...

View Full Version : The Hutchison Effect



Arctic Fox
07-12-2003, 12:21 AM
Does anyone here have any first-hand information about this?

I've googled this till my eyes are about to pop out...

Brain... needs more... information... :eek:

Graeme Hackston
07-12-2003, 01:36 PM
I've never heard of this so I googled it. Now I don't know what to make of it.

It would be easy to write this off as a hoax. Having said that I do know that the Canadian government has a history of shutting down technical innovation. The Avro Arrow is a shining example of this.

http://archives.cbc.ca/300c.asp?id=1-75-275

I have a bit of history with aviation, my father is an aircraft engineer. He worked for a couple of years in the same complex where the Arrow was developed 5 years after the project was terminated.

Many believe the Arrow was destroyed because of pressures from the American government. At the time the cold war was nearing its peak. It's not much of a stretch to believe that the US would have seen the production of possibly the worlds fastest interceptor in such a multi-cultural and unguarded place as Toronto as a security risk. Maybe Mr. Hutchisons experiments are the victim of similar pressures.

At any rate it is interesting, thanks for enlightening me.

raf
07-12-2003, 02:27 PM
Go to home.37.com and type in "hutchinson effect"

You'll get more info then you'd like on it.

Or visit The Masters Site
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/main.html

Ben@WEBProp
07-18-2003, 10:03 PM
I have only read about 1/2 this article, but wouldn't it be possible to levitate a man with this effect? Or not?

The more I think about the intermixing properties with the disregard of Van Der Waals forces, the more I can imaging that by imparting this phenomena on a human with clothes, his/her clothes would intermix with the person's skin. Depending on the penetration amount of the forces, cells from all areas of the body would intermix...not to mention the fact that the lysosomic materials in cells would end up outside of their membranes and when the forces were turned off (assuming that there are no reactions between materials as they are passed by eachother) you would end up with a pile of randomly mixed body cells that are dissolving because of the digestive acids and lysosmic materials that have come in contact with materials outside of their membranes.

Would this theory be correct? Or is it just a Friday?

-Ben

bradyj
07-18-2003, 10:21 PM
I read a little about this in Physics, and it's an interesting theory to note, and worth watching as progress goes, but not:
'the phenomena are difficult to reproduce with
any regularity. The focus for the future, then, is first to
increase the frequency of occurence of the effects, then to
achieve some degree of precision in their control.'

The logic we studied for this was the Zero Kelvin, or Zero Point Energy as it said in the article. Where atoms are constantly jittering around, if they were to ever be 'cooled' at Zero Kelvin, You would essentially have a piece of matter that contains no, or little form... It could turn to playdo or silly string, or liquid or gas, no one knows. I do not know how the whole effect fits into this theory, though -- but it's a darn good read!

As for everyting else, there is a lot of Conspiracy and a lot of legend in it that I know of. Conspiracy is not necessarily a lie, it was built from somewhere, and governments have been known to halt certian knowledge, control technology, and do hidden experiments, for example:
Nazi Germany Experimentation
US bio-chemical testing (which happened in New York and San Francisco -- the CIA, in doing testing for biochemical warfare, launched a Navy vessel some five miles off San Franicsco and released a 'flu like illness', some 5000 viruses per person, and aimed it at the SF public. Three people died. In New York, the same illness was set in lightbulbs in the NY Subway. No deaths. Military trials were held on the event in 1999, and the outcome is deemed 'not public knowledge'. But it did get a little CNN airtime).
Clone-ing (still technology, and aggressively fought to be held within moral guidelines)

So, yeah, it could be true. And yeah, they could try to hunt them down and hush it up. Government has done that for years on end, so to speak:D

As an example of other government misuse of power, check out:
http://www.ufomind.com/misc/1998/aug/d04-001.shtml

Area 51, the top secret US Air Force base with a legacy of supposed aliens, was brought up in a lawsuit. The civilian employees were exposed to certain chemicals when they burned nuclear waste in dumps, in the desert -- certain skin ailments and what not. The US government denied the existence of the base until finally Bill Clinton came into office, now they will not admit anything that went on, the lawyer handling the case is required to work alone, and everyone says it didn't happen, but it's on tape and there's common knowledge about it.

