A Big List Of Suppressed Technologies Related To Energy. We Are Being Deceived Once More...

reply to post by Amaterasu

Nothing in "peer-reviewed" science conflicts with plenum energy - oh, wait. You think I use "sciency-sounding words..." Guess You need help. Lessee... Plenum: The opposite of vacuum. The root of vacuum means "empty." The root of plenum means "full." The plenum is all space between particles, which seethes with "virtual" particles which add energy to Our universe. This is well established in science. Do I really have to show You the papers on this? It's well known. (And don't think I have no scientific training, love. That would be a poor assumption. I have studied quantum mechanics and cosmology extensively.) Oh, what the heck:

Clearly you are taking something out of context:

Under just the right conditions -- which involve an ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator -- it could be possible to create something out of nothing, according to University of Michigan researchers.

a

So yes, you can create something out of nothing, it just takes a high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator.

Nothing!

Oh and all the energy needed to run the system.

Of course, this isn't so much energy from nothing, as it is conversion of energy. But even scientists like to be sensational sometimes.

Is there potential in this research for something more? I believe so....

Is there potential in spinning magnets to harness some unseen energy? Ummm....



The charlatans would like you to believe so....

reply to post by ofhumandescent

S&F............See the movie, "Chain Reaction" with Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves............not to far off the mark.

See the movie: "Pirates of th Caribbean" Life in the 17th century? not far off the mark....



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8590f882697.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Gab1159

 

Leaks of information happen. The medias enforce the status quo, that has always been like this. The status quo NOW is that free-energy is impossible and that their are no better forms of energy than oil/nuclear power. Anyways...I'm not sure I fully get what you mean...

Hydropower is the most important and widely-used renewable source of energy.
Hydropower represents 19% of total electricity production.
China is the largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil, and the United States (Source: Energy Information Administration).
Approximately two-thirds of the economically feasible potential remains to be developed. Untapped hydro resources are still abundant in Latin America, Central Africa, India and China.

ga.water.usgs.gov...

The suppression you are claiming is just not there, nor is the "status quo". The funny thing, is that the free energy crowd never addresses the problems that come with alternative energies.

Confirmed: Biofuels Better Than Fossil Fuels in Jet Engines - Scaling Them Up is the Major Problem

Hydroelectric power is not perfect, though, and does have some disadvantages:/p>

High investment costs
Hydrology dependent (precipitation)
In some cases, inundation of land and wildlife habitat
In some cases, loss or modification of fish habitat
Fish entrainment or passage restriction
In some cases, changes in reservoir and stream water quality
In some cases, displacement of local populations

Solar

. For example, in 2007 and 2008, demand for manufacturing-quality silicon from the solar energy and semiconductor industries led to shortages that temporarily increased PV costs.14

1

Geothermal energy

People living near a geothermal drilling project in fault-riddled northern California are worried about more earthquakes after a similar project triggered a major jolt in Switzerland. A seismologist explains the forces at work

www.scientificamerican.com... othermal-drilling-earthquakes








Wind

In the U.K. (population 60 million), 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002, according to the Department of Trade and Industry. The government hopes to increase the use of renewables to 10.4% by 2010 and 20.4% by 2020, requiring many tens of thousands more towers. As demand will have grown, however, even more turbines will be required. In California (population 35 million), according to the state energy commission, 14,000 turbines (about 1,800 MW capacity) produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2000. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, and without accounting for an increase in energy demand, well over 100,000 1.5-MW wind towers (costing $150-300 billion) would be necessary to meet the DOE's goal of a mere 5% of the country's electricity from wind by 2010.

a

And for every negative article you find about alternative energies, you can find a positive one as well, or at least find papers from scientists and engineers that are trying to overcome the problems they are facing.

And in regards to actual electricity production in the US, people should stop saying "big oil" and perhaps start using :big coal" as the tin foil hat nemesis that is suppressing "free energy".Electricity Production

Thanks for these interesting quotes, but I fail to understand what you are trying to show me here. The technologies you mentioned here obviously aren't suppressed, so what does it have to do with the thread? Some of the technologies listed in my OP link would make these technologies you've linked obsolete, since they are way more efficient.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

S&F............See the movie, "Chain Reaction" with Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves............not to far off the mark.

See the movie: "Pirates of th Caribbean" Life in the 17th century? not far off the mark....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8590f882697.jpg[/atsimg]

To be honest with you...that comparison was pretty bad.

reply to post by Gab1159

To be honest with you...that comparison was pretty bad.

The first comparison was bad.

Mine is the same thing.

Fiction, does not = reality.

reply to post by Gab1159

Thanks for these interesting quotes, but I fail to understand what you are trying to show me here. The technologies you mentioned here obviously aren't suppressed, so what does it have to do with the thread? Some of the technologies listed in my OP link would make these technologies you've linked obsolete, since they are way more efficient.

