It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


PEAR - Engineering and Consciousness

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:43 PM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I appreciate bedlams time but he didn't make a counter claim unless I missed it?
This isn't just magical thinking and pattern recognition..

The data on at least what I found from PEAR some time ago.. The data showed results on random number generators far enough outside of chance and in the direction people wanted it to go that it seems pretty obvious to me that something is going on.. And is it really so hard to imagine this "spooky action at a distance?"

Now a little bit about me.. Sometimes I'm psychic.. And it's the same state I'm in when I'm "in the zone" or deep in meditation.. Anyway When I get in tune I accidentally hear peoples thoughts that I am very close to.. I've done it so much even hardcore skeptics know I'm really hearing people.. Well, you had to be there.. Haha.. Especially with my ex girlfriend I would call back to her from the other side of the house.. "hell yes we should get pizza, did you have a movie in mind?"

She walks into the room with a dumb look on her face and I'm like "what? do you not want pizza then?"

No she does, but she never called to me, she did think those 3 sentences though.. Well I heard them as if she was yelling it to me.. It happens with my mom as well.. She just has to need me for something and it sounds like shes yelling my name..

I'm not allowed to play Risk anymore because I developed this pattern of words and emotion that puts my mind in the right spot and I roll 5s and 6s 3 times as much as any other numbers.. I got it to work with other games of dice but the feeling isn't the same like with Risk.. Could be I've always been obsessed with war and global domination.. So it just. It's just easier to care the right frequencies..

I wish my ex or sister or mom were on this site.. All of them would confirm everything I am saying.. My ex especially.. We weren't allowed to look at each other if we played card games lol.. because we could talk with just eye contact.. But she would just send energy instead.. We were VERY connected. "ugh their talking about us again.." Sorry guys hahahaha..

There seems to be an effort to diminish the understanding of these phenomena, which would lead to applications that would cause too much wiggle room in the current and future events section of human history..

I can tell with some technology to boost what I already know how to do, or some kind of training module that had a visual display like a game to match pictures by "getting in the zone" If I had access to such things... Man I could really start playing the game on a whole new level.

Now as far as I saw on PEAR the study didn't seem to have any outright flaws in it..
That is assuming they kept ALL the data and didn't cherry pick anything.. If they threw out any data then yikes.. But if not, then it's obvious affecting chance is possible.. My own experiences are proof enough to me that "my mind" is non local.. Or let's say this another way "space/time" is smaller than I am.

I might start an ongoing dice roll maybe 30 minutes a night and just go for it goal being get more 4 5 6 than 1 2 3.. If I decide I have the time I would just keep that up forever really maybe keep stats in my signature.. I know I can produce effects well outside the range of chance if I still remember how to do it..

It's hard to explain it's like learning how to move your nostrils, or discovering a new muscle you didn't know you had.. That's the kind of edge of consciousness zone you have to be in right on the line.. You can't quite tell what it is you're trying to do, and the first few times it works your nose wiggles but it almost feels like someone else did that not you, but as you build the memory of what it is your subconscious takes it over and your conscious brain now just thinks of it as a command rather than doing the entire thing on your own..

It's the same as shooting a basketball.. Your subconscious stores all of the micro movements and timing and muscle memory and you YOU just FEEL how to do it.. The Army trained us to not even need to use our consciousness... Everything was automatic my hands were halfway through the steps of clearing my chamber as I'm thinking oh # my M16 is jammed.. So yea this effect is suited for subconscious work as are most things, but you have to get there on purpose consciously first before subconscious "gets it"

It's like imagine the room you're in.. Ok you imagined a few things but not all at the same time and as you added objects others fell out of view.. Just not enough power to imagine all the paint brush lines on the wall and all the strands of carpet fiber.. the light and the dust on the nightstand.. But go to sleep and dream and your subconscious can imagine complex scenes with hundreds of characters all "acting on their own"

Well..... That's the difference in power, and that's why this is still on the fringe.. Once people practice this on purpose and get it into "muscle memory" then the effects will be undeniable..

