The HDRkid Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
SkeptiSarus,

I know that I've refered to HDRKid as "her" for a few years. I do have to say that I'm actually not entirely convinced that "she" is a she. By that I mean that I'm not entirely convinved that HDRKid is a single person.

I've probably read 90% of all posts made by HDRKid over the past five years. Some posts I can identify with "her" others, however, seem to come from an entirely different person. On HDR's site, in the predictions section, there's even a post where the writer (who is writing as HDRKid) refers to HDRKid in the third person.

This doesn't really surprise me because if I'm correct (and the evidence indicates that I am) I pretty much know who the two people who write as HDRKid are.

Thankfully, HDRKid is just an online game for me (much like Titor). I enjoy the hunt but it makes zero impact my IRL existence. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
To Darby:

Let history teach you the folly of ridicule. Back in 1926, Goddard had constructed and tested successfully the first rocket using liquid fuel.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm

So why in the 40's was it German scientists who were way ahead of us with the V2 rocket?

After all we had the Robert Goddard the father of modern Rocketry...

Well, debunkers laughed at Goddard and they said that rockets could not work in space because there was no air to push against.

We had to drop the atom bomb on Japan using propeller planes, the Germans had jets like the Messerschmitt Me 262. Happily for US Germany was a small nation and we got lucky in WWII. We will not be lucky in WWIII.

Fast forward to the 50's. The Russians launch Sputnik, again we were behind. It was German scientists (most of which are now dead) who put us on the moon. See if we are going now.

Well, the russians back in the soviet days decided to destroy the US. The plan has not changed now that Putin Ex-KGB is still working on it. Basically the russians using RV have located all our underground bases. They know right where to hit us.

We used to have eyes, but a few debunkers got rid of our RV program. Sadly, now we are now blind, that is why we did not see 911. We are not going to suspect anything until it is too late.

In 2017 ten years from now, the US no longer exists, all cities over 100,000 are gone.

I challenge you to RV 2017. What you will see will shock you to you very core.
 
HDRKid,

Well, debunkers laughed at Goddard and they said that rockets could not work in space because there was no air to push against.
Click to expand...

You should have taken at least one lower division physics or history of science course in college.

Where in God's name did you get the idea that physicists/engineers or anyone else with some degree of education thought that a rocket needs to "push against air" to move in space? And who were the "debunkers" that said something as silly as that?

If I recall correctly, and trust me - I do, Isaac Newton pretty well set to pen the laws of mechancs in "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (natural philosophy is physics) which he published in 1687.

A reaction engine, like a rocket engine, is fully explained in detail in those laws of mechanics. By the 1920's "they" had 220 years of Newton's mechanics as a background against which to judge whether a rocket needed to "push against air" to move through space. Of course it doesn't and they knew that quite well.

Of course, we also had Gallileo, Kepler, Copernicus, etc. who also studied and began the process of formalizing mechanics prior to Newton.

You're making up this particular argument.

We had to drop the atom bomb on Japan using propeller planes, the Germans had jets like the Messerschmitt Me 262. Happily for US Germany was a small nation and we got lucky in WWII. We will not be lucky in WWIII.
Click to expand...

Germany was a small nation? The US population in 1940 was ~131 million. Germany's population in 1940 was ~81 million. Yes, the US had a significantly larger population but Germany was not a "small" nation.

And Germany was not alone in Europe. The German main European Axis allies included Bulgaria, Romaina, Hungary, Italy and Austria.

The total Axis population in Europe was ~115 million.

And you missed the historical reasoning behind why the Allies delayed putting their jet aircraft into service. The Allies were winning the war. They were on the offensive.

Jet aircraft of the WWII era had a combat radius of about 400 miles. At maximum range they could stay on station for 20 minutes...assuming that they didn't have to fight their way in. Allied bombers flew at ~190 knots and they had to fly several hundred miles. At 190 knots a jet, especially of that era, was at virtual stall speed. They would have to turn up the burners and fly a zig-zag pattern just to stay with the bombers. They couldn't stay with the bombers and they didn't have the range in any case. The Allies nixed converting to jets partially fo that reason.

And, again, we were winning the war in late 1944 when the first Me 262's went into service. They were a hot ride but they were inconsequential, were short range gas guzzlers, not very reliable and strictly a defensive aircraft. There were far too few to make an impact when a dozen would take off against 1,000 bombers and several hundred P-51D's. The Allies didn't have any strategic necessity to convert their offensive minded fighter groups from prop to jets.

