posted 03-08-2004 07:12 PM            

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.

---

posted 03-08-2004 10:25 PM            

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?

posted 03-09-2004 09:51 AM            

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.

posted 03-09-2004 10:27 AM               

That facts stand on their own I believe. A disinfo tactic!

posted 03-09-2004 10:31 AM            

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.

posted 03-09-2004 12:49 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.

posted 03-09-2004 01:57 PM            

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.

posted 03-09-2004 02:23 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.

posted 03-09-2004 02:47 PM            

Conspiracy or Coinicidence?

According to Lexie, the entire universe is a bunch of Coincidences, and governments and Corporations NEVER conspire.

http://www.mandalavillage.org/reading/tec_enertech_suppression.htm

How the government (FDA) conspired with Monsanto to ban Stevia, to allow the poison Nutrasweet to market.

http://www.holisticmed.com/sweet/stv-alert.txt

How the FDA and pharmaceuticals conspired to bring back a VERY dangerous drug, AZT, to kill off AIDS patients. In fact, AIDS is one of the bigeest scams in history.

http://www.duesberg.com/media/jlbazt.html

http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/pharmaceutical_racket.html

posted 03-09-2004 02:49 PM            

Not the suppression of the information but of it's potential production and commercial use. The fact that The government hasn't ordered the murdering of Bearden doesn't force us to conclude much of anything as you've so dramatically proposed.

"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"

Define "suppressed" Lexta, do you see it as being a death threat, or the removal of a website? How do you know he hasn't received threatening phone calls or other tactics of deterrence that the public isn't aware of? Government countermeasures would have to be subtle as to not effectively work against them. They want to PUBLICLY maintain the false assertion that these devices are inadequate. Drastic measures OPENLY taken against individuals attempting to develop these devices would only bolster the effect they're trying to abate. Attacking them would only suggest that the invention was actually functional. Many times the suppression occurs behind the scenes. It becomes a "my word against yours" situation. And as always, the government then denies involvement and comes off squeaky clean.

posted 03-09-2004 03:03 PM            

Thetaloops and I edited an award winning video back in 1993, called "AIDS: The Untold Story" with Gary Null.

We interviewed 200 doctors, patients, Gallo, Duesberg, and Montagnier themselves.

Conclusion: HIV does not cause AIDS. No one pathogen could cause 30 different results.

HIV virus has never been photographed, only simulations.

AZT killed off patients fast.

Warts shows up as HIV positive, which is a test for the "AIDS Virus" anti-bodies.

Conspiracy is all it can be called.

http://www.whale.to/c/null.html

When I hear of the shear idiocy of people saying, "The government wouldn't spray us with chemicals", I just laugh. It's a sad laugh though,

posted 03-09-2004 03:15 PM            

Many deaths ensued because of this foolish practice. In fact, the #1 disease cause by Lead is CANCER (Sloan-Kettering)

http://old.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/leadout.html

posted 03-09-2004 03:25 PM            

http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v04/n155/a03.html

MAKER OF OXYCONTIN MINIMIZED ITS DANGERS IN VIDEOS FOR DOCTORS

by Associated Press,
23 Jan 2004
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Report Questions Claims On Drug

WASHINGTON - The maker of OxyContin sent doctors promotional videos that made unsubstantiated claims minimizing the dangers associated with the pain relief drug, congressional investigators said yesterday.

The General Accounting Office also said that in 1998, Stamford, Conn.-based Purdue Pharma failed to submit one of the videos to the Food and Drug Administration for review, as required, when the company started circulating it to thousands of doctors.

The company said its failure to send the video to the agency was an oversight. It did submit a 2001 video for FDA examination, but the agency did not review it "because of limited resources," the report said.

On the 1998 video, a doctor says less than 1 percent of people who take pain relief medication like OxyContin become addicted. That's a figure the FDA says has not been substantiated.

The FDA looked at the later video after GAO investigators inquired about it. The agency said it "appeared to make unsubstantiated claims regarding OxyContin's effect on patients' quality of life and ability to perform daily activities and minimized the risks associated with the drug."

The FDA also publicly cited Purdue Pharma last year for overstating OxyContin's safety in print ads.

OxyContin was initially hailed as a breakthrough in the treatment of severe chronic pain when it was introduced in 1996. The drug has become a problem in recent years, however, after users discovered that crushing the time-release tablets and snorting or injecting the powder yields an immediate, heroin-like high.