Wouldn't surprise me if technology that enhances the effect is already in existence.
edit on 13-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:51 PM

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I appreciate bedlams time but he didn't make a counter claim unless I missed it?
This isn't just magical thinking and pattern recognition..

It takes a bunch of explanation to get to 'why does Tom think Jahn is deluding himself', if you want to follow along with the thought process and investigation I did over the years. "Why do you think it's wrong" is a question with a lot of detail to the answer, even with it trimmed down. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Peeple wanted 'what led you to this conclusion' more than 'in 10 words give me a yes or no'. To actually understand what they were doing, why they did it that way and not one of several others which would have been rather more definitive and brief, and why what they were doing doesn't really answer the question requires some getting to, which, as I said, I don't have time for in one blast.

Sadly, I am starting a new project tomorrow, so I can't just kick back and dash off a well-researched cogent reply in one go, because there's a metric #heap of crap I have to read, sign, and yawn over before tomorrow AM, then a horrifying number of kickoff meetings, meet the staffs, reading onto projects (oh, how I hope we waive the reading of the regs) and signing papers. For days.

But yes, Jahn and company raise a lot of smoke screens and apparently hope you don't ask questions. Like the "unconscious" and "innately unobservable" blocks. They don't really convey any information. It's just there to cover the "magic happens here" spot.

eta: Don't let the invocation of 'unconscious lives here' in the U block distract you. It's a bit like the way they do commercial blocks on the radio - the least offensive ones come first, it's to lead you into it slowly. Of course you have one. That's not the point of sticking it there in the diagram. They are trying to cover up the bit where they can't explain how the thing is supposed to actually happen.
edit on 13-9-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:03 AM
Oh, yeah, before I resume reading more of this ton of crap, here is a simple thought experiment for any who are reading the thread.

If you thought that the human mind could, under some circumstances, even if it's only a little, move things by telekinesis, what's the most straightforward, easiest, least ambiguous test you could devise?

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:18 AM
a reply to: Bedlam

I more meant if random number generators that are proven to be 50% 1 and 50% 0 and they end up on 55% 1 and 45% 0 after 5,000 "coin flips" and only when humans try to change the results with their mind, what conclusions would you draw from that?

that nothing happened because the guy who ran the study had a bias?

I mean you just wrote a lot about your lack of time, but you've written much more than anyone else has in this thread. It's odd that you would quote my question and then not answer it.

well I'm off work tomorrow so I'll go back over the studies I read and I'll talk about the data and offer up some potential hypothesis and maybe some simple test people can run on their own.

I already told you guys my test. And you guys know my hypothesis.. well maybe you don't but it's out there.. consciousness was here first and spacetime fits "inside" that. Yea well, that's not exactly testable, but my consciousness changing dice rolls is testable.. And if I can do that it only leads me more to believe that same line, as do my psychic experiences, and my dejavu movies that allow me to tell the future up to about 10 seconds ahead for the full duration of the dejavu, which means my dejavus are actually dejavus not bad memory.. Whatever the heck that means, but relatively speaking all time is happening at once if you believe Eisnstein's take.. I happen to, the tests all seem to say relativity is true.. So there is not one TIME.. so my history could line up to my future if my memory is non local and poof I'm accidentally remembering "the future." Timespace being one medium... It's only highly likely space is the same... As in All happening in the same point... That's just me of course..

By the way telekinesis implies distance, and I think this effect is more akin to "spooky action at a distance." OR "Faster than light communication" More like "how to detect radioactive decay in fully shielded containers from space."

edit on 14-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:26 AM

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Bedlam

I more meant if random number generators that are proven to be 50% 1 and 50% 0 and they end up on 55% 1 and 45% 0 after 5,000 "coin flips" and only when humans try to change the results with their mind, what conclusions would you draw from that?

Well, if you were PEAR, it would be pretty straightforward to show that you had a serious lack of controls, and that you couldn't even replicate your own work, much less could other labs.