Ben@WEBProp
07-18-2003, 11:08 PM
In thinking in terms of wavelengths, frequency, and that whole bit, do you think that an object cooled to 0 Kelvin would be just a black mass? As you know, light being reflected off of objects that hits our eyes within the color spectrum is then interpreted by our brains as that color. Remembering that at Absolute 0 no molecules move, would that give the notion that no light is being reflected? Would that then result as a black mass, or an invisible mass?

Opinions?

-Ben

Graeme Hackston
07-19-2003, 12:50 AM
Ben@WEBProp I'm not following you. If I remember correctly K is the measure of temperatures of a pure black radiator being heated. Red is cold and bright blue is hot. Before it's heated the black reflects no light. Wouldn't 0 Kelvin just be the radiator unheated?

Or am I missing your direction entirely?

Ben@WEBProp
07-22-2003, 12:25 AM
Well, you got part of it.

What I am saying is that if an object was cooled to 0 Kelvin, then it would it be pure black because it reflects no light? Or would it be rendered "invisible" due to the fact that the light that hits it would be at 0K and not moving? The area that is at 0K would be frozen in time, potentially.

Then for that matter, 0 K would be impossible to reach. 0.00001 wouldn't, but absolute 0 would. As light hits the 0K object, energy is transfered (that is, if the collision-theory is correct) to the object. So then the object would have to be constantly cooled. Even if you could constantly cool an object, more and more photons, subatomic particles, and gas molecules would be hitting the 0K object and they themselves would become 0K for the object to remain at 0K (because it is being constantly cooled). Still with me?

Ok, so wouldn't you end up with a super-dense mass once the absolute 0 wore off? Also, wouldn't you get an ever expanding radius of absolute 0? Either reaching 0K would freeze the universe or create a black hole...I think.

Of course this is all personal theory and speculation...I'm only a college freshman and all of this just came out while I was thinking. So don't say I qouted from anyone or anything like that.

Thoughts?

-Ben

Veneficus
07-22-2003, 10:11 AM
Interesting theory, Ben@webprop. You might want to check out SPACE.com where I read an article recently about a group of scientists that actually did cause light to stop and then restart. I don't think it was a matter of 0 kelvin temperature, but I could be mistaken.

Ben@WEBProp
07-22-2003, 06:20 PM
Ven-do you have the exact link? I spent a couple minutes looking around and found nothing.

raf
07-22-2003, 08:06 PM
g
n

Veneficus
07-23-2003, 09:51 AM
Here's the link, Ben.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/lightstop_010119.html

Roy Sinclair
07-23-2003, 06:04 PM
If you cooled something to 0K it wouldn't be visible because it would no longer emit any radiation. Shining a light on it would allow it to absorb some of that light energy so it'd no longer be at 0K.

Ben@WEBProp
07-23-2003, 09:22 PM
Although an object at Absoulute 0 would emit no radiation, we do not see the radiation that comes off an object, we see the light that is reflected off of it. But you do agree that 0K should be impossible to achieve because energy from photons and other types of radiation would hit the object and transfer energy...right?

Any other theories? Like the development of a black hole?

raf
07-24-2003, 02:01 AM
0 K is very well possible.

The second law of thermodynamics state that there is a constant increase of entrophy. So there is a constant decrease of static/potential energy (heat) and increase of kinetic energy.
This means that space is continuosly cooling down until all energy in transformed into kinetic energy --> 0 K
(but it could verry well be possible that this entropylevel will reach a certain limit at a certain point, and the proces would be reversed)

Development of black holes? If the density of an object (like imploding stars) is high enough, it's gravity will prevent the light from escaping/reflecting. So it verry well posible that the majorety of mass is invisible to us.

Drakain Zeil
08-07-2003, 04:24 AM
Black holes can exist anywhere... oddly parts of this seem believable while other do not...

I hope this isn't some hoax...

How could Hutchison enjoy his peaceful life and still get a space energy product to the public in a low-key manner? He says he has hit upon an unusual strategy: building miniature flying saucers powered by Dirt Cheap-supplied electricity, and selling them as space-energy children's toys. Hutchison hopes an environmentally safe toy that lights up without batteries will intrigue the public into buying Dirt Cheap devices that could power large appliances. And perhaps, the Dirt Cheap process could help lead to a world of nonpolluting new energy.
But it would be worth it to look around stores in BC for any flying saucers ;).

