Bearden gets busted.

Ok, I know we aren't supposed to cross post from other forums, but this is too good to pass up. It seems that someone has found out a bit about the people behind Tom Bearden and Tom Steven's websites.

Craddock Engineering Inc. (USA) bills itself as a “Petroleum People” service.

It’s get better.

Doing a yellow page search for that address also brings up this interesting bit - result

You can note that the website listed for Craddock Engineering Inc. is in fact www.Cseti.org , also listed at 151 La Jolla, Santa Barbara.

Now doing a nearby search you will also come across another oil company, Pacific International Oil Svc, also at 151 La Jolla Dr, Santa Barbara, CA 93109.
res ults

So, not only does it seem that there are two international oil service companies running out of this address, you also have Tom personally webmastering for both Bearden (cheneire.org) and Greer (cseti.org) in his off time.

Now, if you’re still with me, you might be curious as to just what exactly is at 151 La Jolla, in Santa Barbara, aside from Cheneire.org, Cseti.org, Craddockengineering.com, Pacific Oil, Anthony Craddock and Dr. Greer. Well here it is...
results

Nice place huh?

www.chemtrailcentral.com...


So, it seems that there is a bit more than meets the eye here.



Bearden is a fraud. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

Where shall I start? How about...

1. The Yellow Pages link -- and this is evidenced even in the link itself -- brings up a list of engineers in the Los Angeles area, and in particular, results #421-450 (out of 1,000). Neither "Craddock Engineering" nor CSETI are mentioned anywhere on the page. Furthermore, a Yellow Pages search on Craddock Engineering turns up no mention of CSETI's website (click here). Looks like a simple case of bad information.

2. A WHOIS look-up for CSETI (see HERE) clearly demonstrates that CSETI is registered and maintained in Maryland, and has no connection to Craddock Engineering or Santa Barbara. Again, bad information.

3. So I looked at the Google map that references the location of Craddock Engineering. It appears to be a large residence about a block off the beach in Santa Barbara. Considering a home on the same block is listed at over $3.8 million (see here), I don't see why this has any bearing on the legitimacy of either Dr. Beardon's work or Dr. Greer's work. In fact, I have officially registered/licensed more than one business concern out of my own home since I retired. This is simply so I may maintain options for generating additional income, Howard. So are you suggesting that just because someone operates a home-based business (which, BTW, many consultants do rather successfully) that this fact somehow implicates them in some mischievous wrongdoing?

4. Lastly, I'll happily share with you one way in which Dr. Tom Beardon, Lt. Col. US Army (retd) and Dr. Steven Greer are connected: Dr. Beardon appears as one of over 60 expert witnesses who testified in Dr. Greer's Disclosure Project, which may be found in print at Amazon by clicking here.

Thank you, Howard, for giving me the opportunity to both rebuke the erroneous information referenced in your post, and to point people towards more real information in the process!

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
Where shall I start? How about...

1. The Yellow Pages link -- and this is evidenced even in the link itself -- brings up a list of engineers in the Los Angeles area, and in particular, results #421-450 (out of 1,000). Neither "Craddock Engineering" nor CSETI are mentioned anywhere on the page. Furthermore, a Yellow Pages search on Craddock Engineering turns up no mention of CSETI's website (click here). Looks like a simple case of bad information.

What are you talking about?

it is halfway down, right after core vent bio-engineering

Craddock Engineering Inc
www.cseti.com

link

Nope. Still don't see it...

I printed the results from the link you provided as a 3-pg PDF, converted each page to a jpeg, and hosted them for you to see.

Here's page 1:



Here's page 2:



And page 3:



Sorry, but I don't see either the engineering firm nor the website listed anywhere...

Also, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why either of the issues I raise in points 2 and 3 would so much as begin to implicate either of the aforementioned professionals in anything other than their respective pursuits.

I found it with no problem in both yellow pages links. The address is just as listed. Exactly where he said. Actually it's listed as cseti.com.