Last, jet engines of the era - German, British and American - were horribly unreliable, the crew chiefs had no experience with jet engines and the Rolls-Merlin was (and still is) one of the most powerful and reliable piston aircraft engines ever developed. The Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp 2800 series was just as reliable. The highly skilled and experienced ground crews knew what they were doing with those two engines. Had they switched people would have died and the war in Europe would have been extended while flight crews and ground crews caught up with the learning curve.

In short, we didn't need jet aircraft in WWII to succeed. A course in the history of WWII might have helped here.

Sadly, now we are now blind, that is why we did not see 911.
Click to expand...

Dear, you - according to your multiple stories - have RV "eyes". You didn't see it coming either.

As to your challenge to give a look see at 2017, why would I do that? Based on your predictions?

Let's see: Super Nanobots destroy us, Super Earthquakes destroy us, Super Tsunamis destroy us, Super Volcanos destroy us, Super Storms destroy us, Super Bird Flu destroys us, Super Yet to be Named Travesty destroys us.. Have I left any of your "this will destroy us" theories out? I'm sure that there are more but I just picked those off the top of my head.

You see any theme up there? Maybe a calcium driven death wish...a compulsive personality driven by depression and suicidal ideation?

I'm sorry - truly sorry - that your life is as miserable as it is. But I'm neither depressed, suicidal nor fixated with the death of mankind. I don't share your lust for destruction. I kinda like this world, troubled as it might seem to be at times. I'm quite optomistic, in fact
 
Kid,

BTW: I'm still very curious why Robby might be a "joker or something" just because he wasn't interested in your HDR.
 
HDRKid: Sadly, now we are now blind
Click to expand...

You must be blind. otherwise why would you, amongst other things, have wrongly predicted Kerry as Prez?

Your intention and policy is clearly to completely ignore these failings, but surely even you must realize it makes you a laughing stock. Not because nay-sayers are attempting to debunk you but because you have debunked yourself.
 
Well, if the Russians are as good at RV as you are..I don't think we have anything to worry about.
 
Yes, laughing stock is right. The more he/she ignores and refuses to address the misses (and the more misses that are racked-up) the sillier he/she looks.

And let's not forget...even though hdrkid is touting his/her "prediction" about $100/barrel oil, it has NOT occurred yet and the clock is ticking towards DEC 31, 2007.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/15/markets/oil_eia/index.htm?cnn=yes

Oil prices fell over $1 Thursday on signs of lower demand, a weakening economy and a surprise gain in U.S. supplies.

U.S. light crude for January delivery fell $1.34 to $92.75 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil traded down 53 cents just prior to the report's release.
Click to expand...

RMT
 
To IVth:

It is precisely because of people like you that they attack. A lion waits until his prey is crippled to attack. An event will happen in the future to cripple america. After that event they hit us so hard we never get up.


To Rainman:

I do not expect you to believe what I say. I do however expect you to be shocked by what you see, if you learn remote viewing. Nothing beats seeing it for yourself. Years ago, I still remember what I said when RVing the future - "Where did all the cities go? Why is it, so dark?"

After the war, only a few struggle to keep alive the flame of civilization, so very few...
 
hello HDRkid I just wonder what about the year 2012?? can you RV to that year?? also tell me when is the first time machine for public use not the HDR unit because they don't work to some people and other work...so write back..
 
A lion waits until his prey is crippled to attack.
Click to expand...

For God's sake, Kid. If you're going to attempt to use a metaphor...

a) use an appropriate metaphor

b) use a metaphor that is logically correct

The "Lion" is Great Britain. Russia is the "Bear".

Lions are active hunters; they are not carrion pickers. You don't have to be crippled for a lion to hunt you down. You just need to taste good - or the lion just needs to have a desire for a quick snack.

A better metaphor would substitute the word jackal for the word lion.

(Just trying to help.)
 
Still waiting for your response, HDRKid.

HDRKid:
My question to you is - when Hillary is elected a year from now, the first woman president in the history of the US, will you admit I am right, or will you say "That was obvious, I knew she would win. You didn't predict anything!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Skeptisaurus: Okay...I'll play. A year isn't that long HDRKid. I WILL acknowledge your Time travelling prowess if Hilary Clinton is elected President of the United States next year. But only if you agree right now to admit you're full of crap is she isn't.
Click to expand...

Like Ruthless, I don't like being ignored but seeing as that's clearly your main tactic when it comes to this stuff just understand that it does your already zero credibilty no good whatsoever.

Like I said so before. The person that's done the most thorough and complete debunking of HDRKid on this thread (and others in the past) is...HDRKid.
 
To Warrior:

2012 is no longer a mystery to me. We survive and many laugh at the prediction, but in 2015 there is a terrible world war, most of humanity does not survive. It is hard to imagine that in less than ten years what you see will not be. Yes, in the future there are many terrible events, a cascade of catastrophes and a deluge of disasters, but humanity survives.

There is not one meteor to enter, but several, one big one hits the Pacific and does a lot of damage. Many supervolcanoes, of which the Yellowstone is only one. Hypercanes hit the coasts like a sledgehammer.

The big event that is coming closer is a shortage of food and fuel. Using RV I have seen people fighting over fuel and long lines to get bread. I believe that a major event in the Middle East disrupts the supply of petroleum to the world.


To Darby:

Lets not talk about picture book lions here. Real lions are rather nasty. First, the male of the pride does a lot of roaring, but it is the females that hunt. They steal carrion from hyenas because they are bigger. Lions attack in a pack against the old and infirm. They look for animals that are maimed and crippled that cannot fight back. A lion cannot go to a pharmacy and get antibiotic for an infection, in the heat of Africa, a cut can kill.


To Skeptic:
The truth does not need to make sense. If I had told you back in 1950 that in 1969 we would land on the moon you would have laughed. If I had told you that in 2009 there would be a woman president you would have laughed, but what would have convinced you that I was a liar is when you asked me. Well, do the people on the moon vote for her, and I tell you, we don't go to the moon anymore, we stopped going...
 
rofl...so very few....


Do you really think we are going to decide to kill off everyone and everything in a huge display of firepower? There will be no nuclear war, there's too much real-estate at stake for anyone to be that stupid. Why don't you look into next month or next week, for that matter, and tell us something that will happen.
 
To Skeptic:
The truth does not need to make sense.
Click to expand...

What you're really trying to say is that your attempts to convince people you've RV'd the future do not need to make sense.


If I had told you back in 1950 that in 1969 we would land on the moon you would have laughed.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. There were many, many people in the scientific community and many forward thinking types like the various Rocket Societies of many countries who foresaw the early advent of the Space Race. Jees HDR, the movie 'Destination Moon' came out in 1950 and explored the idea of a Moon Race as a political imperitave. So once again, even when talking about established history, you're far from being a futurist, you're just treading the path of what's already on the cards.

If I had told you that in 2009 there would be a woman president you would have laughed,
Click to expand...

No, again you're quite wrong. Like a lot of people I'm perfectly open to the idea of a female President and always have been. Its not a question of gender but a question of character. And for that reason I'm not convinced Hillary Clinton's the right woman for the job. That being the case I repeat for the THIRD time:

HDRKid:
My question to you is - when Hillary is elected a year from now, the first woman president in the history of the US, will you admit I am right, or will you say "That was obvious, I knew she would win. You didn't predict anything!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Skeptisaurus: Okay...I'll play. A year isn't that long HDRKid. I WILL acknowledge your Time travelling prowess if Hilary Clinton is elected President of the United States next year. But only if you agree right now to admit you're full of crap is she isn't.
Click to expand...

Anyone who reads this thread cannot possibly be blind to your obvious and continual attempts to brush this challenge under the carpet. Come on, HDRkid. You've got a good chance of actually being right for once!! What have you got to lose?

In all honesty, I must confess...I'm completely stumped. Why won't you take me up on this?

After all, you were the one who made it clear it was the uninitiated about the future who were in ignorance...what are you afraid of exactly?
 
Kid,

Lets not talk about picture book lions here. Real lions are rather nasty. First, the male of the pride does a lot of roaring, but it is the females that hunt. They steal carrion from hyenas because they are bigger. Lions attack in a pack against the old and infirm. They look for animals that are maimed and crippled that cannot fight back. A lion cannot go to a pharmacy and get antibiotic for an infection, in the heat of Africa, a cut can kill.
Click to expand...

Ok. I see now. You weren't using a metaphor ("story book" lions) you were speaking literally. A pride of lions, real lions - not metaphoric ones, are going to nuke the planet, snatch the dead from hyenas and eat the carrion.

Thank you for the correction. My bad.
 
HdrKid,

The truth does not need to make sense. If I had told you back in 1950 that in 1969 we would land on the moon you would have laughed.
Click to expand...

Where the frack do you keep coming up with these silly platitudes? The year 1950 was not the Stone Age, girlfriend. People fully expected us to go to the moon and mars during their lifetime - thus the explosion in the sci-fi film market.