However, http://www.rense.com/general/raid.htm seems very hoax-like.

I can't exacly be sure on all of this, I doubt many other people can either.

On one side we have a man from BC thats know for... well lets just say not many people are against my counties new stance on pot. On the other we have this odd background information on what apears to be (mostly) in-check with physics.
Oddly enough even people who are well educated make up these hoaxes, such as the "john the time traveler" a man who talked over IRC to lots of people about how is time machine worked "the stock broker time traveler" a man who apairenly made millions in the stock market by playing them because he was in the future, this is a hoax because he also claimed a metorite will hit earth when wat was suposed to be about 3 months ago. and even "planet X" that is suposed to be a red dwarf... yet that is a very unbelievable story since it would tear earth apart and it was suposed to pass in june 2003.

Why do the educated make hoaxes? It's beyond me.
Perhaps they want to see how many people they can trick with their twisted form of entertainment, or perhaps they are educated, yet ignorantly stupid. Perhaps it's just failed theories they don't want to admit have failed, my "non-linar" time models theory actualy allow for time travel that will never be noticed and yet I could have constructed one five minutes from now and went back in time to 5 seonds ago, actually has no proff against it other then Professor Hawking's theory that states only things like electons can travel in time... this is getting off topic so I'll move back on topic.

It would account for alot of odd things that have happend, but at teh same time raise many questions about thermodynamics... expairments with wavelegenths and fequencies on all ranges would proably give us an answer for this but would more then likely need to be computer-simulated since it is very unlikely. And computer simulations would not be very accurate since there is no data on the unknown.

krycek
08-16-2003, 03:25 PM
heheh, I just found this thread :)

Thankfully, having my nose permanantly in some physics journal or other, I have heard of the Hutchinson effect, although not very much. I checked out the link and it is indeed the effect I was thinking of.

I'll now summarise what I know (because I think that was the original request of this thread).

There was an experiment by some Russian guy a couple of years or so ago which was apparently based on the Hutchinson effect. The Hutchinson effect in this instance is a gravity-cancelling effect that occurs when certain conditions are correct. The conditions of the Russian's experiment included electricity (as always) being used for something - I think to create the huge electromagnetic field I seem to remember being required for the experiments I read about. There was also something about a spinning cermamic disk, and maybe low temperatures. The result was that above the disk gravity was negatively affected.

This was documented in New Scientist over a year ago, plus I remember reading about it in a physics journal but I don't like to say which one in case I am wrong.

The experiments and accompanying claims were greeted with cautious sceptism, as independant researchers have been unable to reproduce the results. The guy even flew to the States as I recall, to oversee an imitation of his tests there, but it was unsuccessful...

Of course, this experiment (which I mention because a) it was relatively recent, b) it was quite well-documented and mentioned in leading jornals, and c) because it was apparently based on the Hutchinson effect) does not share the properties of most experiments which claim to prove the Hutchinson effect. Things like LARGE objects being moved with relatively small amounts of electricity, and in conditions very close to standard. (Plus the merging of dissimilar objects and other manifestations of the effect.)

The problem is that, AFAIK, there are no experiments based on this effect that have been properly witnessed and documented, to the extent that they would be acceptable by a scientific journal. This is another reason why I mentioned the Russian experiment - it seems so much more... "expected" in terms of setup, but produces very little, and hence is rather uncertain.

And yes, I'm aware of the "evidence" available which apparently documents the Hutchinson effect (including video evidence, and backup from certain respected individuals) however as I previously mentioned, none have been properly witnessed and documented, to the extent that they would be acceptable by a scientific journal.

The theory of zero-point energy is one which I feel is called on to "explain" the Hutchinson effect, simply because otherwise it would be so unbelievable. The problem is that zero-point energy itself is just a theory, and there is nothing to suggest we can tap into it at all, if it exists. (I remember reading a book by, um, Stel Pavlou? a year or so ago, called Decipher, which talks rather excellently about zero-point energy, albeit in context with fiction.)

Similarly, although there have been many attempts to scientifically theoretically prove that the effect can occur due to the objects becoming "out of phase", these have also failed.

Until the experiments can be properly recreated and documented, repeatedly, under testing conditions, there is no proof of the effect and indeed most scientists dismiss it as fantasy.

