Posted by Michael (199.60.107.1) on September 26, 2003 at 14:31:14:
> Come on, are you serious? That's the exact reason we
> still don't have FE
> in the market, people have to change the way they
> think!!
>
I tried to approach the subject logically and I can't
get past just how monumental a conspriacy like that
would be. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions
worldwide, of people, ex politicians (voted out of
office, but still part of "it"), scientists,
engineers, where would it end? There would be so many
people "in on it" that it would almost be the minority
of people that wouldn't know about it.
> How can you be on the dark side and still have an
> interest in this
> group? You gotta feel the force!!
>
What force?
> People, stop deceiving your selves, individuals at
> the government can't
> and won't hide anything, but the real sidetracking
> and deception is not
> coming from the white house or congress, it's coming
> from the industry.
>
But it couldn't just end there. You have independent
researchers all over the world that are free to
investigate what they want. If they found this type of
thing it would come out -- business and industry can't
keep a private university professor in Paris or Prague
from doing research.
>
> First, it's the military's responsibility to hide
> the technology against
> our enemies from using it against us, and being able
> to use it them
> selves as a military advantage. For instance; The
> SR-71 (black bird)
> had been tested at least one decade before anyone
> knew it even existed.
> The existence of the F117 plane was only admitted to
> exist right before
> they decided to test it in the gulf war. If such
> technologies were
> developed and kept secret for 1 to 2 decades and
> build 3 decades ago,
> imagine what they could possess now.
>
You're talking about black projects with "need to
know" types of clearance for hundreds of people. But
the people building the prototypes in the factories,
the workers, did know about it. They were sworn not to
disclose those things and they didn't to preserve
their jobs and to prevent enemies from acquiring our
technology (and, of course, avoid jail). But free
energy is NOT an advanced fighter bomber. Again, where
are the independent scientists who could and would
find it and report it?
> If it would take millions of dollars for some
> corporation to suppress
> technologies (which would be more than enough) that
> is really not much
> effort on their part considering how much an
> electric or oil company
> makes everyday. These are major companies that can
> only survive if they
> can prevent people like you from applying for
> free-energy patents. These
> are not companies such Intel and AMD trying to keep
> each other from
> discovering the secret to a 30 atom thick
> transistor. They are working
> WITH each other against you.
>
So they have whole departments of employees working on
improved energy efficiency just for cover? You really
think that's true? Why bother? Would Wall Street say
"Hey, why aren't you doing research on energy
efficiency; well, maybe you don't NEED TO, because you
have found the secret of free energy!!" if they don't?
What is the point of having these people, working on
these things, if they'll never bother implementing
their ideas? Why did Toyota come out with a hybrid
vehicle if 100+ mpg was just a matter of putting the
right carburetor on the car? Do you think it was to
prevent "us" from catching on?
> There is no reason to invest money developing and
> marketing free energy
> if they can still sell you gas and electricity!!!
> Oh, and how would they
> sell FREE-ENERGY if it is free???
They'd sell the equipment needed to exploit it!!! If
there was a gadget to extract "vacuum energy from the
aether" there would be a HUGE market for it -
literally trillions of dollars. It would never end,
and dwarf the nickles and
dollars (that's
twelve zeros before the decimal point). Would we all
buy one? What do you think?
> And forget scientific "theories", business don't
> build bridges,
> microchips, or a car with 22,000+ parts based on
> theories. For that to
> work you need scientific laws, and prove it using
> advanced math in a
> simulator before they spend millions on a football
> TV commercial ad to
> market it. Theories and Laws are on the opposite
> side of the coin, and
> the same goes to free-energy technology verses the
> technology you read
> on science magazines. Two of the same coins with
> very different money
> value :)
>
Yeah, and the LAWS that predict NO free energy are in
agreement with the theories that do the same, and no
coherent, works-in-the-real-world,
predicts-reality-as-it-exists theory or law also
predicts meaningful amounts of free energy. So fine,
we'll stick with laws.
> So now they are developing fuel cell cars that runs
> on hydrogen instead,
> that way we can stop burning the atmosphere (which
> takes people's minds
> off of any *alternative* fuels we may soon be forced
> discover), and at
> the same time keep making money by selling you a new
> kind of fuel.
>
Well why bother with all of that? It's a mighty
stoopid way of making money, to go to all that trouble
when they could send Home Energy Makers to Walmart
where we'd buy 'em up. Imangine how many they'd have
sold during a blackout? We'd be off the grid, they'd
be richer and all that in no time.
> aaah!!!!
>
> You all will continue to have to buy gasoline
> vaporizing tanks and tanks
> of it into the atmosphere every week and force power
> plants to keep
> producing nuclear waste or burn coal to keep surfing
> the internet if you
> don't accept reality.
>
Well, >I< accept reality just fine. It's not hard,
actually. And the reality I see does not, so far,
include free energy, nor do any theories or laws that
work in the real world. Perhaps we may pull a few
watts out of vacuum energy someday, but it will likely
consume fuel doing it.
> Think people!! Think for your selves. Don't let
> mainstream science, the
> press and the governments think for you. It's up to
> you, the general
> public to have the power to bring FE to perspective
> and use. If you
> don't see it, the law makers never will. Then in
> about 20 years we will
> choke in our own gases right before we run out of
> oil or right before
> the 'so precious' hydrogen fuel is even available in
> your corner gas
> station.
>
Sure, it's up to the general public. Only one
problemo: there IS no free energy to exploit. Where
are these machines? Bearden's hogwash? Some of the
other fraudsters? Nobody so far has generated any free
energy, but I do agree with one point -- if somebody
does sell a real one someday it will be popular.
> http://www.zeoez.com/manmade.png
> We don't have to destroy the Earth to live our
> lives, thank you for
> reading this.
>
My four points still stand, unrefuted. Scientists
would be finding free energy indpendently and confirm
each others' results, no conspiracy could last this
long with the huge numbers of people supposedly in on
it, no working law or theory supports it, and the
economics would favor exploiting free energy.
- Gary