The easy, fast, microwave cake answer would be something you won't agree with, because you'll complain about lack of rigor. Given more detail, you'll whinge about not answering you in 10 words. You can't please everyone, and I am not going to try. But we'll go over 'why does Jahn like random number generators', the question (unanswered, sad to say) of why does Jahn think that RNG results are indicative of PSI in action, and why test for this and nothing else, why Jahn doesn't test for more direct evidence of PK, why do the results of PEAR's RNG's give questionable stats results and the rest later. It takes explanation.

Since you're obviously reading the thread, I'll ask you directly - if you thought that PK/TK existed, what would be the obvious, most direct, unambiguous, straightforward way to answer the question of 'does PK/TK exist'? What would you test for?

Would rolling dice really be the most straightforward test of 'can you move something with your mind'? Don't be influenced by what Jahn did. If I said "I can move things with the power of my mind by wanting it", what is the least indirect way of testing that?

eta: even the most perfect random number generators have excursions from the norm. If they didn't, I guarantee you they are not generating random numbers. Not one actual RNG can or would generate exactly 50% 1's and 50% 0's for any span you can name, it just doesn't work that way.
edit on 14-9-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:42 AM
a reply to: Bedlam

I don't view what we currently know about physics in the lense of 3D..

the lense of 3D makes you say silly things like "telekinesis" "psychokinesis" "Faster than light travel" "faster than light communication" "spooky action at a distance" "entanglement"

I kind of think on one level of relativity spacetime doesn't exist. Let's call that Eternity.. Inside Eternity all points connect instantly because it's all one point. Your body can never get there, but your mind is subtle enough to make it work.

We are working with more than four dimensions and those four are all one thing.. I surmise the others are part of this one thing as well, and we will call that one thing reality. The other parts are harder to envision, but your imagination is largely based on vision of 3D so I can see a huge human bias in not getting what's really going on..

In my own life the stats are way off the charts in my favor when I am in the zone. So much so I have become very careful about what I think, and going through moral dilemmas the whole time.. My name is Reverbs for a reason.

by the way you invented the idea that I wanted a 10 word response..
Let's not go around making up arguments in our head now.
I asked a simple question rephrased

How would you account for random number generators or dice or anything that statistically behaves a known certain way over a long enough time.. How would you account for these behaving out of the ordinary? If it were the case how would you account for it?
edit on 14-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:46 AM
And again...if you were testing for TK/PK, what comes to mind as the least complex, least ambiguous way to check?

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:47 AM
a reply to: Bedlam

I asked first and I don't believe in PK.

I follow the theory of relativity to it's limits.. IE spacetime is a weird illusion..

So my tests could really be anything.

And I already told you my test. It's a good one because lets say I get back into the right focus ponit again.. People are alwys like "If this is real why don't you go win money?!"

Well, someone really could if this is real.

I have a similar test for figuring out if ot of body experiences are real or illusion.. I never remembered to do it when out of body but I used to tape cards at random to my window facing outward and then I was supposed to go read the card and see if it matched when I flipped it over in body.. I never remembered to do the test.. I still think it's an interesteing test and I would love to try it again.

Are you really saying if I rolled 1,200 dies and I get 400 6s that nothing is going on?

We can keep the discussion going as you have time.. It's not a competition. I think before I continue I will find us some data to look at, might be a better starting point for next time.
edit on 14-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: Bedlam

I really do wish you would have put some time into your reponse.

Yikes , well done sir, well done !!!

Science cooties, haha

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:07 AM

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Bedlam

I really do wish you would have put some time into your reponse.

It will get worse, the question really requires getting into Jahn's assumptions and methodology, which I've yet to address.

Then his experiment design and the stats he's using to reach his conclusions.

As I said at the beginning, the thing has questionable spots both gross and subtle, the most gross to me is the assumption that PK/PSI will affect random number generators. Why? What about PK would necessitate a sort of field whose quality is the biasing of PRNGs? Does he support this, or it is just a given that the True Believer will swallow without analysis?