That said, there is much we do not understand, and theoretically speaking, such effects ARE possible, even if we do not know how to acheive them. No-one originally believed Tesla when he publicised his theories, yet he proved that it was possible to knock down an iron bridge with nothing but a spoon and a stopwatch.

That pretty much summarises what I know about this effect, my apologies if I have got anything incorrect but I'm going totally from memory :) I will say one thing though - how come that humans never get hurt in such experiments? Like, the metal/wood ending up partway through them. THAT would be proof indeed :D

::] krycek [::

Arctic Fox
08-21-2003, 01:59 AM
Thank you krycek, that's the reply I was looking for! ;)

Have you heard anything about the 12 parts of earth that experience weird anomolies (sp) like the Devil's Triangle? I was thinking that maybe this Hutchinson effect can only happen on certain parts of the planet... any way to get a map and find where these successful tests took place?

krycek
08-21-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Arctic Fox
Thank you krycek, that's the reply I was looking for! ;)

Have you heard anything about the 12 parts of earth that experience weird anomolies (sp) like the Devil's Triangle? I was thinking that maybe this Hutchinson effect can only happen on certain parts of the planet... any way to get a map and find where these successful tests took place?

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory but my immediate reaction would be against it. I haven't heard of a theory about twelve parts of Earth, however there are plenty of theories about the Bermuda/Devil's triangle, yes. Very fascinating, yet considering the amount of traffic through the triangle, strange events are extremely rare, and you have to wonder whether they really are as strange as made out.

As for the map, I have no idea where successful tests have taken place, except I think Hutchinson lives somewhere in Canada (Toronto area?). If you ever manage to co that I'd be very interested in the results :)

::] krycek [::

raf
08-21-2003, 01:47 PM
I think that most research on the Bermuda triangle has revealed that there wern't so much unaccountable disaperances. Not more then anywhere else, that is.
And (scientific) experiments are also something to be carefull with. Uri Geller succesfully passed some controled experiments in telekinesis and mindreading, but these were designed and supervised by people that didn't know anything about such performances. When they asked other performers to supervise the experiment, nothing seemed to work anymore.
I remember an indian farmer who had found a way to extract petrol from leafs. He demonstrated it by boiling these leafs while stiring them with his stick and indeed, the water turned into petrol. When western scientists tried the same, nothing happened. When he was asked to instruct them on how to do it, it also didn't work, so he got agry and started stiring himself, with his own stick. And all of a sudden, it turned into petrol.
The scientists of course examined the stick and found traces of petrol in it and wax at the bottom. But our indian claims the petrol didn't go from the stick into the boiler, but from the boiler into the stick. (which is of course possible, but since india is until now not a real oil-producing country ...). But there always seems to be a particular, special, piece of equipment needed to become such extraorinary results.

As a disbeliever, it's more amusing to read about these things ... but still. My 'old' profesor epistemology used to say : "It's very unlikely, that if humans lived at 10 000 meter under the sea, that they would have come up with the same laws of nature." And he might be rigth. Maybe we just live in some physical freakzone. Like the specific gravity of water decreases from 90C to 2-3C and then increases till 0C and then again decreases (if i remember corect) Imagen that whe live in that 2C --> we could come up with some weird "universal" laws of nature.

mrkil
01-05-2005, 03:43 AM
hutchinson effect is a hoax. :rolleyes:

if you watch the video's posted on his site you can see f'ing string on the supposed floating object

see for your self
if you look in the top left you can see the string moving just as the top is.
http://www.uforc.com/Video_2.WMV

taken


http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

cfc
01-05-2005, 07:34 PM
I saw this on discovery channel a while back, and it did seem pretty interesting. I don't know whether to believe it or not, but keeping a closed mind about such things was the same kind of treatment recieved by many of the people that brought along some of the major theories in our understanding of science. Of course, keeping an open mind to every crackpot or con artist claiming to be able to get free energy has resulted in millions of dollars being sunk into breaking our laws of physics (http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html), and none of that money has had much of an impact on anything other than the inventors/physicists' wallets so far. When it comes to alternative-science physicists trying to get rich quick, gain recognition, or make the world a better place, it's hard to seperate the geniuses from the con-men (http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html). Hutchison could fall under either category, it's hard to tell.

