|
Author
|
|
Topic: Thomas Bearden | Topic page views:
|
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 12:59 PM
   
amen brother!
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 01:26 PM
Subject: RE: Tom Beardens PhD...
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:11:07 -0600
Tony, Yes, I was awarded the Ph.D. for life experience and for life accomplishment (from Trinity College - Ed.), and I make no attempt to conceal it. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in Vietnam for similar reasons. If that makes it "bogus", so be it. I was also listed in Who's Who in Aviation and Aerospace, 1983, National Aeronautical Institute. I don't know what others may have done, but to obtain the doctorate for experience, I first was required to prepare a formal Ph.D. thesis, as is normal, and do several months of additional work for it. As might be expected, my thesis advanced the first legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems, freely extracting energy from the vacuum. It also contained the first formal correction to Aristotelian logic since Aristotle advanced it. My M.S. in nuclear engineering was awarded by Georgia Tech under full rigor, as was my B.S. in mathematics from what is today Northeast Louisiana University. Those are the credentials, and one can take it or leave it. One might point out that Heaviside --- whose equations are studied in university as "Maxwell's equations", and who originated some powerful mathematical methods as well --- never even attended university but was totally self-taught. Today, a very great many people for more than a century have happily used Heaviside's work, not really caring whether he had a Ph.D. or not. The real judge is what a fellow does and the worth or non-worth of it. My book, Energy from the Vacuum, speaks for itself. My years of work in scalar interferometry --- trying desperately to get this nation to develop adequate defenses --- has in fact now been verified, both experimentally and theoretically, and scalar interferometry was the basis for Secretary of Defense Cohen's public statement in 1997 at a conference in Athens, Georgia --- the first confirmation of those weapons by a high U.S. government official. We do have adequate defenses today, at least a little bit as a result of some of my own hard work in convincing the system. Unfortunately the energetics weapons have now spread to even more powerful quantum potential weapons and negative energy EMP, so my weapons efforts are still continuing in that respect. Defending this nation comes first; after that comes the rest. I'm quite willing to let that be the final arbiter. Best wishes, Tom
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-11-2004 01:38 PM
quote:
Mojoman: Is one page of people talking about Bearden's patent all the proof you have?
Did you read the whole page? They're talking about his theories and problems with equations, not just a patent.
quote:
Why don't you accept Bearden's own words and science over a email posting ceremony that provides nothing more than views and little science? how do we not know THOSE people are quacks? What is the standard for being a quack? When someone disagrees with you? Who is the deciding quack factor?
When the vast majority of a field disagrees with you, when there is no visible independent person in the field that agrees with you, and you are forced to sell DVDs and books rather than your world-changing MEG devices. That's a pretty good indication of a quack.
quote:
You're a disinformant until you can prove other wise...it is a fact. So says king mojo!
King Mojo that didn't have time to defend his own theory but now has time to defend Bearden? Oh I love the inconsistencies I find in this forum.  And yes, Mojo, I've seen Bearden's response. It pretty much confirms that his doctorate is a joke. A doctorate based on "life experiences?" Come on...
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 01:45 PM
How to convince those in government where the foundational errors are that prevent acceptance of free energy from the vacuum.
6 March
Dear Mr. G:
The major barrier is the use in electrical power engineering of the decrepit and seriously flawed classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics, which has come to be dogmatically revered as if Moses brought it down off the mountain on those stone tablets. It was indeed a monumental step forward back there in 1865 (Maxwell's original paper) and for decades thereafter, and it advanced science and technology tremendously. Even so, the theory (model) was later sharply curtailed from that paper (from Maxwell's 20 quaternion like equations in 20 unknowns, down to the four vector equations later generated by Heaviside and others). Even this much smaller subset was further curtailed (and very seriously indeed!) by Lorentz's symmetrical regauging. The equations taught at university as "Maxwell's equations" are actually Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notation, as further regauged by Lorentz. They are not Maxwell's original equations at all. See the attached paper; we go into the history of this a bit, including why Maxwell himself was engaged in mutilating his own equations at the time of his death in 1879.
It is that Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the equations -- and the ubiquitous use of the well-grounded closed current loop circuit containing both the external (transmission) circuit and load, and the basic source of potential (i.e., the generator) in it -- that is the problem. The closed current loop circuit physically enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which in turn guarantees back emf (or mmf) is equal to forward emf in our EM circuits and systems. Hence it forces half of the free regauging energy (from the vacuum) appearing in the external circuit to be used for nothing but destroying the main source of potential (the main source of dipolarizing the circuitry). The other half of the energy is used to power the loads and losses in the external circuit. So less than half is used to power the load, while a full half is used to destroy the source dipolarity. To RESTORE the dipolarity requires that we then input at least as much as was used to destroy it. Hence we are forced always to input and pay more energy to restore the source dipolarity (that actually extracts the energy from the vacuum) than we get out there as power in the load. I.e., we always have COP<1.0 power systems, unless we ring in some normal natural observable energy from the environment as from a flowing river, blowing wind, solar radiation, etc.
