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.


A discussion of my work

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:56 AM

Yes, I was referring to the device that was confiscated. Couldn't your friend recontruct the device and photograph it before running it?

Why does it seem that every proponent of FE can't freely demonstrate the technology? In the case of Sweet you have to purchase the video, and in the age where we have YouTube and Google video you could reach a significantly larger audience simply by posting the video for free viewing.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 11:16 AM
Not sure what the point would be. Plenty of pictures of Dennis’ technology on my site, and a drawing of my mentor’s engine. Patents and blueprints are easy to come by. Nobody trying to build one, or even much interest. I have links to clips of ET craft flying overhead, where anybody can go and see them any day of the week.

No crowd of people going there to see for themselves.

I am not seeking people who can see a movie of something to then believe it may be possible. Dennis, Brian O’Leary and Greer go after that crowd, and I wish them the best, but I have seen that crowd in action too many times. That is the bread and circuses crowd, and they are no help at all in helping free energy happen.

The problem is not technology; it is the lack of sentience and integrity of humanity. I have interacted with many scientists, and their attitude is “when you show up to my lab bench with a working free energy machine, then I might believe they are possible, after I test it for years.” They suffer from naiveté in spades, which is also part of the conundrum.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by wadefrazier3
The problem is not technology; it is the lack of sentience and integrity of humanity. I have interacted with many scientists, and their attitude is “when you show up to my lab bench with a working free energy machine, then I might believe they are possible, after I test it for years.” They suffer from naiveté in spades, which is also part of the conundrum.

Unfortunately for many scientists science is their religion, their absolute truth. Obviously if you tell someone what they believe to be true is incorrect or at least incomplete it's going to push some buttons. It's like trying to get Palestine and Israel to become bosom buddies in one day, not gonna happen.

If I wanted to look into the FE matter on my own is there any patent owner in particular you would recomment I investigate? Thanks.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 01:52 PM
Sweet’s stuff is worth studying. Bearden wrote a 1,000-page tome on FE physics, but it is not for the uninitiated.

Again, the Big Boys have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to make sure FE never makes it to market:

so the really good stuff was “disappeared” long ago. It exists, but in deep holes that people like you and me will never be invited to visit, but some I know have been:

The problem with Sweet’s or Moray’s work is that it is not easily reproducible. Sweet conditioned the magnets in a way that he did not share with anybody. That is part of the conundrum. If you are interested in studying the good stuff out there, I would point you to the New Energy Movement (NEM):

Bearden once said that if he had one person to fund on FE research, it would be Tom Valone, who replaced me on the NEM board. Sterling Allan’s efforts seem sincere:

I have dealt with him, and he earned some integrity points with me:

he keeps his ear to the ground on that stuff. I do not really keep up all that much on FE news, although I receive almost an email a day from FE pals on this or that FE possibility or device. I specialized on the political-economic aspect of the situation long ago, and that is the crucial aspect, in my opinion. A zillion inventors have come up with stuff that has promise, and the Big Boys quickly swoop on any effort that might crack the nut, if it does not self-destruct before the Big Boys need to lift a finger. Again, that is part of the conundrum.

I hope that helps,


[edit on 11-11-2006 by wadefrazier3]

[edit on 11-11-2006 by wadefrazier3]

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:39 PM

I came across a site (New Mexicans for Science and Reason) that doesn't present Dennis Lee, or you in a favorable manner. The comments made on the site basically make Dennis out to look like a con artist, and you as one of his supporters.

Would you care to make any rebutals in defense of these allegations?

[edit on 13-11-2006 by amehrich]

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:04 PM
The New Mexico boys are Eric Krieg's buddies, and I deal with Krieg's dishonesty here:

My site is comprised of 1,200 pages of material that took 12,000 hours to create, after surviving an Odyssey that I would not wish on anybody. My work stands on its own.

I will not waste any more time dealing with the efforts of Krieg or his pals. I have found that people like Krieg and the New Mexico boys are invariably either dishonest or do not even get their basic facts straight. The New Mexico boys actually earned some integrity points several years ago when they attacked me and used libelous news clippings to make their case against Dennis, just like Krieg did. When repeatedly asked to provide something other than libelous news clippings as evidence (like some original research!), they finally removed the libel from their site. That won them some points, but they were very few points, as they could provide zero evidence of Dennis’ criminality other than quoting people like Krieg.

