It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Steven Greer's 'Disclosure' book.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
Dont be so quick to dismiss the Mars face because the new photos dont show anything.

I too admit I had written the subject off until I started hearing rumors about how NASA airbrushes a lot of their pictures and just plain removes stuff they dont want the public to see.

There was some guy in England last year that hacked into the NASA computers based on testimony in the disclosure project. The disclosure project has an eyewitness that worked for NASA and did the airbrushing work. So this guy hacks in and sure enough saw a ton of photos undoctored showing discs and other ufo's next to space shuttles, etc.

Last I heard, NASA had filed charges and the USA was getting him sent over to prosecute him

Any evidence of this? A name? If he hacked into NASA, why didn't he download and release the pictures?

These are, essentially rumors.

Furthermore, what would it take to prove the Mars face false? There have already been pictures taken from other perspectives. It clearly doesn't show anything. All evidence shows that the face was a trick of the light. We can't assume that there is a face on Mars until someone goes and sees it with their own eyes.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Togetic]




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by tock
Yeah, people have the impression that doing all this is free

I mean, the CSETI teams are for the most part volunteers.

You guys are aware that if that the Steven's teams had in hand 10-15 millions $, he would be able to put in place a lab, hired the right people and put protection up and create in well under a year, what it takes to get us out of the energy crisis.

Is there any proof of this? Verifiable theories? Schematics? I would absolutely love to take a look at a zero-point energy source.

The problem is that there is no forthcoming proof to back up those claims.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Togetic]


You haven't done your homework then. Energy from the vacuum and Free Energy generation, Tom Bearden and John Bedini.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unplugged

Originally posted by seenitall
There is some merit.

I just find it very hard to believe anyone that only surfaces to sell a new book or DVD.

Point is that he teases with promises of wonderous numbers of witnesses but cannot release video.

He stated himself that there are stupidly large amounts of video evidence. Well where is it? Torrent software could easily take the load off of servers.

Shouldn't fastwalkers have had a bit more in that department? It was incredibly short considering the amount of testimony he has gathered (cough).

[edit on 5-1-2007 by seenitall]


How about getting your facts straight before spewing nonsense. Steven Greer (& Stanton Friendman) had nothing to do with the production "Fastwalkers", which was garbage. They were simply approached by the producers to contribute with some of their knowledge/etc. If I remember correctly, they only appeared for like 10 seconds in the whole film, saying almost nothing. "UFOs are real", etc.

Thank you Unplugged.

I don't understand, how people can spit out so much garbage, without even looking at all the facts there is out there.

Why would Steven release all his information, if it's to please people like seenitall or togetit... the information is meant to be released in front of a court, not to some ignorant people wasting their night long in front of the computer trying to seem important.

Steven Greer did what he could, it's up to us to pick it up and make sure our government make this thing happen. End of story.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tock
You haven't done your homework then. Energy from the vacuum and Free Energy generation, Tom Bearden and John Bedini.

Three problems based on this article.


  1. One of the fundamental theorems on which his theory is based, by Podolny, is, based on my research, unconfirmed. The claim that there is energy in a vacuum on the order of 10^80, without more, is too bizarre to be accepted without experimental observation.
  2. The criticism of Bearden's work says that the units on each side of the equation do not match. I used to lose 5 points on my college physics tests for this error; I will ascribe the same point loss.
  3. This work is not peer reviewed. Furthermore, the engine that he claims to have built has not been observed by engineers or physicists to check for its validity.


    ```````````````````
    trimmed triple nested quote

    [edit on 10/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
One solid state machine M. Bedini and M. Bearden did together was reproduced by some people already. And it does convert dark energy into something we can use to recharge batteries.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is respected.

You don't need to gave me some documentations or anything to try to discredit the work of M. Bearden. I'm convinced there is more energy around us than we can mesure.

And at this point in time, i don't care if you can't create the darn mathematical functions to prove all this. I WANT RESULTS. If the darn machine works and can pump out electricity, we need to build them. Once we have solve the polution situation, then we'll have all the time to formulate pretty equations to satisfy our scientific community.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by tock]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tock
One solid state machine M. Bedini and M. Bearden did together was reproduced by some people already. And it does convert dark energy into something we can use to recharge batteries.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is respected.

I am interested in seeing this; do you have names? I am not opposed to the possibility that this technology exists, I just find it counterintuitive that it could be kept under wraps this long without someone coming forward.

You don't need to gave me some documentations or anything to try to discredit the work of M. Bearden. I'm convinced there is more energy around us than we can mesure.