binok
05-01-2005, 04:21 AM
I just came across this thread. Reading it was interesting. This post however is directed towards mrkil. After watching this video I could blatanly see the string. And of course the thought of hoax crossed my mind. But as I watched it again, I realized something that could prove otherwise. If you notice, when the toy raises in height, the visible piece of string over the top left area actually loses tension, and sinks inward. Now, if you were pulling something with weight up into the air, wouldnt this cause the string to become taut (tighter)? This scientist was questioned about the string, and he replied it was some sort of cable used to transfer more electricty directly onto the toy I believe. Dont hold me to that though because honestly I didnt understand what he was talking about, that was just my assumption of it. Hopefully this post will rekindle the debate on this topic.

bleargh
06-12-2005, 02:14 AM
But as I watched it again, I realized something that could prove otherwise. If you notice, when the toy raises in height, the visible piece of string over the top left area actually loses tension, and sinks inward. Now, if you were pulling something with weight up into the air, wouldnt this cause the string to become taut (tighter)? This scientist was questioned about the string, and he replied it was some sort of cable used to transfer more electricty directly onto the toy I believe.

Of course he explained it away. He's the one doing the "experiments". Don't be so eager to believe things that you convince yourself that a hoax is not a hoax.

My explanations:

http://www.uforc.com/Video_1.WMV

A piece of plywood with a hole in it and a camera aimed upwards. String goes through the hole and is attached to the saucer, which is then lifted up and down by a dude's hand. You can see the height of the saucer changing in jerks as the string slips and sticks against the wood. See how it wobbles? Imagine how a toy saucer would wobble if it were held by a string from the bottom looking up.

http://www.uforc.com/Video_2.WMV

There is a string clearly visible on the top left hand side of the screen, moving downwards as the operator pulls it to make the toy saucer fly upwards. It's not becoming less taught, it's being pulled downwards. If the string went over a pulley and the saucer lifted upwards, the string on the saucer side of the pulley would be the bit that's bunching up, you wouldn't see it over on the left hand side.

http://www.uforc.com/Video_3.WMV

I don't have a watertight idea of how this one was done. But isn't this effect supposed to be caused by Tesla coils and such? Tesla coils are LOUD. Do you hear any? I like how the rear wall moves every time the toy does, though. This could be as simple as a camera mounted to a piece of plywood and the whole thing is being moved around. Not sure though.

http://www.uforc.com/Video_4.WMV

Notice how the rubber-looking thing on the top right hand of the screen (and occasionally the camera and the steering wheel) moves whenever the toy does, but the free-hanging chains nearby don't budge an inch? The toy never once moves in a fashion that can't be explained by it being held up by a string in the same way as number 1. It mostly moves up and down, and when it does move left and right, it's consistent with pendulum motion.

He used to have some other videos on his site (http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/videos.htm), which I see are now "Temporarily Unavailable" (people were catching on, I'm sure). I should have mirrored them when I saw them. A lot were totally obvious. Just an upside down camera in a box with a broom nailed upside down to the wall and stuff held to the ceiling of the box by magnets which are then removed slowly to make the stuff "fly away" (fall). Ice cream in a cup floating "upwards" and then the cup floating too, etc.

(I was looking for copies of these videos when I found this thread. Does anyone know where to find them? Internet archive apparently doesn't do videos. (Oh wait, maybe it does. http://web.archive.org/web/20041015233847/www.hutchisoneffect.com/videos.htm They are still there (the SWFs)! Visit http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/Videos/ before they catch on and take them down. I've got my copies!))

Next time I'm with my film major friend I'd like to put together some similar videos and start my own website! :-)

Ade2
06-24-2005, 07:03 PM
I came across this thread while doing a little research online, those videos the last poster were helpful. For my thoughts on the subject, go here:

http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/

I had someone "rebutt" my statements so I responded.

Just thought some of you might be interested...