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:20 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam
And what you get out of PEAR tends to be things that look like scientific papers but if you really examine them have a lot of "miracle happens here in step 2" or are stats that were badly derived, or which should change when you change the sample size but don't, or which any graduate stats guy would say 'that's not the appropriate test to use for this sort of data'.

What I find interesting is that the first supposed "scholarly article" on that website is about extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (telekinesis). I can only imagine how Richard Sternberg would feel about those making arguments such as 'show me the peer reviewed science or article' regarding the subject he got fired over, for approving of an article about that subject; in relation to the publications listed on that website as "scholarly papers" and those who approved of some of those articles:

edit on 14-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: Reverbs

For anybody wondering what we are talking about...

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
~Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena

Anyone truly interested should read over some of the studies like this one maybe? (PDF)

anyone who is going against this study or others by "pear" can easily see the effects they are measuring are pretty small.. The effects are statistically above cance and if the data is all good there does need to be some other explanation taking place than chance, but it's not like the level of effects I think I can get. The level of effects that might actually matter. What they are talking about is that one out of 200 times "fate" doesn't work and your own freewill overrides the system.

It's honestly a pretty small effect, but as far as I could tell it's something that continues to take place.. From what I can tell it is a real effect.

And honestly in my personal life I control my thoughts pretty much all the time. It's scary how accurate my future was compared with what I imagined I wanted. I made up my last girlfriend. Now obviously I'm attracted to what I like and I would imagine what I like so it's a grade 0 on science, but if you were me you'd second guess everytime you have a thought.. What if I'm responsible for my thoughts? The girl I met is way too specific for me to ever meet again.. I imagined everything... I so hope she doesn't read this, but whatever.. That was like a 30 point list of qualities birth places accents... And I didn't know those things about this person when I met them.. IT just happened.. And as I got to know her, more and more this subconscious thing was poking up screaming at me, and I'm like what!!?? and it's like dude you realize you imagined her right? Ooohhh daaammmnn.. But confirmation bias... So.

The difference is using things that are repeatable.
If I have the means I would try replicating any experiment they did.
If anyone could point me a direction to do that..
In the meantime I'm still deciding about the dice experiment..
I want to do it, but last time I said I was going to do a test I stopped after 4 days and I'm kind of like that so I don't want anyone thinking I stopped because I got bad results.. Anyway I want to be sure I'm going to stick to it for at least a month. Problem is that I'm recording my own data, so you just have to trust I'm on the side of science not my bias when it comes to recording my results.. I would rather people try on their own as well.

the last test I did was changing the temperature of my forhead with my mind.. I told people I would do it every day and have my brother post as a witness and data recorder. Well I showed an average 1 degree temperature change over 4 days but I promised a month and I just got bored of it. I used to be able to control my body temperature.. That's also the same sort of "in the zone" area that relates to this "non local effects" group. That one degree temperature change freaked people out.. Like you pull your hand away like wtf? I lost that muscle.

If nothing else you guys are inspiring me to meditate again and start trying to get back "there"

There is a secret to managing what you let slip into autonomous subconscious acts and what you keep in your frontal lobes. EGO is not who you are.. You are a cascading effect of many many things... You are subconscious and you are the heart beating to the rythm your subconscious controls.. But then someone advanced in meditation might slow their heart rate down by their own will power..

Well, that's the trick.. Mixing subconscious and conscious processes so that ego's intention is like the ignite switch that sets off the subconscious nuclear explosion. I know from my self it's very specific in the exact states you need to do it. So nuke is a good analogy, where it's a simple idea but so many things have to go perfectly to get the chain reaction off the ground.. It's the chain reaction.. No matter how many conventional explosives you pile up (ego consciousness) it's not going to compare to my stick of dynamite going off, that sets off this weird deeper process (subconscious) and boom your city is gone.