[edit on 16-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

sdrumrunner, search for "Craddock Engineering" on that yellow pages site and you will see it.

Originally posted by warpboost
sdrumrunner, search for "Craddock Engineering" on that yellow pages site and you will see it.

I did, and the listing it returned still didn't return the cseti.org web site.

Here is the actual result that appears when I search Santa Barbara for Craddock Engineering (a search of Los Angeles returns no results):



And here's the result I get when I click on the company's name (phone no. deleted in both images):



As I said, there is no link to the website as you claim.

But fair enough -- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe there is a problem on my end that somehow affected my ability to view the link properly, for as you can see above, the link did not return the above reference (just look for yourself).

However, let us not get too distracted from the other (yet to be addressed) valid questions/comments as outlined in my original post, mainly:

1. A WHOIS look-up for CSETI (see HERE) clearly demonstrates that CSETI is registered and maintained in Maryland, by individuals internal to CSETI.

2. So I looked at the Google map that references the location of Craddock Engineering. It appears to be a large residence about a block off the beach in Santa Barbara. Considering a home on the same block is listed at over $3.8 million (see here), I don't see why this has any bearing on the legitimacy of either Dr. Beardon's work or Dr. Greer's work.

In fact, I have officially registered/licensed more than one business concern out of my own home since I retired. This is simply so I may maintain options for generating additional income. So I once again ask: Are you actually suggesting that just because someone operates a home-based business (which, BTW, many consultants do rather successfully) that this fact somehow implicates them in some mischievous wrongdoing?

Still waiting for an explanation with regards to the poor logic used in the original post that was used to draw this erroneous conclusion.

Now... let us assume there is a connection between a member of the Craddock family and CSETI. Let us look at some of the possible conventional explanations that may explain such a relationship:

a. It has already been established that a member of the Craddock family has been publicly invovled in the investigation of UFOs.

b. It has been mentioned that the this same person is the webmaster for Cheniere.org.

c. So is it possible that the same webmaster was invovled in the (initial) registration or administration of multiple sights? Of course it is. Again, this does nothing to advance the presumptuous and erroneous claims made by the thread's author in his original post.

In fact, I find it rather ironic that someone who so vehemently espouses embracing conventional explanations for unconventional phenomena is so quick to eschew the most logical and likely explanations for any (theoretically) possible relationship as outlined in this post.

d. As mentioned, Dr. Tom Beardon, Lt. Col. (retd) US Army, is one of over 60 expert witnesses to have come forth and testified in Dr. Greer's Disclosure Project (which may be found on Amazon by clicking here ). So given their existing association and the relatively small size of the UFO community, is it really too far a stretch to imagine that they may have shared some assistance in the deisgn and or hosting of their respective web sites at some time?

It is simply wrong to imply that such a relationship, if one exists, would somehow serve to discredit either. Again, I maintain this is simply the product of bad logic and poor reasoning.

Lastly, I would like to mention that I myself have regsitered and/or maintain multiple websites, including one dedicated to marketing my consulting services, one dedicated to personal pursuits, and another dedicated to an offshore software start-up (for which I sit on the board). Now, the last one I mentioned is of particular note, while I am but a single individual invovled in this s/w start-up, as it was convenient at the time, we registered the website under my name. Does this in any way have any bearing on the validity, purpose, or potential profitability of the s/w start-up with which I am involved? Of course it doesn't.

I found it

Originally posted by magnito_student
I found it

Thanks M-S for posting a visible verification of this. As I said, it very well have had something to do variables specific to me, e.g, my computer (Mac), and/or browser (Safari)...

Now... so as to make sure the actual discussion points don't get seemingly lost by our respective bigger-than-life graphics, I would like to once again restate the as-of-yet unanswered discussion points as stated (now twice) above:

Originally posted by sdrumrunner
1. A WHOIS look-up for CSETI (see HERE) clearly demonstrates that CSETI is registered and maintained in Maryland, by individuals internal to CSETI.

