|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
Thomas Bearden
 Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:12 am
|
 |
|
I have started a new thread on this because it has the potential of getting the radar thread way off-topic.
quote:
JBE: Are you trying to tell us that YOU can write a radar program in your new found field that is WORTHY of everyone’s attention, but someone such as Thomas E. Bearden is not capable of producing something worthy in his field? Do you think that because Bearden is researching free energy and the health effects of electromagnetic energy that he’s a quack? Unbelievable! You should be thanking him!
I am not saying that my program is worthy of everyone's attention yet. Certainly only those that are interested in monitoring radar anomalies which I suspect is one or two people outside of mojoman and myself. But I do think my program is certainly as relevant as mojoman's observations and the results are observable in real-time on my website.
I do not profess to be a radar expert but neither do I profess to have some revolutionary knowledge about radars or their use that contradicts what every other radar operator and technican in the world knows.
quote:
Here are Thomas E. Bearden’s credentials.
- Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired).
- President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc.
- MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
- BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University.
- Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army.
- Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering).
- Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.
The only thing in the above that seems remotely relevant to the area in which he claims to have revolutionary knowledge is nuclear engineering. The rest of the above is "filler" that has no more bearing or importance than my expertise on physics because I happen to be a software engineer, the owner and president of a small company, and speak two languages. Those are all nice points on the resume but does not increase my credibility as a physicist.
quote:
What are YOUR credentials?
As a physcist? None. But I'm not the one claiming revolutionary claims in physics that have been rejected by physicsts and students of physics around the world. I did research his claims and they've been thoroughly rejected by physicists. I don't think they're all in on some conspiracy to discredit Bearden. Since I am not a physcist I must conclude, on balance, that his claims are a load of fertilizer.
quote:
Nonobviousness requires that the invention not be "obvious" to a person having ordinary skill in the particular field in which the invention lies. OMG! Does this sound like it is easy to obtain a patent? Go to work with me ONE DAY, and I’ll show you how easy it is!
Work with those of us in the software and tech industry and I can assure you that, yes, it is easy to get a patent. Heck, Amazon.com got a patent on their "1-click shopping." The attitude of the USPTO is pretty much to grant any patent that looks novel (or which they cannot understand) and let the courts sort it out later if anyone objects to their obviousness or novelty.
quote:
I asked my anti-gravitics friend to comment re: your Bearden statements since free energy is his field of invention. Here is his reply (including the links at the end):
Letxa: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bearden is proposing theories that are not based in the closed mind-set of conventional science and thus are rejected categorically by the scientific community. How many books, patent applications, and/or working prototypes does it take to convince skeptical detractors, such as yourself, that conventional science does not hold all the answers?
The Wright Brothers were called hoaxters too. Major university professors of their time claimed that heavier than air flight was utterly impossible (despite the fact that bird and insect flight is heavier than air). Nonetheless, they invented the modern airplane.
As soon as I see Bearden's MEG device in my car or powering my computer I'll gladly eat my words and even drive over to New Jersey in my brand new MEG car and kiss your feet. Literally. Until then, and your friend's comments notwithstanding, I see no reason to retract my observation that Bearden is a quack.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by letxa2000 on 03-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:25 am
|
|
|
LOL! Your post was so lame and full of LIES! It is barely worthy of my efforts to even tell you that much! This just goes to show how close minded you truly are. You moved your response to another thread because you don’t want everyone to see the low level of debunking you’ll go to. Who cares if a thread goes off topic for a post or two? It happens all the time and makes things a little interesting! Talk about a control freak – sheesh!
YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHATSOEVER as to what the patent prosecution process is like – especially if you think an Examiner is going to grant a patent because he/she does not understand the invention. How foolish! And how dare you make such a claim?
If you respond back to me with more idiocy and lies, I am going to post this thread into the Radarmatrix thread just because I know you don’t want it there! Yeah, that’s right – I’m being a brat now! Ha! At least I'm being honest!
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:51 pm
|
|
|
quote:
LOL! Your post was so lame and full of LIES!
Pleas name just one lie from my previous post.
quote:
This just goes to show how close minded you truly are.
Close-minded? Not at all. I just like to see something work before I start singing praise. That's completely rational and does not speak to one's close-minded or open-mindedness. Someone says, "I offer you free energy" and I don't bounce off the walls with joy... I say, "Cool... can I see it work before I get excited?"
quote:
You moved your response to another thread because you don’t want everyone to see the low level of debunking you’ll go to. Who cares if a thread goes off topic for a post or two? It happens all the time and makes things a little interesting! Talk about a control freak – sheesh!
The radar thread barely stays on topic as it is and I sensed this had the potential of going off-topic for more than a post or two. I don't want everyone to see the low level of debunking I'll go to? This thread is on the same forum as the other thread and I posted a message in the other thread directing people here. Yeah, I'm really hiding it well. 
quote:
YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHATSOEVER as to what the patent prosecution process is like – especially if you think an Examiner is going to grant a patent because he/she does not understand the invention. How foolish! And how dare you make such a claim?
As I said, I've been in the software and tech industry long enough to know it. Patents are constantly granted in our industry that show absolutely no novelness nor non-obviousness and are clearly obvious to anyone in our field. I can't say whether the same problem exists in other fields or just software/tech, but the problem definitely exists in our field.
Examples? Here, and here, and here. Here's a blog that discusses why companies now feel obligated to file silly patents for defensive reasons. And that was just from the first page of Google. Believe me, you'll find more if you do some Googling about tech patents in the last 5-10 years. The problem is discussed daily at geek forums.
If you think our patent system is working then we've got bigger things to discuss than Bearden.
|
| |
|
|
electricmojoman
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 332
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:27 pm
|
|
|
Lex started this thread because he doesn't want any kind of scientific fact on his post about my site http://www.radarmatrix.com
That facts stand on their own I believe. A disinfo tactic!
Hey Lex........BOOOOOO.....Tom Bearden. |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:31 pm
|
|
|
Lexta: "Someone says, "I offer you free energy" and I don't bounce off the walls with joy... I say, "Cool... can I see it work before I get excited?"
Free, clean & alternative energy sources are traditionally sequestered or suppressed by the government. If you don't see it produced on a wide scale, it's probably NOT because of lack of functionality.
An earlier debate-
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001752.html
[Edited 3 times, lastly by KNOW-THIS on 03-09-2004] |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:50 pm
|
|
|
".....The US Patent office refuses to grant patents in revolutionary technology, claiming perpetual motion machines, as they see them, aren't patentable, or if they are patentable, they can place a secrecy order or gag order on the patent, which prohibits the inventor from disclosing any information to anyone for such disclosure might be detrimental to national security....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:49 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
Free, clean & alternative energy sources are traditionally sequestered or suppressed by the government. If you don't see it produced on a wide scale, it's probably NOT because of lack of functionality.
Whether or not this is true makes no difference on the Bearden issue. He has put his theories out there on the Internet and the government hasn't stopped him. There doesn't seem to be any reason to blame the government for Bearden's failures. His ideas are out there and have been reviewed and rejected by physicists anywhere in the world. I don't think they're all part of the conspiracy. Were there any merit to Bearden's claims I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.
Let's go one step further... the fact that Bearden's theories are out there on the Internet for everyone to see logically forces us to conclude one of two things: 1) The U.S. government doesn't actively withhold this kind of technology. If that was their standard operationg procedure they would have taken Bearden out --or at least shut him up--long ago. 2) Bearden's claims don't work and that's why the U.S. government doesn't care what he publishes.
So either the conspiracy theory that the U.S. actively tries to suppress new energy technology is false or Bearden's theories are wrong. |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:09 pm
|
|
|
[Edited 1 times, lastly by KNOW-THIS on 03-09-2004] |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:23 pm
|
|
|
"Whether or not this is true makes no difference on the Bearden issue."
And if you'll notice, the quote of yours that I responded to was a general statement with no refernence to Bearden anyway. So tell me, you don't think oil companies have a vested interest in protecting their operations. Are you unable to see how a successful free energy device would threaten their monetary gains? Do you feel that the overwhelming support for "big oil bush" by these some oil giants is a mere coincidence? |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:26 pm
|
|
|
Lexta: "He has put his theories out there on the Internet and the government hasn't stopped him."
They haven't stopped him as far as his right to publicly display his findings. But I guarantee any attempt to commercially manufacture any device of it's nature would be swiftly thwarted. |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:38 pm
|
|
|
[Edited 1 times, lastly by KNOW-THIS on 03-09-2004] |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:48 pm
|
|
|
Know-This: I responded to what appears to be the exact same text when BoomerChick posted it a couple of months ago. Here's a link to the thread. |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:57 pm
|
|
|
Lexta, you should pay a little closer attention to your own words my friend.
Lexta: "the fact that Bearden's theories are out there on the Internet for everyone to see logically forces us to conclude (ONE) of two things:"
(Which also allows for the possibility of the other to still be true.)
1) The U.S. government doesn't actively withhold this kind of technology. If that was their standard operation procedure they would have taken Bearden out --or at least shut him up--long ago. 2) Bearden's claims don't work and that's why the U.S. government doesn't care what he publishes.
So if it is true that Bearden's theories are wrong, in your opinion. How can you then, from that position draw the conclusion that free energy devices are not being suppressed? The two statements have no direct connection and yet you seem to have atleast tried to word a win/win situation for yourself that isn't logical.
"So either the conspiracy theory that the U.S. actively tries to suppress new energy technology is false (OR) Bearden's theories are wrong."
So assuming that Bearden's theories are false, according to your analysis, the other could still be true. Yet you fail to mention that part.
Since you revel in the art of knit-picking I thought I might do the same, Lexta.
|
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:05 pm
|
|
|
"Know-This: I responded to what appears to be the exact same text when BoomerChick posted it a couple of months ago. Here's a link to the thread."
Ok, I see it now |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:23 pm
|
|
|
quote:
So if it is true that Bearden's theories are wrong, in your opinion. How can you then, from that position draw the conclusion that free energy devices are not being suppressed? The two statements have no direct connection and yet you seem to have atleast tried to word a win/win situation for yourself that isn't logical.
People here seem to believe the government is suppressing energy devices and also believe Bearden is right. Logically speaking, they have to pick one belief or other other. Believing Bearden is right and is publishing free energy technology on the Internet is not compatible with the idea that the U.S. government suppresses such activity.
If you believe Bearden is right you must conclude that the government isn't suppressing such information since the information is there to be seen by all.
If you believe the government is suppressing free energy information then you must conclude that Bearden is wrong or he would've been suppressed.
Of course, I tend to believe that the governmnent isn't suppressing technology and that Bearden is wrong. But in the context of this forum if I could get people to admit either of those to be the case I'd feel I'd accomplished something.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 10:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