Such a closed current loop circuit and resulting EM system can never produce COP>1.0 from the vacuum, even though all the fields and potentials and energy appearing in the external circuit are extracted directly from the local vacuum by their associated source charges in that circuit, a priori. Simply look into the known polarization of the vacuum that occurs from the presence of any charge, and then examine what "asymmetry of opposite charges -- i.e., asymmetry of that dipolarization -- means. It means that the beast directly absorbs virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into observable photon energy size, and re-emits the energy as real, observable EM energy emitted in all directions. We have previously shown the solution to that "source charge problem", taken directly from particle physics. We also showed the fundamental coherent integration mechanism that is able to consume positive entropy of the virtual state and produce negative entropy in the observable state.
To get a government or the organized scientific community of a nation to "move" and change things in the energy field, one has to first get them to just simply but rigorously examine the assumptions in the present M-H electrodynamics model used in electrical power engineering. You will find, however, that not a single textbook or professor in all of electrical engineering points out the fundamental assumptions of that model! Anyone knowledgeable in modeling, already knows that all models (1) have assumptions, and the model adequately describes only those situations in which its assumptions hold, and (2) are imperfect (Godel proved the latter fact in 1930, but it continues to be paid only lip service by electrical engineers).
The major terribly flawed assumptions inherent in the present sorry old electrical power engineering model are:
(1) It still assumes a material ether, more than a century after that ether was falsified experimentally by Michelson and Morley. Not a single equation was changed to eliminate the incorrect assumption of force fields in vacuum that is in the equations. Force fields exist only in mass systems, never in mass-free space. Simply see discussions by eminent scientists such as Nobelist Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics; by John Wheeler; by Bunge; by LIndsay and Margenau; and by many others. Note also that elementary mechanics (in physics) still erroneously teaches a mass-free force in space, acting independently upon a mass. That is totally false, and it is an error that has been propagated for several hundred years, and continues to be propagated by the world scientific community completely counter to logic.
(2) It assumes a flat spacetime, falsified since 1916 by general relativity. The slightest change of energy in either magnitude, direction, or flow is a curvature of spacetime and dynamics of that curvature, a priori. Further, that curvature and its dynamics also interacts back on the mass system, as is well-known but not included in the classical EM model at all.
(3) It assumes an inert vacuum, falsified since at least 1930 by modern particle physics. The vacuum is known and proven to be in continuous and seething energy interaction and exchange with every particle of mass in the universe, including every particle in our EM circuit or EM system.
(4) It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been created by the associated source charges (all electrodynamicists adhere to this assumption). The assumption is that the source charge continuously pours out real photons at light speed, thereby establishing and continuously replenishing its associated fields and potentials, spreading at light speed. However, the model assumes that there is absolutely no corresponding input of EM energy to the charge from curved spacetime or from the active vacuum. In other words,
(5) It assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and every joule of EM energy is and has been freely created from nothing at all, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.
Note that assumptions (2) and (3) assume away any energy received by the circuit from curved local spacetime and/or the active local vacuum, even though modern general relativity and particle physics refute such an asinine assumption. But this is the erroneous assumption that the "local space environment" consisting of the active vacuum and curved spacetime dynamics is inert -- ignoring 80 years of particle physics. Since producing COP>1.0 requires an extra free input of energy from the active environment, assumptions 2 and 3 are tantamount to assuming that COP>1.0 EM systems can only exist if the local environment is active with something "observable" like a river's current, a wind in the atmosphere, or solar radiation. For such "conventional" or observable active environments, COP > 1.0 and even COP = Infinity systems are already in existence and accepted (the waterwheel powered generating system, the hydroelectric system, the windmill driven system, the solar cell array, etc.). Yet, given the proof of the seething active vacuum, the universities and the scientific community -- and even Department of Energy -- simply will not allow a funded and deliberate task for developing energy from the vacuum systems.
By erroneously assuming away the active vacuum and curved local spacetime and their dynamics, the silly model assumes away any ability to receive and freely use excess energy from the vacuum/spacetime dynamics that continuously interact with it. Instead, by assuming symmetrical regauging, it assumes that all such excess energy freely received by the system from the active vacuum and curved spacetime will be and is "locked up" as physical stress in the system. It assumes that none of this free excess environmental energy locked up as system stress can then be used to power the load. And the closed current loop circuit enforces that assumption!
So the problem is to get the scientific leaders (the more influential the scientists who recognize it, the better -- Nobelists would be very appropriate) to simply do a rigorous model re-examination of the hoary old electrical engineering electrodynamics model itself. They have not done so in more than a century, and present indications are that they have no intention at all of doing such an examination, or permitting the young graduate students and post docs to do it. Any of the grad students and post docs trying to do so, will find their careers destroyed very rapidly!
As another example, the potential and thus the potential energy of a Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will. That is accepted by all electrodynamicists and gauge field theorists; it is simply regauging. (Oddly, no texts point out that regauging changes the potential energy of the system, and therefore there has been an energy exchange between system and local vacuum/spacetime environment when the system is regauged!