That's fine. But I wholly disagree with that claim, although I am open to the possibility that it is true. The problem is that they have a result that they are observing, but their explanation has holes. Maybe they're just a quirk of quantum mechanics? We don't know. They may be taking energy out of an ambient electromagnetic field that indeed is generated somewhere. Energy on the order of 10^80 is really, really paradigm shattering and can't be accepted out of hand.
And at this point in time, i don't care if you can't create the darn mathematical functions to prove all this. I WANT RESULTS. If the darn machine works and can pump out electricity, we need to build them. Once we have solve the polution situation, then we'll have all the time to formulate pretty equations to satisfy our scientific community.
[edit on 11-2-2007 by tock]
Results are fine. But who can't we see them? They have said that their motor has been running for years, but no legitimate scientific entity has been able to observe it. That, rightfully so, makes me suspicious.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The acadimic body doesn't want to look at it.
Some of the scientist even said that you could put a working prototype and they would refuse to look at it. Go figure...

It's again, a battle of Ego. They won't want to see their whole lives collapse. It will take time, but it will eventualy surface.

Google search Tom bearden, John Bedini, energy from the vacuum.
Don't let the debunkers get at you, go at the bottom of it, you'll be please I think.

I ordered both books from their website, the smaller books is easier to read. It's called Free Energy Generation.
There is newsgroup also out there for this kind of stuff.

Remember, a lot of scientist are bought out. What's a few millions to the oil cartel, when you need to get a guy on your side...

[edit on 11-2-2007 by tock]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tock
The acadimic body doesn't want to look at it.
Some of the scientist even said that you could put a working prototype and they would refuse to look at it. Go figure...

This is assuming that they have looked at the available evidence, realized that it is real, and then decided that they don't want to go see it. I haven't seen anything implying that, but if you have it I'll look at it.


It's again, a battle of Ego. They won't want to see their whole lives collapse. It will take time, but it will eventualy surface.

I don't understand how finding a new energy source could ruin someone's life.


Google search Tom bearden, John Bedini, energy from the vacuum.
Don't let the debunkers get at you, go at the bottom of it, you'll be please I think.

I don't listen to debunkers. I do listen to skeptics, and they seem to discount the claims out of hand. If there is merit to their claim, it is unconfirmed.


I ordered both books from their website, the smaller books is easier to read. It's called Free Energy Generation.
There is newsgroup also out there for this kind of stuff.

I am not opposed to reading their work. Unfortunately, I can't say that I would understand it all.

But I want to see their work published in a peer-reviewed journal. That is not a high bar. If there is merit to their science then they should be able to find someone who will publish it. But they would need to back up their claims with the experimental evidence they say that they have.


Remember, a lot of scientist are bought out. What's a few millions to the oil cartel, when you need to get a guy on your side...

This statement bothers me for two reasons. First, there is little to back up that claim. Their money does come from government grants, etc., but there is a lot of cutting-edge science being done that some might consider outlandish but is still being funded. Why does someone receiving funding from an oil company immediately make them unbelievable? Why does a grant from Greenpeace totally discredit someone? How unfair is it to imply that an honorable person can be bought an sold like that?

Second, why is it whenever there is no evidence for something we immediately jump to the conclusion that there is a government conspiracy behind it? Maybe I'm presumptive making that claim on a conspiracy web site.
But the same government that can barely run a war in Iraq (a country the size of California) is supposed to be the same government that is, with scalpel-like precision, covering up zero-point energy, UFO's, the hollow earth, reptoids, the cure for AIDS, artifacts on the moon, the Mothman, advanced propulsion, treaties with extraterrestrials, animal mutilations, Blue Book Report 13, ghosts, crashed discs, Bigfoot, Zionist influence, mind control techniques, 9/11, hurricane Katrina, government abductions staged to look like alien abductions, bird flu, Tesla's discoveries, MJ-12, the Kennedy assassination, etc.? (No wonder they can't get my taxes right
) The two images don't quite mesh.

The point here is that when people immediately assume that the government--or a government, or organization, or secret society--is behind every little thing, then aren't we becoming the boy who cried wolf? We cry "foul" so much that people have stopped listening. They don't hear about the UFO's plainly floating over credible witnesses' heads. They don't hear about the people who have strange experiences, who are scared and just trying to figure out what is happening to them. Instead, we are ignored and ridiculed. Our claims are laughed at.

And if the government is trying to hide something from us, then we have made it that much easier for them.

I, for one, have made it my personal policy to stop blaming the government, or the Bilderbergs, or the aliens, or the Trilateral Commission, or the CFR, or the Masons, or the Illuminati, or the Reptoids, or whomever the hell else for covering up something or not. If there are people out there pulling the strings, then why not pull right back? Furthermore, if there are people manipulating everything, we don't know about it and we frankly can just pretend like it isn't happening. And if someday they come up behind us with a piece of piano wire, then we can check out proudly knowing that we didn't let their mind games fool with us and always worked for the truth. If they aren't out there pulling the strings, then we are presented with the ripe and exciting opportunity to actually broaden people's horizons, to change the way they view the world, and to contribute positively to civilization.

It's self-evident: the only conspiracy that needs to be overcome is that of the imagination. We project our feelings of inability to produce change on some shadowy figure in the background pulling the strings because it feels like there is no other option.

No more.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by tock
You haven't done your homework then. Energy from the vacuum and Free Energy generation, Tom Bearden and John Bedini.