2. So I looked at the Google map that references the location of Craddock Engineering. It appears to be a large residence about a block off the beach in Santa Barbara. Considering a home on the same block is listed at over $3.8 million (see here), I don't see why this has any bearing on the legitimacy of either Dr. Beardon's work or Dr. Greer's work.

In fact, I have officially registered/licensed more than one business concern out of my own home since I retired. This is simply so I may maintain options for generating additional income. So I once again ask: Are you actually suggesting that just because someone operates a home-based business (which, BTW, many consultants do rather successfully) that this fact somehow implicates them in some mischievous wrongdoing?

Still waiting for an explanation with regards to the poor logic used in the original post that was used to draw this erroneous conclusion.

And with regards to any potential cross-involvement by individuals with regards to Craddock Engineering and CSETI, I maintain that the most logical explanation is as described in my previous post has nothing whatsoever to do with the presumptuous and erroneous allegations made by the thread's author.

With regards to the presence of this cross-reference, as it is likely a common individual worked on the administrative and/or technical side of these respective websites (again, I ask: So what?), it is most likely a simple matter of a clerical error.

Again, I find it highly amusing that those who so vehemently embrace a conventional explanation for everything even remotely unconventional are so quick to dismiss the most logical and probable explanation for this!

In closing, all I've seen is verification of what is most likely nothing more than a clerical error that serves to validate nothing, and does not it in any way address the other outstanding discussion points which demonstrate how flawed and presumptuous the original conclusion was in the first place. Still waiting...

While I wholeheartedly agree that Bearden is a fraud, I cannot follow what the original post is supposed to be saying that's a fraud about him.

You need to look for fraud no further than the MEG. He was supposed to be producing those by 2003, right? I heard it on Art Bell myself. Now its forgotten about. Oh right, its because of the evil conspiracy that's preventing people from having the desire to make billions of dollars in profit by putting comparatively tiny investment capital into a product that'll save the world and is a sure thing. Guess the conspiracy is so vast that it prevented Bearden from doing a single convincing demonstration of the device to ANYONE. Yeah right. I'd mortgage my left nut if someone convinced me he had a free energy device that I could invest in. And I know lots of other people would too!

And try sending the guy a polite email calmly asking some detail about the physics of his device. His response will be nothing but insults about how you don't know any physic and he does and you're just too stupid to ever understand. And in the end, he won't answer the question! And he's even proud of his lunatic-sounding responses to people's emails that he actually has the audacity to post them! He's proud of being an a-hole!

No one will EVER convince me that this scumbag is not a fraud!! Never!! Go ahead and try! I even believe that scalar weapons are real and that unusual energy devices are possible. But not from Bearden!

Me too. That gives?

-P

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I found it with no problem in both yellow pages links. The address is just as listed. Exactly where he said. Actually it's listed as cseti.com.



[edit on 16-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

I have a most excellent idear.....Why not give ole Tony a call and ask him

Craddock Engineering Inc
151 La Jolla Dr
Santa Barbara CA
93109-1842
805-897-1866
Show Categories
yellowpages.addresses.com...=.html

You have to plug in cseti as (www.cseti.com)
If you try just cseti.com, you will get a white blank page with MindSpring Web Services at the top.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by magnito_student]

Well Tom Bearden actually sells books that you can read so as to check the logic and science involved in the claims. The book will arrive at your local post office FOR FREE( given your a student in the field ;friend of mine was) so there is no excuse not to inform yourself given the interest to check out his claims in proper format.

I just checked and i'm not sure they still have the free copies but feel free to read a few intro chapters to understand the basis of the lies modern science is founded on.

www.cheniere.org...

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Well Tom Bearden actually sells books that you can read so as to check the logic and science involved in the claims. The book will arrive at your local post office FOR FREE...