I imagine without looking into this (call it a hypothesis) that the reason PEAR people are talking about subconscious or "unconscious" (same meaning depending on your chosesn branch of psychology) is that they know as I do where the power lies. The Army sure knew how to train us to use subconscious predominately, and without us even knowing that's what was happening.. First day someone did 3 pushups and ate sand for the next 30 minutes.. Painful to watch because.... Well then we are all eating sand on sand hill.. Next day the guy does 20 pushups..
"mind over mattter" and "placebo" are ok with materialists because those still deal with oneself.. So the effects could be something like "the mind is telling the body to be stronger and it's trying to listen" Instead of "the mind is telling the tornado not to hit the house and the tornado listened"

I'm "out there" compared to "normal" but damn me if "normal" isn't the Most Perfect example of confirmation bias EVER in human history. My dad actually taught psychology and statistics at a couple universities. I don't dare say "normal" around him hahaha... But the point of that is that people have their "normal" view of the world.. No such thing as normal and when you get to that realization science is a much more powerful tool. I don't know if it's my history fixing computers or what it is, but I'm always running tests so as to move my opinion out of the way.. Consciousness is a very HARD subject (subject lol) to test.

so yea consciousness is notoriously hard to test, and it speaks volumes about EGO that so many top of their field people aren't intersted in this.

Here's a woo theory (hypothesis) What if consciousness is THE unified field. THE primary force. What if it's thought thinking thoughts.. And it's always curious. So it dips into a body.. So it dips into 7 billion bodies.. And when it does each time the body mixes with it and at some point the EGO goes OOOHH I get it.. I'm a body and I'm ME, I'm not my mom, I'm not my dad.. But what if it's all one consciousness field that dips into us..???? That's my bias if you want to know it, but I'm honest about that. If I do run a simple test like dice or if anyone has a better idea.. I can promise above all else the data will be accurate and the test will be fair. My integrity answers higher than my ego.
edit on 14-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: Bedlam
Well I do believe you gave enough information for the people to look further into the subject and beware of any main winding lotus-o-delta type they may have used in the panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator they used to perform the study.

edit on 44930America/ChicagoWed, 14 Sep 2016 07:44:28 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: Reverbs

Can I just say, as a person who believes in the probability that 'woo' exists and who trusts that the effects you describe in your life are genuine -

- In support of Bedlam: (please forgive me, if I'm putting words in your mouth)
He is not refuting the possibility that 'psychic phenomena' exists (whether he 'believes' is not at issue), he is just trying to point out that the "PEAR" studies have flaws that make them questionable as 'scientific' evidence...

I think that we need to respect the limitations on Bedlam's time and instead of trying to create 'discussion' (or worse, argument) with him at this point, allow him the 'space' to unfold his reasoning as the constraints on his time permit.

I have a dear friend who is 'psychic', and thru her I've experienced 'things', but...

...'experience' is not 'science', and the reality is that if we want sound scientific research on this sort of thing (and it's the same with the UFO 'question') -

- we have to be willing to (for a time) set aside 'belief' and 'experience', and approach the subject from a position of absolute neutrality as to the existence of such 'phenomena'.

For my own part, I like to go further than mere "neutrality" - I approach the 'question' (of both 'psi' and 'UFO' phenomena) from a 'perspective' of 'disbelief'...
...What I mean is; I look at research 'as if' (pretending) I am a total nonbeliever looking for 'proof' -
- this is the only way I know to rule out personal bias.

Thanks, Reverbs, for allowing me to pontificate under "reply" to you..

edit on 14-9-2016 by lostgirl because: grammar

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: Bedlam

I haven't the foggiest

I am however, desperately interested to know how you would design such an experiment.

Also, and I know this is asking a lot, there's something in particular I would like to ask you to look for as you're going thru the PEAR materials - it's complicated to explain:

It has to due with what you explained about how the "true believers" sort of (unintentionally) interpret results according to 'belief' (if I've understood that correctly)...

...I am curious to know whether there are any correlations between 'outcome' of experimentation and 'belief' of those involved.

Please don't put any extra time into the above - I just thought you might keep an eye out for it...thank you!

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam
Oh, yeah, before I resume reading more of this ton of crap, here is a simple thought experiment for any who are reading the thread.