But here even the gauge theorists fall into the classical electrical engineering trap. They almost ubiquitously assume that one will always be an idiot and change both potentials (both phi and A) exactly so that the two new free force fields that result in the system are equal and opposite -- by intentional design. That way, extra regauging energy freely received from the external vacuum/spacetime environment can and does appear in the regauged system, but the energy is locked up as physical stress in the system with no net translation force field available to dissipate that free stress energy to push electrons as current through the load, thereby producing some "free power" in the load. Jackson, in his Classical Electrodynamics, e.g., clearly shows how this symmetrical regauging is done. Jackson makes no discussion at all of the importance of asymmetrical regauging.
Indeed, one cannot even get an EM circuit or system to do "work" for one, unless one does employ asymmetrical regauging (specifically, adding or changing the voltage). Mere change of voltage to a system is work free; however, if one has all the electrons freed and also has a closed current loop circuit, one simply converts that asymmetrical regauging to effective symmetrical regauging, and thereby one defeats any "free" work that is done, by using half the collected energy in the external circuit to destroy the source dipolarity one made in order to introduce the excess voltage. This destroys the voltage going to the circuit, and requires that the operator pay again and again to continue to restore the dipolarity that his own circuit is continuing to deliberately destroy faster than it powers its load. In short, we pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own power generators and lose.
Power engineering ignores the fact that, from a single fixed source of potential phi, one is permitted to collect as much energy W as one wishes, by the simple equation W = (phi)q. By simply having sufficient static charges q, any nonzero potential phi can provide as much collected energy (on fixed static charges q) as one wishes -- so long as one does not destroy the dipolarity that is producing phi. From a single fixed source of potential phi, one could collect enormous energy on substantial "fixed" charges q, then switch away the primary potential source and complete the circuit with a dipole, then release the charges so they can flow as current -- and the excess freely collected energy would dissipate in the load, freely producing some work. That, however, seems too "complicated" a process for power engineering to even consider, even though several means for "pinning" or "temporarily pinning" electrons exist. Obviously, if one wishes to "sell" energy to the unaware and naive customers, one must kill that silly dipolarity that will sit there and furnish a flow of phi (a flow of free energy!) indefinitely otherwise! Hence the need and requirement for the symmetrized closed current loop circuit, absolutely designed to destroy that dipolarity faster than the load is powered.
There is no law of nature that requires one to symmetrically regauge, and the closed current loop circuit is not a law of nature! The symmetrical regauging was done by Lorentz merely to simply the equations and get away from the tedious task of using numerical methods! Simply check it out. In those days, scientists thought the potentials were mathematical figments anyway, and the only real things electrodynamically were the force fields. In symmetrical regauging the equations, however, Lorentz directed all the electrodynamicists onto their present track of deliberately designing and "fixing" the Maxwellian system so it cannot physically produce COP>1.0 from its seething vacuum/spacetime energy exchanges, regardless of how much free regauging energy it actually receives from its vacuum energy exchange and from its exchange with the local curved spacetime.
Any decent and rigorous higher group symmetry EM analysis will show that indeed EM energy can be made available from the local active vacuum and from curved spacetime; e.g., particularly see the several very important published papers by Evans in O(3) electrodynamics, in Foundations of Physics Letters.
So we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the sheer continued malpractice of our scientific community, in deliberately burying any possibility of extracting EM energy from the vacuum in a fashion where it can be freely used to power loads, is what is wrong and what has generated the world energy crisis, the despoiling of the biosphere and deaths of species, the suppression of struggling and impoverished peoples worldwide, etc. Were it not so bizarre and so terribly inhumane in its consequences, this absolutely stupid scientific error would be the greatest joke on our scientific community ever promulgated. As it is, borrowing Tesla's words, it is "...one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded".
If scientists have any ethics left at all, they cannot in good conscience continue to ignore the fact that they themselves, by promulgating such a horribly flawed and universal bastardization of electrical science, are directly responsible for the misery and starvation and deaths of continuing hundreds of millions of persons worldwide. Yet in my old age I have grown a bit cynical. These facts are easily established by any competent scientist or graduate student who reviews the EE power engineering electrodynamics model and examines its implied assumptions. That none do that, that no textbook lists those assumptions of the model, and that none even call such to the attention of the students, is a travesty on the entire scientific method and a total betrayal of scientific honesty, objectivity, and ethics.
These are strong words indeed, but they are true nonetheless. The deaths of those struggling, long suppressed peoples are real. Those are real humans consigned needlessly to hunger, starvation, disease, poverty, death -- and hopelessness. Any sharp young graduate student or post doc can easily establish the true of these foundations assertions about the EE model's assumptions, and then decide for himself or herself what is responsible.
That the large organizations of science and the leaders of the scientific community have not even examined the assumptions of that model, and have not already corrected its appalling errors, is simply inexcusable -- totally inexcusable, in the light of modern knowledge of broken symmetry (as, e.g., the asymmetry of opposite charges -- i.e., a dipolarity) since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang. Quite simply, it is known and proven that any dipolarity (opposite charges) extracts virtual energy from the seething vacuum and outputs real, observable EM energy in all directions. Yet no such thing is even mentioned in the EE textbooks and courses.
A simple permanent magnet, e.g., as a magnetic dipole exhibits the asymmetry of opposite charges. Hence it continuously absorbs virtual photons from the vacuum, changes the absorbed differential of energy to a differential of mass, integrates the consecutive integrals of mass coherently since mass is unitary, and then re-emits real observable photons at light speed in all directions, producing and continuously replenishing its associated "static" EM fields and potentials. Note that the associated fields in space are made of photons (quanta), and a photon in space is moving at light speed a priori. Hence the so-called "static" fields are not static at all; instead, they are nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) entities. In forefront thermodynamics, it is already established that a NESS system is permitted to exhibit continuous negative entropy (Evans and Rondoni). Every charge and dipolarity in the universe already does exactly that, providing any number of examples of what Evans and Rondoni proved theoretically. And incidentally, totally violating the present statement of the second law of thermodynamics, which is an oxymoron that has always assumed its own contraction has first occurred. We have also restated the second law in accord with modern knowledge and with the exhibition of continuous negative entropy by every charge and dipolarity.
To spell all this out a little further, I prepared (somewhat hastily --- because of my seriously deteriorated physical condition I have to work in little snaps and surges) the paper on my website that deals with Precursor Engineering. Here we discussed what can be done if one first corrects the erroneous assumption of force fields in space from the models. That assumption has effectively hidden the fact that one can engineer the energy in space itself -- i.e., the virtual particle flux of the vacuum in particle physics terminology, or the curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics in general relativity terminology -- and it is work-free. It is simply regauging and sets of regaugings, and by the standard gauge freedom axiom that is work-free. It is not only symmetrical regauging that is work-free, but also asymmetrical regauging.
So all I can advise you to do is to search out and find suitable sensitive scientists (the higher their level the better) who still practice and uphold scientific method, who are concerned about the continuing and increasing damage to the biosphere and our fragile planetary environment, and make them familiar with this problem. Persuade them to do or have their assistants do the necessary rigorous review and re-examination of the assumptions in the classical M-H electrodynamics and electrical engineering, and prepare the necessary papers containing the results of that review. Then they should prepare a rigorous discussion of the present power industry practices, and how it has been shaped and distorted by these distorted assumptions of the standard electrical power engineering model. Particularly the impact on the Earth, on the peoples of the earth, and on the decline of species should also be included.
Only when the scientific community itself will prominently publish such a listing and admit its long errors in this respect, can there be any hope that this terrible faux pas will be corrected, the textbooks corrected, energy from the vacuum systems rapidly developed and deployed, etc. Any hope of funding the development and deployment of electrical power systems freely taking their input energy from the seething vacuum/curved spacetime can only occur after the scientific community -- which so adamantly opposes it or even any mention of it -- changes and tackles the task of developing and implementing just such systems.
Every graduating EE student and physics student should be required to take at least one seminar course where the limitations and assumptions of the basic models -- and particularly the EE model and the basic mechanics model -- are pointed out. To my knowledge, that has never been done, and it is still not done anywhere today that I am aware of. Yet it is sorely needed if ever we are to scrub out the long accumulated horrible errors in some of these models. And if we are ever to get those terribly suffering impoverished populations up and moving, with a decent life and hope rather than the sheer despondency that now is their lot.
Hope that helps at least a little, and I attach a copy of the paper on Precursor Engineering for your information.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 01:55 PM
quote:
When the vast majority of a field disagrees with you, when there is no visible independent person in the field that agrees with you, and you are forced to sell DVDs and books rather than your world-changing MEG devices. That's a pretty good indication of a quack.
A vast majority? Are you mental? What vast majority do you speak of? Wanna form me a list of scientist qualified to understand or have tested Bearden's theory? Wanna show what VAST amount of scientist even know of Bearden? Wanna show a list of this VAST amount that does know about him disagrees with him? Wanna provide their scientific reasoning? Any moron can understand that a magnet loses a lot of it's power thru the dipoles. Same with a generator. quote:
King Mojo that didn't have time to defend his own theory but now has time to defend Bearden? Oh I love the inconsistencies I find in this forum.And yes, Mojo, I've seen Bearden's response. It pretty much confirms that his doctorate is a joke. A doctorate based on "life experiences?" Come on...
I think I defended myself for 12 full pages you asswipe, Nutlicking moron! Yeah, I do not have time to prove a negative to a hot air, manure tossing, ego maniac, who has no credintials to even have an opinion of such proportions. And who thinks he can prove all the world wrong if HE decides it is not true. You just get on Google, find some people who share your view and you consider it fact and label those people a VAST amount. Chicken liver, yellow belly, corn bread eatin stooge! Fucking crying about how Bearden received his PHD. God help you, you software geek. Did you get picked on in school or something? Over bearing mother maybe? Quack Quack
[Edited 4 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 03-11-2004]
|
KNOW-THIS
Senior Member
758 posts, Jul 2003
|
posted 03-11-2004 03:12 PM
That easily takes the cake as being the funniest post ever!