Such generosity, doesn't that look a tad odd? i mean all the other guys get is a hole in the head, yet bearden supposedly defies the laws of the illuminati and has been doing that for decades.

I'm not saying it's impossible, what i have to say is a) i don't understand the stuff on his website* and too much is being clouded by totally gothic outright

censor circumvent

!1

i consider myself very openminded, (i hope i live up to that claim, i really do) but that's over the top, i don't even want to delve into the potential and probably motivations, let alone the sheer volume of the site which requires a collaborative effort. if he's real, he's doing a good job at concealing that.

* when the Poyiting Vector symbolises energy flow and you observe parts of it entering the conductor, which is essentially a confined space (filled with metal but nevertheless..), what does that tell you? that net electromagnetic energy is entering the conductor? if you're observing that on a power wire, you're observing resisitive losses in action.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Long Lance]

Edited for censor circumvent.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by Long Lance
Such generosity, doesn't that look a tad odd? i mean all the other guys get is a hole in the head, yet bearden supposedly defies the laws of the illuminati and has been doing that for decades.

Well it's not his money his giving away so it's no skin off his back. Without people knowing what is happening it's rather hard to get anyone talking.
My theory on why he is not dead yet is that he did enough to hurt his own credibility with his claims about so many other things that he can be left alone to try salvage his credibility on those issues ( which is going to take forever considering the claims) before he is a real threat in this field. He also happens to be a ex military man and maybe he has just enough skill and savvy ( or friends in right places) to stay ahead of the danger? While i can understand why would like his credibility established beyond question i really advise more bravery so that we can move on with the science and test his theories and words against what very famous men in that field have said. Bearden is not alone in making these claims but very few if any ( i don't know of any others) have actual honest to god textbooks on WHY this is all in fact not only possible but well known in some circles.

I'm not saying it's impossible, what i have to say is a) i don't understand the stuff on his website* and too much is being clouded by totally gothic outright BULL***! !1

Well i suggest you get the book which will explain it all to you in the simplest English it can be. If i can figure it out i am sure you could as well.

i consider myself very openminded, (i hope i live up to that claim, i really do) but that's over the top, i don't even want to delve into the potential and probably motivations, let alone the sheer volume of the site which requires a collaborative effort. if he's real, he's doing a good job at concealing that.

His obviously not working alone and his drawing on the work of scientist over a century and his own efforts over the last 45 years. How much material could you put together in 45 years? The reality his trying to expose is in fact so over the to people will just not believe it because they can simply not accept the notion that they could be lied to in such a comprehensive way. If his a liar no one's a fool and people will go with him being the crazy any day of the week if that keeps their sanity intact.

If you wanted to control a 'enemy' population of a planet you took over by one means or another what would be your aims towards controlling them over the next few thousand years if your resources and manpower is extremely limited? Bearden is obviously not suggesting this but just think about the implications that nearly unlimited energy could have on human society.

* when the Poyiting Vector symbolises energy flow and you observe parts of it entering the conductor, which is essentially a confined space (filled with metal but nevertheless..),

It tells you that some of the energy flow is being intercepted but not how much.

what does that tell you? that net electromagnetic energy is entering the conductor? if you're observing that on a power wire, you're observing resisitive losses in action.

It does not tell you anything about how large the Poynting vector is compared to the energy flow NOT being intercepted. Claiming that that is all the energy that can be converged/intercepted ( experiment shows it is not) is like claiming there is no wind flow anywhere but where you build wind generating towers as if your choices on tower location could somehow affect the general weather pattern.