If you thought that the human mind could, under some circumstances, even if it's only a little, move things by telekinesis, what's the most straightforward, easiest, least ambiguous test you could devise?

Strapping Uri Geller in a MRI scanner while he bends spoons?

Thanks for the contribution, btw


Sorry for the short comment, life's getting in the way a little. But I read and appreciate all of you who share their thoughts in here and during the weekend I hope I'll have sthg more to contribute myself.

edit on 14-9-2016 by Peeple because: Add

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: lostgirl

I appreciate your reply.

I was actually trying to get bedlam to explain his reasoning about the studies themselves being faulty, not the guy running the experiments. I've looked into these studies in the past and didn't see anything wrong with the method.

He acted like that's what he was going to talk about but he never did.

how does he think the random number generators went off of chance?
It's a simple question based on scientific results.

we couldn't move forward because he wouldn't answer.
He avoided the science. Or "bad science" whatever the case may be.
While I'm trying to make the discussion about the actual tests..
I linked maybe 30 studies all about this.

So then I started considering re-opening Reverb's old experiments..
Havn't decided yet. This new job has me worn out. I said I would go back over the research today but I just feel like enjoying my day off doing nothing that requires that much thought.

edit on 14-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:24 PM
So that's what they mean when a project goes 'pear shaped'.....

There is something in this. Remember the Global Conciousness project? This guy sent hundreds of random number generators to people all over the world, they were connected to the net so he could read them all day & night.
So guess what happened? whenever there was a worldwide crisis or other event (like a new Justin Bieber story) he saw that the generators became a lot less random, like many of them would generate the number 625 for example. The really big spike was on 9/11. The only conclusion he could reach was that there were so many minds thinking the same thought or feeling the same emotion at the same time, that they affected the counters in some way.

I believe that project is still going on, interesting stuff indeed.

OK let's try an experiment, everyone think "Impeach the President"
Doesent matter which one, they are all equally bad IMO

Hi there Bedlam;

The function of 'the scientific method', IMHO, is to try to get past our meat limitations by reducing our innate tendencies to falsely interpret things. And thus do you get math, and statistics, and peer reviewed journals, and gadgets that can emit a single photon on demand or measure potential differences of millionths of a Volt. And the product of applying all these things is to answer the questions "Did that really happen", "does it happen a lot", "to what degree did it happen", and "am I just imagining it because I expect/want this to be true". And in the end these things all work, or at least help, because they don't use the same processing and sensory equipment YOU do, as the experimenter. Even peer review and replication works because the other guys aren't supposed to have the same confirmation bias, expectation and memories. So their stochasms are running from a different set of internal node values. If you get the same answers from these different sorts of interpretation and sensing, then maybe it's real.

Exactly, and that system does work to a degree, i have used it with great success among colleagues. The downside is of course 'peer pressure' where it becomes a trend to follow a theory because it sounds good, and measurements tend to be ignored in favour of (flawed) logic.
Like the speed of light. That guy in the TED talks was of course right, the speed of light is not constant and probably never was, but the establishment solved that problem by fixing the speed by defenition in the 90's

There you go, just ignore the problem & it will go away, right?

I guess i'm a champion of fringe science, but i like to keep it real.
It would be reeeely great if not only the scientists, but all those YT experimenters out there, became brutally honest with themselves & with us the peeps.

No more faking, no more manipulating results. Just tell it as it is & if you are not sure, say so.
I saw Tesla mentioned, i was looking into his stuff in the late 70's, i still am.
But what he said about the universe being energy & vibration is absolutely correct. I just recieved a hard copy of "The problems of increasing Human Energy" to add to the collection, in it he outlines the very things we are discussing here, how's that for a coincidence!

Part 2;

You eventually become blind to the deficiencies of your design because you start internally glossing over the bumps. It's not intentional either. We found that you need to launch off two totally decoupled design teams that meet at the implementation rally point, and examine the approaches. Usually there's a big catfight, and you end up with a sort of melding of the best parts of both, or one way will be obviously better than the other, and if it's TOO one-sided, we restart that phase.