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-11-2004 04:26 PM
quote:
Letxa2000: When the vast majority of a field disagrees with you, when there is no visible independent person in the field that agrees with you, and you are forced to sell DVDs and books rather than your world-changing MEG devices. That's a pretty good indication of a quack.Mojoman: A vast majority? Are you mental? What vast majority do you speak of? Wanna form me a list of scientist qualified to understand or have tested Bearden's theory? Wanna show what VAST amount of scientist even know of Bearden? Wanna show a list of this VAST amount that does know about him disagrees with him? Wanna provide their scientific reasoning?
The few physicsts and physics students that I have seen exposed to his theories reject it. I've seen no independent physicist accept it. That most of the physics world probably doesn't even know who Bearden is even goes further to confirm that he is a quack. Has he published his theories in a scientific journal for peer review as per accepted scientific protocol when coming up with a new theory or discovery? quote:
I think I defended myself for 12 full pages you asswipe, Nutlicking moron!
I had 30 questions you never addressed which appears more to me like evasion than defense. Shall I repost the question on the RadarMatrix thread and we can expect you to address them?
|
Yaak
Senior Member
Terlingua, Texas, USA
36 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-11-2004 06:02 PM
Hey, Mojo, you got something against cornbread?To the moderators: is it acceptable for debunkers to use the same language as electricmojoman does? May the debunkers insult the chemtrail believers in the fashion that electricmojoman insults letxa2000?
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 10:04 PM
quote:
Has he published his theories in a scientific journal for peer review as per accepted scientific protocol when coming up with a new theory or discovery?
I don't know, you tell me Mr. Expert on Bearden. I'm not the one going around labeling people as quacks when I have no credibility to do so. Sure I could get on the internet and find anything to suit my views and needs. You're too busy in forums you dont believe in telling people they shouldn't believe people you decide are quacks. And you're only evidence is correlating a FEW people on the internet, who you may or may not know their credibility as well, and your HIGH CLASS mind and Logic. I do know his work and articles were published on the DOE site. And quess what? The DOE took his work off because they are using it for themselves in this electrical grid, which incedintally includes chemtrails, HAARP and radars. The OIL?ENERGY guys who hold the Patents know all about scalar electromagnetics. Getting power from the vacuum should take you directly to tubes and how they work and what part chemtrails play in that. I also heard today that Bush put off his initiative for hydrogen cars, fuel cells and other technologies. So you can see why some of us know that technology is supressed. Try reading up on Stubblefield and what he and Tesla did in the late 1800's. Rense has an audio that follows along with his site. quote:
I had 30 questions you never addressed which appears more to me like evasion than defense. Shall I repost the question on the RadarMatrix thread and we can expect you to address them?
You have a hard time listening don't you?
Hey, you're the one that diverted the Bearden talk to another forum from ours. So I took your little slide of hand and went here instead=) Lex, your 30 questions can kiss YAAKs cornbread ass!=) YAAK, do you want your mommy or a moderator...I'm cornfused? I'm not going to turn into a smurf trying to prove a negative to an Ego maniac. I'd rather call you a quack and let you look in your own mirror computer boy.=)
[Edited 3 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 03-11-2004]
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-11-2004 10:14 PM
quote:
letxa2000: Has he published his theories in a scientific journal for peer review as per accepted scientific protocol when coming up with a new theory or discovery?Mojoman: I don't know, you tell me Mr. Expert on Bearden.
So basically you're saying that you don't know if he's published his theories in scientific journals for peer review yet you ask why someone would dare question his credibility or the seriousness of this theories?
quote:
And you're only evidence is correlating a FEW people on the internet, who you may or may not know their credibility as well, and your HIGH CLASS mind and Logic.
Please refrain from using the word "correlate" if you don't know what it means. quote:
I do know his work and articles were published on the DOE site. And quess what? The DOE took his work off because they are using it for themselves in this electrical grid, which incedintally includes chemtrails, HAARP and radars.
Right. I'm aware of the DOE incident and I've heard other explanations as to why it's gone. Do you have any proof that suggests that the DOE is using Bearden's theories as you assert?
quote:
I'm not going to turn into a smurf trying to prove a negative to an Ego maniac.
You ask ME to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove a positive. Prove that Bearden is right. Prove that his theories are being used by the DOE. Prove that radar anomalies have anything to do with weather control. Prove chemtrails exist. Prove HAARP can control the weather or is SDI. You've made a heck of a lot of assertions and have not provided a single shred of proof and you have the audacity to ask me for proof that you're wrong?
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 10:18 PM
OH NO.....MORE OF LEX AND HIS KNIT PICKING POST.......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!EVERYONE RUN!!!! HIS HEAD IS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER, WHILE HIS CREDIBILIY SHRIVELS.
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-11-2004 10:27 PM
quote:
You've made a heck of a lot of assertions and have not provided a single shred of proof and you have the audacity to ask me for proof that you're wrong?
You're damn right I do especially when i am talking to an underhanded, misguided worm like yourself that is sitting inside a forum on a topic you don't believe in! Trying to act like if we don't make you believe then we are all wrong. F*** you!
Quack Quack You look up the definition. The term fits. Going after someone's grammer or typos is the last refuge of a losing arguement. Your whole game is based on labeling, pigeon-holing and doing google searches for things that only serve to do what your complaining others do. Do you own a mirror? Quack Quack
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 03-13-2004]
|
Yaak
Senior Member
Terlingua, Texas, USA
36 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-12-2004 12:02 AM
Eccentricmojerk says, "Lex, your 30 questions can kiss YAAKs cornbread ass!=) YAAK, do you want your mommy or a moderator...I'm cornfused?" Carry on letxa2000. I can see that if Eccentricmojerk gets banned it will spoil your fun.
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-12-2004 07:36 AM
Eccentricmojerk? Very nice one indeed! Now don't you feel better? It didn't bother me. But it is nice to see you become the guitly as well=)The only reason I can get banned is if someone goes crying to the moderator. YAAK, there is more than one way to tell someone to F-off. These Disinformants do exactly that. I've went enough rounds with Lex to know his true colors and I intend to hold a mirror up to him from now on. You can either lead, follow or move to the sidelines. quack quack
[Edited 2 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 03-12-2004]
|
swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County
Jersey City, NJ
1411 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-12-2004 10:42 AM
Mojoman,The poodles Yaak the Knife and Lexie Luthor are nipping at heels again. Everyone already knows they are disinformants. Another tact would be to simply ignore their posts, since their design is to take away people from serious discussion. That's why I like Megasprayer's and Method of Destruction's Rules. If you are a debunker or disinformant, you are banned. Language is secondary. But this site has improved over the last 3 months. It used to be infested with creeps, and even the Orkin Man couldn't get rid of them.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-12-2004]
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-12-2004 01:49 PM
quote:
Everyone already knows they are disinformants.
Please tell me what a disinformant is? Do you think I work for some? Do you think I am lying about something? What is a disinformant other than an ad-hominem attack that is apparently tolerated by the moderators? It is becoming clear that the rules here only apply to skeptics, not to chemtrail believers. quote:
Another tact would be to simply ignore their posts, since their design is to take away people from serious discussion.
Whether or not you agree with me on the issues, the most useful discussion is that which challenges your beliefs. Patting each other on and saying one to another, "Yep, the government is evil" and "Yep, you're right, there are chemtrails" and patting each other on the back serves no intellectual purpose. You apparently strive to live in a comfortable environment without anything to make waves that would even slightly rock your boat. Interestingly, that's strikingly similar to what you accuse most of the population of doing by being "ignorant" of these important conspiracies. Why do you strive to live in an environment which you criticize others for living in? quote:
That's why I like Megasprayer's and Method of Destruction's Rules. If you are a debunker or disinformant, you are banned. Language is secondary.
Then I am sure there is a lot of stimulating discussion there . Shutting up the opposition is always the best way to deal with opposing viewpoints, right? Such a policy of immediately banning an opponent does not violate free speech since they are not the government and it is their forum, but it certainly violates the spirit of free speech we treasure in this country. It makes me wonder if their values are really in line with the values of most Americans or more similar to those of facism and censorship.
|
electricmojoman
Senior Member
182 posts, Feb 2004
|
posted 03-12-2004 01:59 PM
David Edwards?
|
swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County
Jersey City, NJ
1411 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-12-2004 03:45 PM
quote:
Please tell me what a disinformant is? Do you think I work for some? Do you think I am lying about something? What is a disinformant other than an ad-hominem attack that is apparently tolerated by the moderators? It is becoming clear that the rules here only apply to skeptics, not to chemtrail believers.
A disinformant is someone who is obviously taking the stance of backing up Big Business, Big Government, and Big Religion over the power of the little guy. Is there anybody in their right mind that does not think that there are CONSPIRACIES as much as COINCIDENCES that happen, and that ususally the people and ideas connected with such enterprises has characteristically, thoughout history, been oppsed to the populace having power. The Average citizen simply cannot do the damage a government ot corporation can. Fabricating, lying, creating phony wars, killing, and stealing has been their Mode of Operation.
quote:
Whether or not you agree with me on the issues, the most useful discussion is that which challenges your beliefs. Patting each other on and saying one to another, "Yep, the government is evil" and "Yep, you're right, there are chemtrails" and patting each other on the back serves no intellectual purpose. You apparently strive to live in a comfortable environment without anything to make waves that would even slightly rock your boat. Interestingly, that's strikingly similar to what you accuse most of the population of doing by being "ignorant" of these important conspiracies. Why do you strive to live in an environment which you criticize others for living in?
Do you really want to find the truth in a matter, or are you here to "Nip at the Ankles" of "Conspiracy Theorists, Liberals, Leftists, Libertarians, Gays, Animal Rights Activists, and every other "social reject" that does not fit into the Bush/Jerry Falwell/Far Right category? Whoever on this board said "The government is evil" I will speak for myself, since you stick all "Conspiracy Theorists" into the ssame boat. What I said is this: There are good people that work in government, big business, and religion. There are also unscrupulous characters that work in the same, and can harm many people in the process. If you look at the history of the CIA (I consider myself an expert in their history), you would see what a diabolical organization it is. Anybody thinks differenty may not be stupid, just extremely uninformed. If you knew my history and my age, you would see that it has been anything but a comfortable time. I encourage free speach, I even supported the KKK to March if they wanted to. But, we should not attack each other, and I usually don't, unless provoked.
quote:
Then I am sure there is a lot of stimulating discussion there . Shutting up the opposition is always the best way to deal with opposing viewpoints, right? Such a policy of immediately banning an opponent does not violate free speech since they are not the government and it is their forum, but it certainly violates the spirit of free speech we treasure in this country. It makes me wonder if their values are really in line with the values of most Americans or more similar to those of facism and censorship..
That is a very ignorant staement Lexie. Megasprayer is THE BEST site specifically for chemtrails. The mods there simply had enough of people coming in, calling them names, threatening them, and naysaying everything. And you know what? There is PLENTY of discussion on chemtrails and other subjects. We learn by friendly exchange. We disagree on there, and nobdy attacks, because we realize we are all on the side of the Little Guy. You have seen Mech and I disagree, I'm sure, on CTC. Almost passionate at times. We have met on occasions, and look each other in the eyes, and we know we are on the same side again. The little issues will auto-correct over time. The big issues, chemtrails, New World Order, Globalization, Brainwashing, and Eternal War are what we agree upon. If you want to really find out what goes on behind the scenes, stick around, we'll be glad to discuss. If you are dead set that everybody is out of their minds, and paranoid, then get lost, and do us a favor. I don't mean to be rude, but that is the truth. To make my final statement succinct: There simply is not enough time to waste arguing points that a schoolchild would understand.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-12-2004]
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-12-2004 05:14 PM
quote:
Swampgas: A disinformant is someone who is obviously taking the stance of backing up Big Business, Big Government, and Big Religion over the power of the little guy. Is there anybody in their right mind that does not think that there are CONSPIRACIES as much as COINCIDENCES that happen, and that ususally the people and ideas connected with such enterprises has characteristically, thoughout history, been oppsed to the populace having power. The Average citizen simply cannot do the damage a government ot corporation can. Fabricating, lying, creating phony wars, killing, and stealing has been their Mode of Operation.
So I am a "disinformant" because I take a stance that you think backs big business, big government, and big religion? That seems like a rather wishy washy and subjective definition and certainly isn't what one first thinks of when they see "disinformant." It also seems that effectively a "disinformant," then, is anyone who disagrees with you. Just because you think you are concerned about the "little guy" doesn't mean that everyone that doesn't share your viewpoints are necessarily coorporate, big-government pawns. Personally, my interest in these topics is completely apart from who it benefits or harms. I just want to know if it's true and no-one has been able to settle that question with any real proof. quote:
Do you really want to find the truth in a matter, or are you here to "Nip at the Ankles" of "Conspiracy Theorists, Liberals, Leftists, Libertarians, Gays, Animal Rights Activists, and every other "social reject" that does not fit into the Bush/Jerry Falwell/Far Right category?
As I've said many times here at CTC, I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm here to debate and I think we all learn from that UNTIL such time as the name-calling begins. I don't presume to be perfect but, honestly, I've never been the one that started the name-calling in any given thread. I think the reason so many people here fail to see the usefulness of healthy disagreement is that as soon as someone disagrees it doesn't take long before the CTC folks start flaming and ridiculing. Once that happens, little will be gained from any discussion. But it's always the skeptic that is blamed for the then-useless debate rather than the person doing the flaming. Check out this thread. Somehow I'm the bad guy. JBE initially responded with "OMG" and accusing me of lying rather than calmly answering my issues. And who was it that said "F*ck you?" It certainly wasn't me, and even after that person made that comment you continued to support him. I didn't even see a warning or a reprehmand from the moderators. And the skeptics are the ones that are causing problems??
quote:
If you want to really find out what goes on behind the scenes, stick around, we'll be glad to discuss. If you are dead set that everybody is out of their minds, and paranoid, then get lost, and do us a favor. I don't mean to be rude, but that is the truth.