Lawmakers asked GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, to study Purdue Pharma's marketing of OxyContin because of the drug's widespread abuse, especially in Appalachian states.

The report said it was difficult to pinpoint the relationship between the increase of OxyContin prescriptions in recent years and the diversion of the drug to abusers.

Purdue Pharma spokesman Jim Heins said that lack of information about why the drug has been abused means critics should not point fingers at the company without obtaining more proof.

Heins confirmed that Purdue Pharma is facing roughly 340 lawsuits for its marketing of OxyContin, but he said 70 of them have been dismissed.

posted 03-09-2004 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

SwampGas: Need more proof the governemnt and corposrations CONSPIRE to make money at the expense of safety?

---

Actually, I'd prefer to see some evidence that disputes my original assertion that Bearden is a quack. We can get into the conspiracy debate if you want, but that was more of a tangent to the initial topic here. JBE took issue with my characterization of Bearden as a quack. I have not seen that disputed yet.

quote:

---

Letxa2000: "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."

Know-This: Not the suppression of the information but of it's potential production and commercial use. The fact that The government hasn't ordered the murdering of Bearden doesn't force us to conclude much of anything as you've so dramatically proposed.

---

So you're saying the government will let people enjoy their free speech but that, in all the world, there is no-one with sufficient funds to commercialize Bearden's world-changing invention or that would be motivated to ignore the oil companies in order to further their own wealth? How is it you think that the oil companies would or could prevent an independent person (such as Bearden) from getting venture capital funding for his device? Why do you think none of the billionaires in the world (Bill Gates, perhaps?), who have more money than any given 5 petroleum companies have in profits in a year, have not chosen to build their fortune even further by commercializing Bearden's wonderful device? Do you think they are in on the conspiracy? Do you think their lives are threatened by the oil companies? How exactly does this play out?

quote:

---

Define "suppressed" Lexta, do you see it as being a death threat, or the removal of a website?

---

"Suppressed" would be something to keep the information getting to the public. That certainly hasn't happened. Now I am beginning to believe that your thoughts aren't that the government suppresses information but that the oil companies somehow prevent a well-published idea from being developed in the marketplace? Please correct me if my understanding of your belief is wrong.

quote:

---

How do you know he hasn't received threatening phone calls or other tactics of deterrence that the public isn't aware of?

---

In the absence of evidence to support that speculation, I have no reason to believe that any of these tactics have been employed.

quote:

---

Government countermeasures would have to be subtle as to not effectively work against them. They want to PUBLICLY maintain the false assertion that these devices are inadequate. Drastic measures OPENLY taken against individuals attempting to develop these devices would only bolster the effect they're trying to abate. Attacking them would only suggest that the invention was actually functional. Many times the suppression occurs behind the scenes. It becomes a "my word against yours" situation. And as always, the government then denies involvement and comes off squeaky clean.

---

Once again I am seeing a fascinating line of reasoning here. You are suggesting that the lack of evidence of suppression may, in fact, be evidence of more subtle suppression? I'm sorry, I can't accept that. It's based on paranoia and lacks any sort of evidence to support it.

quote:

---

You also cannot claim that all free energy devices are bogus based on the narrow discussion of Bearden alone.

---

In this thread I'm not making that assertion, although in other threads I have stated that I have personally seen no evidence of free energy devices that would compel me to believe they actually exist. If/when they come to exist, believe me, I'll shut up and buy one! Until then I must continue to believe in our current understanding of natural laws wherein a free energy device violates the laws of physics. I think you'll find that physics puts up a bigger fight against free energy than our government or big oil.

posted 03-09-2004 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

Actually, I'd prefer to see some evidence that disputes my original assertion that Bearden is a quack. We can get into the conspiracy debate if you want, but that was more of a tangent to the initial topic here. JBE took issue with my characterization of Bearden as a quack. I have not seen that disputed yet.

---

Actaully, you are showing yourself to be a quack by not seeing that governments and corporations do conspire together, often at the public's expense.

WHere is your ever inclusive knowledge when it comes to the CONSPIRACIES I just mentioned?

What does this have to do with Bearden? Plenty...If you think that AIDS is not a scam, Monsanto did not conspire with the FDA to bypass testing for Aspratame, and the Military/Industrial/Medical Complex is out to help us, then you are indeed in a sorry situation, and just about everything you say is suspect.

2 conclusions:

1) You are living in a Mom and Apple Pie Fantasy of the World

2)You are a paid disinformant