ArcticFox
06-25-2005, 05:17 PM
My explanations:

A piece of plywood with a hole in it and a camera aimed upwards.
There is a string clearly visible on the top left hand side of the screen,
Tesla coils are LOUD. Do you hear any?
Just an upside down camera in a box with a broom nailed upside down


On each one of those videos, your explanations are exactly what I had thought as well. I'm willing to say that John Hutchinson is a fraud, and all these experiments are fake and just acts of illusion, nothing more.

drag0nking38
02-13-2006, 03:59 AM
If you were to cool something to 0k, it would still be visible because you see light reflected off of things, not radiation emitted from them. The interesting effects with light would depend on the environment you were cooling this supposed mass in. If you were to shine a light into a box with an internal temp of 0k, light would theoretically stop altogether, and never reach the box so as to render it visible. However, the box would have to be kept at constant 0k, which would be difficult because light shining inside the box would excite the particles inside and create energy/heat. If the box was illuminated before it was cooled to 0k, the light that was being reflected off the mass (that you would see as the image of the mass) would be 'frozen' in a sense, and youd see essentially a still image.

andies
04-01-2006, 03:18 AM
As far as the ufo video, yep there is a string, how would you like to get smaked with it if it got out of control? there is no space to move in his lab... so he tethered it, as far as credentials, he gets christmas cards from presidents, regan clinton and bush's... if this was faked, he would be in jail for decieving the nsa, dod, dnd, cia, and pentagon who all contributed funding and resources, los alamo and such... this crazy stuff is damn real, levitating snow plow... just days ago levitated 1200 lbs in his lab. Here is his new site, there's more I wont get into here.

andies
04-01-2006, 03:21 AM
As far as the ufo video, yep there is a string, how would you like to get smaked with it if it got out of control? there is no space to move in his lab... so he tethered it, as far as credentials, he gets christmas cards from presidents, regan clinton and bush's... if this was faked, he would be in jail for decieving the nsa, dod, dnd, cia, and pentagon who all contributed funding and resources, los alamo and such... this crazy stuff is damn real, levitating snow plow... just days ago levitated 1200 lbs in his lab. Here is his new site, there's more I wont get into here. WWW.Hutchisoneffect.biz

NancyJ
04-02-2006, 11:28 AM
KNow what this guy should invest in instead of snow plows and stuff - a decent camera and tripod.

chkneater
05-01-2012, 05:01 AM
Boy, well, I don't know where to start... were people that dumb in 2003, cuz I was there and I don't recall being as stupid as some of the posts here. It seems the fiercest defenders of Huthcison seem to know him personally somehow. Hutchison has been tinkering with this "effect" of his, using Absolute Zero as some sort of plot device to confuse the 90% of people dumb enough to get their hopes up about this. Why do intellectuals trick people? one person asked: it's because they realise they are smarter than a good portion of people and the rest he could fool with camera tricks. Factoid that has not come up once in this thread: he has been developing this since 1979 and still not found a way to get it to the masses? Oh I know why, the government! Now, at this point common sense should kick in once you realise that even with the full strength of the Canadian govt (hold your laughter) and the American govt, plus all the other countries that would want in on this *STILL* have not been able to reproduce ANYTHING Hutchison has claimed. Hell, he could have threw flyers out of a skyscraper with the plans laid out on them if he REALLY wanted to get this idea out there.

Hutchison is a megalomaniac with a perverted Tesla obsession. I think that if Tesla were still alive today, Hutchison would be the one to murder him. He's the Mark David Chapman of the science community, lil lulz.

I TRIED very damn hard to keep an open mind on this subject, but being a student of film, camera tricks can be spotted a mile away. I was seven when I got tired of playing with magnets, camera tricks and magnets have gotten nerds riled up for decades, I am beside myself.

I was glad that by 2006 some pragmatists finally stepped in with some clarity on this thread. Oh, and by the way at Ab.0 matter doesn't lose its ability to reflect or absorb light, tho a photon would stop moving at that temp. In any event, a BLACK object would absorb ALL the visible light and reflect none, so an object at Ab. 0 couldn't exist that way very long if it were black

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence, however in this case all the proof appears to be completely faked with no technical explanations or corroborating evidence, ie B.S.

A Tesla obsessed narcissist/megalomaniac that plays with large magnets. Hutchison effect should be called Hutchison Complex. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

chkneater
05-01-2012, 07:08 AM
I just wanted to reply quickly about the bermuda/devils' triangle and other earth anomalies that were trying to be attributed to Hutchisons'.

I have heard a likely reasonable explanation might be from the earth's many pole reversals over its existence. For example, the devil/bermuda triangle can be intersected along the earths axis. If you were to stick a pole right through earth at the bermuda triangle the other end would come out the devil's triangle much like a... uh polar pole.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum