts the burden on you to explicitly make assertions and defend them.
    You are welcome to refer to the video for our clarification and edification, if you wish, but you can't fob off your responsibility as poster and claimant onto some video that we have to watch for your pleasure.

    As it stands, all we have is this:
    "Hey - I found a video I like!"
    "Hey - what about it?"
    "Well ... nothing, I guess ..."
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Until someone watches the entire video of primer 1 ( then 2 and 3) , then there is nothing to discuss.

    Any point I bring up , you will ask a question , I make a point , you will counter and on it goes .

    Take the time to watch the video , and then we can go point to point , I have no problem with this .
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    In his bowl shaped plasma experiment right at the very begining he showed how he got the Red Square Nebula , in his labratory experiments with plasma .
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    I heartily agree. There's nothing to discuss.

    This is not Google video. This is a discussion forum. LaPointe has not arrived to explain his ideas, and River isn't going to. Technically, this is spam - an ad for a video - not a discussion.

    Reporting thread for closure.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  15. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Look at the last post by me # 30
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    Sci Fo rules:
    Support your arguments with evidence.
    Do not expect members to do your homework for you.
    Banning risk: Spamming or advertising.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    Totally, and I showed right in my kitchen that an orange has superficially the same shape as the Earth (and is also made of molecules).
    I have posted a 55 minute video asserting that Earth may have ripened on a tree - and , if true, will revolutionize physics.
    But I'm not gonig to defend any of that here.

    You cannot refute my idea until you have watched my 55 minute video.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    The evidence that you want and others is in the video .

    As I said in my post #30 , he shows how his magnetic bowls , with plasma , produces the Red Square Nebula .

    If you don't watch the video , fine , but what is argument that he could not produce the Red Square Nebula as he has ?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    What is the argument that he could? The onus is on you.

    Now, about my 'Earth ripened on a tree' theory...
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    HE shows how he did so in his , video
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    So, confirmed. No discussion here.

    Well this is a discussion board, so...

    I guess you're OK with closing the thread then?
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    If this thread is closed means that I have supported David on one point .

    Which I have .
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,452
    Apparently, nobody wants to discuss this David LaPoint guy or the video. So, thread closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page