Not choosing to employ ALL the wind power in the world towards generating power did not make it go away but that is basically what the Poynting vector assumes for energy not being diverged into the circuit. This is the cornerstone lie that the rest of the facade has been constructed on.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

* when the Poyiting Vector symbolises energy flow and you observe parts of it entering the conductor, which is essentially a confined space (filled with metal but nevertheless..),

It tells you that some of the energy flow is being intercepted but not how much.

intercepted is the right word, it definitely gets inside the conductor (the perpendicular component i mean), but if this was the only energy available for use in electric machinery, a longer wire would intercept more Heavyside flow, thus making more net energy available, wouldn't it? last time i've checked a longer cable wasn't desireable, was it?

i mentioned the coaxial cable in another thread, would you agree that there's no net flow outside the external conductor and that all Heavyside flow has to happen between the conductors then?

what does that tell you? that net electromagnetic energy is entering the conductor? if you're observing that on a power wire, you're observing resisitive losses in action.

It does not tell you anything about how large the Poynting vector is compared to the energy flow NOT being intercepted. Claiming that that is all the energy that can be converged/intercepted ( experiment shows it is not) is like claiming there is no wind flow anywhere but where you build wind generating towers as if your choices on tower location could somehow affect the general weather pattern.

Not choosing to employ ALL the wind power in the world towards generating power did not make it go away but that is basically what the Poynting vector assumes for energy not being diverged into the circuit. This is the cornerstone lie that the rest of the facade has been constructed on.

Stellar

i dunno if it's all there is, in fact, it's probably NOT. who's to say you couldn't use electricity to milk the earth's field? i just think that the explanation leaves a lot to be desired, because if the power flow enters the conductor and can't be shown to leave somewhere else, it has to be converted, since accumulation is out of the question i hope. Take the following model: a closed loop with an induced current, the conductor does not feed any machinery, just has to sustain its intrinsic losses, the perpendicular flow component enters the loop never to be seen again, until the field is depleted (along with the current that accompanies it).

Wether this depletion is based solely on consumption or some other internal process destroying the field coupling/generating mechanism (insert vacuum energy here) and consumption from the field, i don't know, but if you regard the Heaviside/Poynting flow vector as an indicator of energy flow, then you must admit that the perpendicular portion is just parasitic and the entire model needs to be reconsidered. note that i knitted something in which would allow over-unity generation, but still can't make head nor tails of 'divergent flow' as the only useful component.


There surely are interesting details on cheniere, f-ex the part about electrostatic interception by a 'tuned' electrode, or the summary of flaws in maxwell's theory, with which i strongly agree

but sorry, the explanations i read do not hold water, imho, it all looks as if somebody from the medieval age had gotten a glimpse of a global map and then drew it from memory years later, complete with monsters and dragons and never knowing what 'latitude' was supposed to mean.

PS: Thanx for your patience with me, StellarX

Originally posted by Long Lance
intercepted is the right word, it definitely gets inside the conductor (the perpendicular component i mean), but if this was the only energy available for use in electric machinery, a longer wire would intercept more Heavyside flow, thus making more net energy available, wouldn't it?

Since energy flows from the source 'charge' in ALL directions only the energy flow almost perpendicular to the circuit gets intercepted so you can imagine how small the Poynting component really is. The 'dark' Heaviside flow is everything that does not 'physically contribute' ( Lorentz words as i recall) to powering the circuit as it is not diverged by it's close proximity to the circuit.

last time i've checked a longer cable wasn't desireable, was it?

It really would not matter, as far as i know, how long it was if still at the same angle to the source charge.

i mentioned the coaxial cable in another thread, would you agree that there's no net flow outside the external conductor and that all Heavyside flow has to happen between the conductors then?

Exactly the opposite in my knowledge. The Heaviside energy flow is absolutely massive in comparison to the diverged Poynting component but is completely written out of accounting by Lorentz due to his own failure ( like all those before ) to account for the origin of the observed Heaviside energy flow.

i dunno if it's all there is, in fact, it's probably NOT. who's to say you couldn't use electricity to milk the earth's field?

Well that's not what i am talking about here but we know that some interesting thought experiments have shown how energy could be generated using the earth's magnetic fields and magnetic fields. We are already exploiting this to some extent by tapping wind and water power.

i just think that the explanation leaves a lot to be desired, because if the power flow enters the conductor and can't be shown to leave somewhere else, it has to be converted, since accumulation is out of the question i hope.