Three problems based on this article.


  1. One of the fundamental theorems on which his theory is based, by Podolny, is, based on my research, unconfirmed. The claim that there is energy in a vacuum on the order of 10^80, without more, is too bizarre to be accepted without experimental observation.
  2. The criticism of Bearden's work says that the units on each side of the equation do not match. I used to lose 5 points on my college physics tests for this error; I will ascribe the same point loss.
  3. This work is not peer reviewed. Furthermore, the engine that he claims to have built has not been observed by engineers or physicists to check for its validity.


    ```````````````````
    trimmed triple nested quote

    [edit on 10/2/07 by masqua]


I guess we all have to assume that you're an extremely talented physicist who can teach the likes of Bearden, Puthoff, Haisch a lesson in physics :-)

A collection of essential reading:

Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff: Beyond E=mc² - A first glimpse of a postmodern physics, in which mass, inertia and gravity arise from underlying electromagnetic processes, published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, November / December 1994. (Best article to start with!)

Marcus Chown, Mass Medium, published in New Scientist, Vol. 169, No. 2276, 3 Feburary 2001. (Good vulgarization.)

ZPower collection of Energy Technology Papers

Earth Tech International - Selected Readings



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Second, why is it whenever there is no evidence for something we immediately jump to the conclusion that there is a government conspiracy behind it? Maybe I'm presumptive making that claim on a conspiracy web site.
But the same government that can barely run a war in Iraq (a country the size of California) is supposed to be the same government that is, with scalpel-like precision, covering up zero-point energy, UFO's, the hollow earth, reptoids, the cure for AIDS, artifacts on the moon, the Mothman, advanced propulsion, treaties with extraterrestrials, animal mutilations, Blue Book Report 13, ghosts, crashed discs, Bigfoot, Zionist influence, mind control techniques, 9/11, hurricane Katrina, government abductions staged to look like alien abductions, bird flu, Tesla's discoveries, MJ-12, the Kennedy assassination, etc.? (No wonder they can't get my taxes right
) The two images don't quite mesh.


What doesn't mesh is your melting pot of proven political coverups and/or conspiracies on the one hand, and paranormal phenomena on the other hand. :-)



It's self-evident: the only conspiracy that needs to be overcome is that of the imagination. We project our feelings of inability to produce change on some shadowy figure in the background pulling the strings because it feels like there is no other option.

No more.


No, what's evident, is that our inability is limited by moral fibre. We would like to produce change, and are very able to do so. Indeed, many have tried, but have failed because their life was made miserable or they were assassinated.

Unlike the (covert) government, we don't want to go so far as to harass or kill scores of people in order to achieve our goals.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
I guess we all have to assume that you're an extremely talented physicist who can teach the likes of Bearden, Puthoff, Haisch a lesson in physics :-)

I have never claimed this, and would never claim this. My CV doesn't reflect a study of physics. I would not make the claims of competency that so many people in this field do on a daily basis. The three points I made could be made by anyone with a rudimentary, high school understanding of physics and the scientific method.


A collection of essential reading:

Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff: Beyond E=mc² - A first glimpse of a postmodern physics, in which mass, inertia and gravity arise from underlying electromagnetic processes, published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, November / December 1994. (Best article to start with!)

Marcus Chown, Mass Medium, published in New Scientist, Vol. 169, No. 2276, 3 Feburary 2001. (Good vulgarization.)

ZPower collection of Energy Technology Papers

Earth Tech International - Selected Readings

None of these are peer-reviewed, based on my admittedly preliminary survey.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
What doesn't mesh is your melting pot of proven political coverups and/or conspiracies on the one hand, and paranormal phenomena on the other hand. :-)

That statement was for rhetorical effect.


No, what's evident, is that our inability is limited by moral fibre. We would like to produce change, and are very able to do so. Indeed, many have tried, but have failed because their life was made miserable or they were assassinated.

What about Friedman? He has done more than any of us to blow the lid off UFO's, and to my knowledge he has never been harassed by military officials or had his life made miserable. Why would they ignore the man who has been the veritable face of modern ufology?

I have never said that there are no government conspiracies or cover ups. What I am saying is that I don't care.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by Thodeph
What doesn't mesh is your melting pot of proven political coverups and/or conspiracies on the one hand, and paranormal phenomena on the other hand. :-)

That statement was for rhetorical effect.


No, what's evident, is that our inability is limited by moral fibre. We would like to produce change, and are very able to do so. Indeed, many have tried, but have failed because their life was made miserable or they were assassinated.

What about Friedman? He has done more than any of us to blow the lid off UFO's, and to my knowledge he has never been harassed by military officials or had his life made miserable. Why would they ignore the man who has been the veritable face of modern ufology?

I have never said that there are no government conspiracies or cover ups. What I am saying is that I don't care.


This is where you fail to put the puzzle together. Stop using your mind, use your heart. Answers are there, ready to be revealed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join