The limiting factors in 1950 that prevented a flight to the moon were many. But most of them were engineering issues - not theory. A lot of the theoretical stuff involved solid state electronics. Vacuum tube based electronics needed to go and be repaced by transistor based electronics to save weight and space (for example). It was a 25 year program.

Within NASA there were many people who were not keen on the idea of a 1969 launch of a manned mission to the moon. The people at NASA who did not like the date were concerned that because we were racing the Russians to get there first we were putting political considerations ahead of flight crew safety because we weren't actually ready to fly with the long standing agreed upon NASA safety margin. We were below minimums in 1969.

You're really a piece of work with your "laughing" references relative to NASA's moon program. Go tell that story to the families of the 27 astronauts and space program test pilots that we have lost since 1947.

No one was laughing at NASA over the issue of go/no-go in 1969. The program had already lost nine astronauts in training accidents between 1964 and 1967. It's dangerous work.
 
"Lets not talk about picture book lions here. Real lions are rather nasty. First, the male of the pride does a lot of roaring, but it is the females that hunt. They steal carrion from hyenas because they are bigger. Lions attack in a pack against the old and infirm. They look for animals that are maimed and crippled that cannot fight back. A lion cannot go to a pharmacy and get antibiotic for an infection, in the heat of Africa, a cut can kill"

surely you jest, for the king of the jungle has something no other animal has, pride. btw, did i mention im a leo?
 
Kid,

Using RV I have seen people fighting over fuel and long lines to get bread. I believe that a major event in the Middle East disrupts the supply of petroleum to the world.
Click to expand...

Then your RV is completely faulty and biased by your emotions and what you think is true. For clearly you have not seen something that I already know, which is that the USA holds the final "trump card" when it comes to oil markets. And no, I am NOT merely talking about dollar denominations for oil sales (although that is certainly a "face card" that is showing, if you will). Haven't you ever wondered why, when the US sits on quite a bit of KNOWN oil, that we are not so big on pumping all of our own oil, but rather encourage the pumping of oil elsewhere? Economics of production are only part of the story. The rest of the world likes to paint the US as always thinking only short-term. But let me tell you that when the US GOV entered into exclusive oil agreements with the Saudis back in the late 60s and early 70s, we would NOT have done so without KNOWING we had an ace up our sleeves. Indeed, our plan to "reshape" the Middle East began LONG ago.

Let me just put it this way: We see rogue oil producing states who HOPE and DREAM that they can tank our economy by driving oil out of sight (and moving away from dollar denomination is just one of their tactics). But seeing as you how APPEAR to know something about economics, let me ask you this: What would happen if, just after these "rogue states" expend the last bullet in their chamber (thinking they are about to SINK the US), the US pulls the ace out of its sleeve and FLOODS THE MARKET with (relatively) CHEAP US OIL? Yes, you heard me right... I said US OIL! That would be quite an "ace card" we are sitting on, wouldn't it?

The truth does not need to make sense.
Click to expand...

I'll echo Darby here and say this is one of the silliest platitudes I have ever heard. The intent, of course, is that since most sane people think what you are "predicting" does not make sense, then you must be telling the truth? Ha. The part that doesn't make sense here is how you keep trying to FORCE A REVISION OF YOUR PAST, HDRkid. You simply REFUSE to acknowledge things that you predicted in the past (that are documented) that didn't pan out. No amount of your revisionism of "I said $3/gal not $4/gal" is EVER going to change the date-documented predictions on your blog. Can't you "get" that? The fact that you are trying to revise what is already in print only makes it worse. It would have been better if you simply acknowledged you predicted $4/gal and tried to explain it away (i.e. Titor's 2% divergence is a handy tool for such corners you get painted into). :D

RMT
 
To Darby:

Fifty years ago a sleeping america woke up to the beeping sounds of a russian Sputnik. In 1957 the soviet satellite helped wake up a public that thought that they were the superior superpower.

Try reading science books written in the late 40's to get a feel for 1950. People in the 50's thought that space travel was science fiction and laughed at it much like they do now if I mention teleporters or flying cars.

The role of the debunker is to slow down progress by laughing at any new idea. For example, if a person in a lab reports an unusual phenomena, instead of trying to replicate the experiment the debunkers yell HOAX and FRAUD.


Hi Rainman:
It is good to have an open mind. Yes, we have plenty of oil, but the people in power have created an artificial shortage. I point to the vast reserves of oil shale.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-01-oil-shale_x.htm

Hi Ruthless:
Thanks for the link.

"Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway." - The Guardian of Time AKA Guardian of Forever. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top