If people want to be critical of Dennis’ efforts or mine, they are welcome to do so, but I have watched media and Internet attacks on Dennis for over twenty years and I have yet to find even ONE that was informed, intelligent and honest. Nobody who has EVER challenged my work has done ANY of the homework needed to credibly do so, the “skeptics” least of all.

I began this thread to discuss MY WORK, not to discuss dishonest and uninformed ALLEGATIONS ABOUT my work.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:43 AM

Would you say your "work" is basically an effort to change the way people think about certain things such as energy? Having read through some of your site that's the impression I get.

If you don't mind me asking what's your current profession, how do you put food on the table?

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:22 AM
I am an accountant by profession. Yes, getting people to think about their world differently is among my goals. In response to your inquiry, among others, I put up a new essay on my site, which directs people to where their interest is (and it often will not be in my work, but with subjects that my work touches)

I recently published a new essay on the journeys of some free energy activists known to me:

and here are my 2006 additions to my site:

I plan to begin engaging the public a bit more in 2007. We’ll see how it goes. I may start a new thread on ATS to discuss issues that my free energy activist essay brings up.


posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:32 AM
shhhh double post...

you are not seeing this...

[edit on 13/3/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:28 AM

I have a draft up of what will probably be my most ambitious essay of 2007. I am trying to put my best foot forward, and any thoughtful and constructive feedback is welcome. I will make it “public” before the month is finished.



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 10:24 PM

As someone who has experienced many of the same things that you have (albeit for very different reasons), I want to thank you for your bravery, hard work and endurance. I look forward to reading more of your work over the week end, and hope to form at least one meaningful question, though frankly, most of the technical stuff is way over my head.

Please know that your work is VERY important, no matter how little effect it seems to have at any moment. Time will vindicate you, if you are as sincere as I believe you to be. There is no such thing as a lost cause which is morally right.


posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 10:34 PM
Thanks Resistor:

I look forward to your questions. Thanks also for the encouragement, because, as you know, it can be a very lonely and seemingly futile journey at times.


posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 11:01 PM
I'm looking forward to reading your essay this weekend (~13 pages printed out). I had look into a similar subject in this thread:

Chomsky, the Left-gatekeepers, and 9/11

I will post my comments/questions here.

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 11:12 PM
Your "work" is not interesting, and I do not understand why people are discussing it.

Anyway, you give general remarks about everything, not giving any facts.

I can write such "work" - thousands of pages a day.

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 11:42 PM
Hello Wade, so good to see the thread revived.
I too will read the new stuff asap.

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 12:26 AM
Hi CNut23

That is a long subject on Uncle Noam, 9/11 and the Left, and I discuss it some in that essay. The left gatekeeper folks have proven a little too “out there,” IMO. Chomsky has his limitations, as do we all, but very few critiques of his political work have held much water, as far as I have seen, and I have looked high and low for them for many years.

Hi Swimmer:

You and I obviously have nothing to say to each other, unless perhaps you DO have some interesting work out there worth discussing. I have over 1,000 footnotes on my site, which has proven to contain enough “facts” for many readers, even leaving out my personal experiences. So far, I am not impressed with your “work,” either. If you have something honest, intelligent and informed to say, or can point to, now is your chance.

Hi Shadow Watcher:

I look forward to your feedback. If there is enough interest by the ATS members, I may do a free energy thread before long. We’ll see how it goes.

Best wishes,


posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 09:46 AM
Hi CN23:

I read your “left gatekeeper” thread that you linked to. I particularly liked this article that it linked to:

That is an important contribution to the issue, and discusses what my cover-up essay covers at length:

I think that the JFK hit was a watershed event in that the people behind it said something like, “Hey, this is easy!” Not the hit so much, but how readily the government covered it all up and the public swallowed it. That became SOP for the next 20 years, through the Reagan shooting and the aircraft explosions of Torrijos and Roldos.

Murdering politicians and activists then seemed to give way to more ambitious operations. The OK City bombing may well have been a warm-up for 9/11.

A note on Chomsky and MIT’s funding…Chomsky himself has stated that the Pentagon was heavily involved in funding MIT. That ZNet article you linked to is one of his many statements on the issue. One of my books at home is titled “The Cold War and the University,” which Chomsky and Zinn contributed to (the book is named after the interview with Chomsky in it). The book is about the overarching effect of Pentagon funding and the general Cold War climate on America’s universities. In his interview, Chomsky notes the MIT/Harvard contrast that I also remark upon in my rad left essay. MIT was more tolerant of political dissidents than Harvard was. In his interview, Chomsky spoke of MIT student-activists Mike Albert and Steve Shalom, who co-wrote that Z Magazine essay that I mention in my latest essay and your thread also deals with. Chomsky said that MIT was 90% funded by the Pentagon in the 1950s.