True also, i have done this very same thing on projects with 2 groups, eventually we did get on the path , i would have preferred 3 groups but we were lucky to get that far.
What we tested was the running cars on water stuff, Stan Meyers fuel cell & a cheap homemade alternative. Both systems worked. Other stuff like the GEET fuel processor gave such mixed results that i decided to shelve it more or less permanently.

You end up with way better products that way. But IMHO you can't get away from doing this. I do it myself. It's an innate behavior to see something you've invested your time and effort into with rose colored glasses.

Yes that works, certainly because one team will see pitfalls where the other team doesn't.
But this time i acted as a go-between, feeding info & hints from one to the other as needed. Maybe that was wrong of me, had it been otherwise i would have let them remain autonomous, but i wanted to see the project verified, so there were mods carried out on both sides because of this..however, both systems did work in the end....and that's all i wanted to achieve at that point.

Saying to yourself one day 'I think it might be possible that there are particles with fractional spin values other than (n)1/2, is there any evidence for this?' takes less True Believership than does 'I think I can control the value of dimensionless constants with my mind' or 'I think I can alter probability by really really wanting it to change'.

Funny you should say that, my more recent research asks this of the humble electron, in regards to time travel

You know what really screws up a group? when money is mentioned.

Having survived many false starts since i first raised the question of 'should we sell our inventions' i am still funding my own work, sometimes a freind helps out, sometimes i help them, it works, but only because it is based on trust, freindship, and mutual respect.
I guess that is exactly why the big institutions are failing, they don't have any of that, it has become a rat race for glory, money or both, and sod the truth of the actual measurements.

Tesla did warn us of this, and he even warned us that our own personal beliefs & emotions will blind us, and he feared that we would (in terms of electricity) go off on the wrong track for over a century.
Yet again i can find no fault in his logic, and his worst fear actually beame our reality!

That's not necessarily bad - why would you investigate something you aren't interested in?

I had to, because a dear freind of mine, 1WorldWatcher passed away. His brilliant insight has possibly led to a cure for cancer. No chemo, no hard radiation, no surgery.
So projects i deemed 'important' back then are still on the shelf & are running 5 years behind schedule, but i am not in the least bothered by it, this is obviously way more important.
Just 1 terminal patient 100% cured is by no means a success story, but when i got that call i was very happy for Tim anyway. That prototype is still out there making the rounds, i have lost track of it but no matter: it is doing what it was built to do, cure peeps.

That's my religion of the moment, and i know i need to be able to cure 100 terminal patients before i will even consider it as officialy working. That's why i built 12 more of these things, they are being tested all over the world, in secret, right now. It's almost impossible to get permission from peeps, because of family saying no, or the peeps themselves already giving up.
1WW never gave up, we kept working together until he could no longer speak, only type a few words every 5 minutes. yet something has happened because of it..
edit on 14-9-2016 by playswithmachines because: * Sorry half the quote not shown for some reason..that may confuse.

edit on 14-9-2016 by playswithmachines because: typo's

edit on 14-9-2016 by playswithmachines because: Except Lincoln, Roosevelt & JFK.....
edit on 14-9-2016 by playswithmachines because: Edit function no longer works, sorry, it must be an ME moment

extra DIV

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:25 PM
Part 2 (unintentional i ran out of space apparently)

As usual tech of this kind does have a down-side, it can kill peeps when abused, and some tentative research in this area almost killed another freind.

Revelations will be coming soon, on the Inventor's Group website, when we are ready.
At least, when i am ready to move, i hope everyone else is also.
What peeps call 'the quickening' seems to be a very real phenomenon,i have witnessed it since the 70's, peeps are learning more, and faster.
Of course it is, Tesla even said we will evolve along with our tech, and i beleive him, i'm a True Believer, LOL
Flag for the first deep thought thread in ages!

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:57 PM

originally posted by: Peeple
Strapping Uri Geller in a MRI scanner while he bends spoons?

Thanks for the contribution, btw


top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in