I came in here back in November and December discussing things, initially 9/11. I asked questions and I was told to read a bunch of irrelevant links that never answered my question nor gave proof to support the assertions made by people here. When I said so I was ridiculed. When I asked about chemtrails I was told to do my homework, that no-one could do it for me. When that chemtrail "homework" took me to RadarMatrix, I investigated radar anomalies and posted my results... I was called a bunch of names by mojoman even though I didn't sink to the same level. Yet somehow CTC members felt the need to jump on me rather than mojoman for stepping out of line virtually on every page of the thread. I don't believe I've ever said that I think everybody here is out of their minds and paranoid, but, quite frankly, after a few months here it's getting hard to conclude otherwise. Not because of what you believe, but because of the behavior and attitude that is visible every day. People here in this forum are demonstrating it on a daily basis and then complain when people draw conclusions from what we witness.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by letxa2000 on 03-12-2004]
|
swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County
Jersey City, NJ
1411 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-12-2004 10:40 PM
Lexie,You are full of crap!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-12-2004]
|
redforeman
New Member
1 posts, Mar 2004
|
posted 03-13-2004 02:23 AM
Lex,
I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person. I'm more or less just researching chemtrails & weather modification recently for myself. You seem to be fond of writing reports. If you do not think that an air born practical can be attracted by magnetic force, I would like a small report from you on “How sandpaper is made by modern automation”. Or, ” Modern powder coating technic.” Either one is for equal credit. The concepts are pretty simple. You make a particle more magnetic, give it a charge, then artificially create an opposite charge to draw in those charged air borne particles. Radars work because they have something called a “magnetron”. What else has a “magnetron”? Micro-waves. What is something that magnetrons are good at? Is it heating things up and making a magnetic field? Why, yes it is. Most, of the basic concepts here aren’t really that complicated. I don’t have a degree in physics, but as I may have mentioned, I‘m not exactly stupid either. My father was an electronics tech. and he taught me at least a little about electricity and magnetics. He was also a radar tech. In the Navy. Radars are really big micro-waves. Look it up.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by redforeman on 03-13-2004]
|
letxa2000
Senior Member
U.S. citizen in Mexico
435 posts, Dec 2003
|
posted 03-13-2004 09:28 AM
quote:
Swampgas: You are full of crap!
What an intelligent reply. Anyway, I think the problem may be that at this point perhaps you can't tell the difference between cr*p and the truth. Anyone without a tendency to flame skeptics that has followed the threads I've participated in since November knows what I said is true. quote:
Radars work because they have something called a “magnetron”. What else has a “magnetron”? Micro-waves. What is something that magnetrons are good at? Is it heating things up and making a magnetic field? Why, yes it is.
Actually, modern NEXRAD's use a klystron, not a magnetron. I don't see the importance, though. Just because we use constant, non-focused, microwave-length RF to heat food contained in a small box at a range of a few inches doesn't mean we're doing any significant heating of the atmosphere when we use a non-constant (transmitter only on about 0.2% of the time), focused, microwave-length RF in a radar at a distance of miles to hundreds of miles. quote:
Most, of the basic concepts here aren’t really that complicated. I don’t have a degree in physics, but as I may have mentioned, I‘m not exactly stupid either. My father was an electronics tech. and he taught me at least a little about electricity and magnetics. He was also a radar tech. In the Navy.
Sounds like I'm in the same boat as you. My father was also EE (now retired) and was in the Navy operating both radar and sonar. He did his disertation on sonar. Like you I don't have a degree in physics, but I don't consider myself stupid either.
|
Show-Me Truth
Senior Member
Mid Missouri
315 posts, Nov 2003
|
posted 03-13-2004 10:07 AM
Over and over chemtrail researchers have provided evidence of chemtrails,over and over and over. And over and over and over posters like Lex ignore it and repeat like a parrot with severe dementia, "prove it." So we again do and then they run away and a few posts later are asking the exact same questions. Did I mention insincerity is one of the easiest things to spot in internet communication. Real "debunkers" versus those who really want to know stick out like sore thumbs. Chemtrails programs are quite real, evidence of them is EASILY found now, and those who deny then are either underinformed, misinformed, or as I tend to think most likely disingenous. SmT
|
Wolf_Larson
Senior Member
The Sea
353 posts, Aug 2003
|
posted 03-14-2004 05:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
Over and over chemtrail researchers have provided evidence of chemtrails,over and over and over. And over and over and over posters like Lex ignore it and repeat like a parrot with severe dementia, "prove it." So we again do and then they run away and a few posts later are asking the exact same questions. Did I mention insincerity is one of the easiest things to spot in internet communication. Real "debunkers" versus those who really want to know stick out like sore thumbs. Chemtrails programs are quite real, evidence of them is EASILY found now, and those who deny then are either underinformed, misinformed, or as I tend to think most likely disingenous. SmT
I don't think so. So far I have seen a few very questionable "reports" on Carincom's site and a lot of pictures that in the long run add up to zip.
|
Show-Me Truth
Senior Member
Mid Missouri
315 posts, Nov 2003
|
posted 03-14-2004 08:07 PM
Well believe it or not Wolf,what I am telling you is absolutely verifiable. All sorts of chemtrail programs have existed at least back into the forties. In fact I even recently posted a link to testimoney given to a government panel on chemtrails. The people as you talk about on Carnicom's site may well have very good reason to believe that they have found viruses and biological material that has been intentionally released from planes.Check out this link that that talks about decades of this dangerous spraying over hundreds of cities and MILLIONS of people using all sorts of different potentially carcinogenic chemicals as well as different biological agents. CHEMTRAILS exist.
http://home.comcast.net/~kknowlto/openair.htm SmT
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Show-Me Truth on 03-14-2004]
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 