In that thread that you began, the discussion of that Shalom/Albert essay is also a good one, and I particularly liked that Rich23 had to say about it. That essay that I linked to is good reading for understanding what Shalom, Albert and many rad lefties do regarding events like JFK and 9/11:

Again, my reasons for taking issue with their dismissals of the “inside job” angles of those events are partly that they then instantly dismiss the suppression of alternative energy as another crazy “conspiracy theory.” It cripples their understanding of how the world REALLY WORKS. Their ideological constructs of how the world works are woefully deficient, for all their brilliant insights on so many other matters. Their recent antics are very similar to Kuhn’s description of how scientific paradigms shift:

My work is not about THEORY, but I am writing from EXPERIENCE. Being offered a billion dollars to stop pursuing free energy:

is enough to wake anybody up. I am willing to discuss this “left gatekeeper” matter further, as it is important, and an issue that the rad left needs to successfully grapple with if they hope to ever really become effective in healing humanity and the planet.

Be well,


[edit on 14-4-2007 by wadefrazier3]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by wadefrazier3]

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 11:03 AM
Hi Wade,
I'm working my way through some of your material, and I find it very interesting. I took notice of the following quote:

I am the only person I have yet seen on Above Top Secret who uses his real name.
I have only skimmed this thread at this point, as I want to read more of your essays, first.
Still, without prejustice or precedent, as they say in one of my passtimes, who, is Ron? u2u me if you like.

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 01:41 PM
This morning was interesting. For the first time, it has been brought to my attention (by JohnnyCanuck) that somebody has plagiarized my work. The plagiarism in question is here:

What the person identified as “Ron Lombard” plagiarized is here:

The plagiarism is easy to see and easy to prove. The draft of that plagiarized essay was avidly discussed by the JFK Assassination community, as well as the Apollo Moon Hoax community, in the spring and summer of 2001. In August 2001, Ralph McGehee was afraid to leave his house because of FBI harassment, and I posted this to my site:

which he said helped take the heat off of him.

In August 2001, I also hung out with Brian O’Leary in the California governor’s office,

to talk about free energy. My co-discovery, with Jay Windley, of the footage of Armstrong’s Leap,

led to me hanging out with Brian that summer. I suppose this instance of my work being plagiarized is interesting because recently I had to deal with somebody’s suspicion that my work was not my own. As my editor recently told me, my work is original and unique, and I agree that I have not seen anything quite like my work, which is partly why I did it.

The plagiarism was published in October 2001, so the timing makes sense, as there was a lot of interest in that essay not long before then, and that essay continues to be one of the most popular on my site (my American Empire essay is my site’s most popular, followed closely by the cover-up and medical racket essays, with my energy writings, alas, being far less popular).

I do not look for text strings from my work on the Internet. There is probably more of that happening than I am aware of, and maybe a lot more, since this is the first time I have seen somebody do it. A recent example of what could be considered plagiarism is this:

But the author links to my site (which is how I discovered it). But you will see where he intersperses my words with his. Paraphrasing authors is no crime, but that author was treading in gray territory. As is evident from my home page, I encourage people to reproduce my work, but I also ask them for proper attribution and a link to where they took it from.

Life is too short to try to hunt down “Ron Lombard” and protest his plagiarism. What can be troubling is that people might suspect that I plagiarized “Ron.” It would be pretty stupid of me to author a site containing over 1,600 footnotes, and contact people like Howard Zinn

and Ralph McGehee to ask for permission to publish quotes from their work, and then plagiarize an inconsequential article on Mick Cohen. Ah, it is just one of the risks of being published on the Internet. My former partner Dennis has been libeled hundreds of times, including by scientists.

and the only time I have seen him fight back was after about the 1000th instance of libel from Eric Krieg (AKA, Mr. Skeptic).

I doubt that I would have been goaded into suing him, but Krieg’s attacks on me have been far milder than those he has visited on Dennis over the years. My point is that there are far too many important things to do than redress grievances regarding those who lie about you and steal from you.

That Mick Cohen article is the first time I have seen outright plagiarism of my work. Thanks, Johnny!


[edit on 14-4-2007 by wadefrazier3]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by wadefrazier3]

posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 02:03 PM
Happy to have been of assistance (in a well-mannered Canadian way, eh?)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in