Energy can only be lost to the system if you can not preserved the energy in all the forms the system might convert it into. Energy can at least theory be preserved this way.

Take the following model: a closed loop with an induced current, the conductor does not feed any machinery, just has to sustain its intrinsic losses, the perpendicular flow component enters the loop never to be seen again, until the field is depleted (along with the current that accompanies it).

Without a source charge from which to continuously intercept energy the system might in theory be designed to prevent losses but that will probably be very hard to do. Why would the Poynting component reappear once the field is depleted? I don't understand ....

Wether this depletion is based solely on consumption or some other internal process destroying the field coupling/generating mechanism (insert vacuum energy here) and consumption from the field, i don't know, but if you regard the Heaviside/Poynting flow vector as an indicator of energy flow, then you must admit that the perpendicular portion is just parasitic and the entire model needs to be reconsidered.

Well i'm just not sure what your trying to say here. Why is the perpendicular component ( some of which is diverged into the circuit) parasitic?

note that i knitted something in which would allow over-unity generation, but still can't make head nor tails of 'divergent flow' as the only useful component.

The diverged flow is where all the energy that powers modern circuits and thus national power grids comes from. The Heaviside flow ( at least millions of times as large) is completely lost to us due to the fact that our electrical theories simply disregard it as irrelevant because of lack of employment towards powering the loads of the circuit. It's like claiming the wind can not provide energy simply because we do not put it to use. Do you understand?

There surely are interesting details on cheniere, f-ex the part about electrostatic interception by a 'tuned' electrode, or the summary of flaws in maxwell's theory, with which i strongly agree

Well you really should just keep reading till it all comes together.

but sorry, the explanations i read do not hold water, imho, it all looks as if somebody from the medieval age had gotten a glimpse of a global map and then drew it from memory years later, complete with monsters and dragons and never knowing what 'latitude' was supposed to mean.

Well if you are talking about Beardens writing then i can not help you as they make sense to me. If it is however my arguments that do not make sense to you then i will just keep trying to make it ever clearer as you make your questions more specific.

PS: Thanx for your patience with me, StellarX

I'll keep trying but i am really no expert in the field so i am bound to make mistakes that wont contribute towards you learning anywhere near as fast as you could from reading it in Bearden's 950 page theoretical book which i am still battling trough.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Since energy flows from the source 'charge' in ALL directions only the energy flow almost perpendicular to the circuit gets intercepted so you can imagine how small the Poynting component really is. The 'dark' Heaviside flow is everything that does not 'physically contribute' ( Lorentz words as i recall) to powering the circuit as it is not diverged by it's close proximity to the circuit.

AHA, i think i'll get most of your drift now, Its not about the (ideally circular) magnetic field and the (again ideally in open infinite space) radial and longitudinal (volate loss due to resistance, this is what generates the perpendicular flow component on conductors...) electric field surrounding the conductor, it's about what happens at the source location....

last time i've checked a longer cable wasn't desireable, was it?

It really would not matter, as far as i know, how long it was if still at the same angle to the source charge.

K, i see now, i had a pic of a conductor in my mind when i wrote than and a longer line means more surface area and therefore more flow entering it, obviously.

i mentioned the coaxial cable in another thread, would you agree that there's no net flow outside the external conductor and that all Heavyside flow has to happen between the conductors then?

Exactly the opposite in my knowledge. The Heaviside energy flow is absolutely massive in comparison to the diverged Poynting component but is completely written out of accounting by Lorentz due to his own failure ( like all those before ) to account for the origin of the observed Heaviside energy flow.

cleared up above

i dunno if it's all there is, in fact, it's probably NOT. who's to say you couldn't use electricity to milk the earth's field?

