Detection of Invisible Terrestrial Entities Published in Science Journal

Howard_Hughes

The Force is Strong With This One
Here's where I read about this:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-science-space/breaking-news-new-telescope-observes-otherwise-invisible-terrestrial-entities-020715

"A new report published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Modern Physics has revealed a startling finding – a newly developed telescope with concave lenses has observed, for the first time, entities in our terrestrial environment that are invisible to our eyes and to conventional Galileo telescopes with convex lenses. Even more surprising is the fact that these entities have been observed to move ‘intelligently’ in the night sky in a manner suggesting unauthorized surveillance of the area"
 
Ah, our good friend "Roger" Santilli is still doing stuff. Very interesting. It looks like it is a promo for selling his telescope produced by the repetitiously named "publicly traded company thunder energies".

I don't doubt that something might be showing up in his lens, but he has acquired a reputation for jumping the gun and defining things that just might have other explanations.

You might want to check who is the publisher of the "science journal" named.
 
The publisher of the journal:

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/

And then:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5607

This morning an e-mail came in from the “Science Publishing Group”, a call for “Editorial Board Members, Reviewers and Paper” for their open access journals, advertised as

Full peer review: All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo double blind peer review.
Fast publication: Fast peer review process of papers within approximately one month of submission.

This included a special deal on the “Article Processing Charge”: $70 or $120 before May 15. I’ve been highly suspicious of all “author pays” open access schemes in math or physics, so I decided to check into what this one was.
 
Howard_Hughes said:
I need to dig deeper before I post. Thank you, Laura.

Hey, H.H. please don't stop posting your findings. I am interested in the subject and grateful for Laura's guidance.
I learn from posts like yours/this so please don't feel that you have to research everything for days and days before you post. That's what I do and don't contribute as often. Needing perfection gets in my way.
I'm thinking as long as we did the best with the time we had/have available it's better to post (and guided to more information) than not to post at all!
I salute you.
This community does a lot of the heavy lifting for me and I'm very grateful. I do my best not to take advantage or waste time. But that said, It's much more efficient when we all work together. :cheer: :sewing: :lkj:
 
Howard_Hughes said:
I need to dig deeper before I post. Thank you, Laura.

Hi Howard_Hughes,

It always helps to use the search function (forum wide) before posting anything.

Would you have typed Roger Santilli (or Ruggero Santilli) as a search term, you would've come up with 15 results of a quite revealing nature and you also would've spared Laura some much needed valuable time.

Just saying... ;)

Nevertheless, this news is also carried on SOTT now:

http://www.sott.net/article/311039-Scientist-Ruggero-Santilli-claims-to-have-developed-anti-matter-telescope-that-observes-invisible-entities
 
Palinurus said:
Howard_Hughes said:
I need to dig deeper before I post. Thank you, Laura.

Hi Howard_Hughes,

It always helps to use the search function (forum wide) before posting anything.

Would you have typed Roger Santilli (or Ruggero Santilli) as a search term, you would've come up with 15 results of a quite revealing nature and you also would've spared Laura some much needed valuable time.

Just saying... ;)

Nevertheless, this news is also carried on SOTT now:

http://www.sott.net/article/311039-Scientist-Ruggero-Santilli-claims-to-have-developed-anti-matter-telescope-that-observes-invisible-entities

This one is not a big deal! Took me ten minutes! It IS interesting for a number of reasons. Yes, the other stuff could have been found easily and posted along with the original link, but I don't see any reason not to have posted about it!
 
To me, just the idea of atmospheric "critters" is interesting and entirely plausible. Isn't the atmosphere thick enough that people engaged in its study apply fluid dynamics? And we know about animal life living in the fluid water.
 
Back
Top Bottom