Well that's not what i am talking about here but we know that some interesting thought experiments have shown how energy could be generated using the earth's magnetic fields and magnetic fields. We are already exploiting this to some extent by tapping wind and water power.

Ok, that part is not yet important to me, although i still believe the energy has to come from somewhere (with the current mainstream understanding, it's supposedly mechanical power, so the question wasn't asked).

Take the following model: a closed loop with an induced current, the conductor does not feed any machinery, just has to sustain its intrinsic losses, the perpendicular flow component enters the loop never to be seen again, until the field is depleted (along with the current that accompanies it).

Without a source charge from which to continuously intercept energy the system might in theory be designed to prevent losses but that will probably be very hard to do. Why would the Poynting component reappear once the field is depleted? I don't understand ....

Yeah, that's because we were talking past each other, i eliminated the source, which is a cheat in this case and no, it wouldn't reappear, did i say that

Well i'm just not sure what your trying to say here. Why is the perpendicular component ( some of which is diverged into the circuit) parasitic?

was again thinking conductors, and how energy flow that's going into the wire is lost, nvm anymore.

The diverged flow is where all the energy that powers modern circuits and thus national power grids comes from. The Heaviside flow ( at least millions of times as large) is completely lost to us due to the fact that our electrical theories simply disregard it as irrelevant because of lack of employment towards powering the loads of the circuit. It's like claiming the wind can not provide energy simply because we do not put it to use. Do you understand?

Now, that begs the question why this miniscule intercepted component perfectly equals the mechanical power input... now who desgined the universe to fool us :lol

I'll keep trying but i am really no expert in the field so i am bound to make mistakes that wont contribute towards you learning anywhere near as fast as you could from reading it in Bearden's 950 page theoretical book which i am still battling trough.

Stellar

Fine, now i won't pretend that i'm fully convinced, but at least i know where to look next, so your efforts weren't was futile as you thought

ok, just to clear up WHY i was confused, it was the result of a single pic:

www.cheniere.org...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ok, I know we aren't supposed to cross post from other forums, but this is too good to pass up. It seems that someone has found out a bit about the people behind Tom Bearden and Tom Steven's websites.

Craddock Engineering Inc. (USA) bills itself as a “Petroleum People” service.

It’s get better.

Doing a yellow page search for that address also brings up this interesting bit - result

You can note that the website listed for Craddock Engineering Inc. is in fact www.Cseti.org , also listed at 151 La Jolla, Santa Barbara.

Now doing a nearby search you will also come across another oil company, Pacific International Oil Svc, also at 151 La Jolla Dr, Santa Barbara, CA 93109.
res ults

So, not only does it seem that there are two international oil service companies running out of this address, you also have Tom personally webmastering for both Bearden (cheneire.org) and Greer (cseti.org) in his off time.

Now, if you’re still with me, you might be curious as to just what exactly is at 151 La Jolla, in Santa Barbara, aside from Cheneire.org, Cseti.org, Craddockengineering.com, Pacific Oil, Anthony Craddock and Dr. Greer. Well here it is...
results

Nice place huh?

www.chemtrailcentral.com...


So, it seems that there is a bit more than meets the eye here.

Bearden is a fraud. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

Yeah he talks a good talk but far from agreement on how free is here
now and using it.

I do like how his Einstein gibberish leads into Lyne's discovery of
the 1 Hydrogen 2 2 Hydrogen 1 hidden energy, but check how
Lyne uncovered it in spite of organized efforts to cover energy
sources for the advantage of others.

Bearden's interview about Tesla, oouuu such a good guy.

the interview

Bearden's page on Lyne's discovery

Not surprised he might be supported by the science establishment or
oil companies or a group of talkers without evidence.
He and others, including Lyne, know what not to talk about unless
approved by a higher authority. After all talk about Tesla is ok since
not much has exited the boxcars full of his notes and works.
But no matter, many things are known with out Tesla, such as will
the Helium or Hydrogen Cycle engine ever make an appearance.