Which ones are proven, exactly?


The ones I listed are.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Gab1159

 

Thanks for these interesting quotes, but I fail to understand what you are trying to show me here. The technologies you mentioned here obviously aren't suppressed, so what does it have to do with the thread? Some of the technologies listed in my OP link would make these technologies you've linked obsolete, since they are way more efficient.

Which ones are proven, exactly?


The ones I listed are.

Maybe you should take the time to consult the links posted in OP before commenting/debunking...that helps.

reply to post by boncho


Fiction does not equal reality. You are right, but you have to ask yourself...are all movies only fiction? How many times have we seen far-fetched cool gadgets that we were dreaming about, but later to appear in the market...5 years or so after it was "presented" in a movie?

Movies do not always equal to fiction only.

Originally posted by Gab1159
reply to post by boncho

 

Fiction does not equal reality. You are right, but you have to ask yourself...are all movies only fiction? How many times have we seen far-fetched cool gadgets that we were dreaming about, but later to appear in the market...5 years or so after it was "presented" in a movie?

Movies do not always equal to fiction only.

Covered this kind of thinking here.

Because one hypothetical device became a reality, that does not mean all hypothetical devices will become a reality.

And if you compared all fantasy in film and media and compared it to what has become reality, while taking note of what has failed or has not become reality, the latter would probably have a higher number.

Meaning this kind of thinking is pointless, and absolutely lends no argument to anything.

reply to post by Gab1159

Maybe you should take the time to consult the links posted in OP before commenting/debunking...that helps.

I've been through all the links in the OP. Why is it up to me to provide a comprehensive debunking of everyone listed in their for me to say it's hogwash?

Your post is hogwash. You have not provided any evidence to suggest any of them are real. The links don't even provide that. If they are all real (which I think you are implying) then just take one, and prove it.

At least show a critical breakdown of why you think its real.

Dear god man... It's like posting "I can talk to ghosts, prove me wrong...."

reply to post by Gab1159

Maybe you should take the time to consult the links posted in OP before commenting/debunking...that helps.

This comment from the page you linked sums the free energy crowd up the best I think:

Dennis Lee has been making free energy claims for about 20 years now. Dennis has missed numerous self impossed deadlines to reveal his revolutionary energy claims to the world.

Dennis has been arrested a number of times on a number of charges. Dennis Lee appears to be little more than a snake oil salesmen, selling free energy snake oil to whoever is willing to buy it.

There are serious questions about whether Dennis Lee has been supressed by anyone but his own innability to ever come up with a working model, despite nearly 20 years of claims and at least two different free energy products in development. -- User:Rock nj (June 12, 2006)

reply to post by boncho


And to see how free energy seems to cross over with Hollywood, we will also look at this comment from the page you posted:

On Oct. 5, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Ken Rauen wrote: I spoke with John Bedini on the phone while I was at Gene Mallove's lab, around 2000.

John told me he is only selling plans and not devices because he was assaulted by two burly men who shoved him against a wall in his shop and shoved a shotgun in his face and said, "Burn gasoline if you know what is best for you." They seem to be leaving him alone with this plan.

Oh, that why he is selling plans and not devices.... Right....





So the all powerful energy mafia sends "burly men" to push the guy around and tell him to"burn gasoline", but they fail to acquire the plans of the devices they are trying to suppress....



Reminds me of a Billy Blanks movie.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Yes, there is. Black ops.

Saying the words "Black Ops" is not evidence. Where is the evidence?

Saying something is in black ops is NOT lack of evidence. It is inaccessibility of the evidence. Geez. Shills like to suggest that because the black ops information is inaccessible there is no evidence. You might want to watch that lest someOne think You are one...

Do You deny that the US has black ops programs? You don't believe me when I say I have direct knowledge of electrogravitics and its uses - and that the science is VERY MUCH in black ops? Whatever. [shrug]

Nothing in "peer-reviewed" science conflicts with plenum energy - oh, wait. You think I use "sciency-sounding words..." Guess You need help. Lessee... Plenum: The opposite of vacuum. The root of vacuum means "empty." The root of plenum means "full." The plenum is all space between particles, which seethes with "virtual" particles which add energy to Our universe. This is well established in science. Do I really have to show You the papers on this? It's well known. (And don't think I have no scientific training, love. That would be a poor assumption. I have studied quantum mechanics and cosmology extensively.)

Hang on a minute... I thought peer-reviewed science was not admissible as evidence? Make up your mind, cite the academic papers to back up your "over unity" claims if it's accepted science. If it's so well known, "show me the money".

Not at all. Peer-review science is fine. HOWEVER... It does NOT define ALL and the ONLY valid science. Certain categories have been suppressed - and Wikipedia articles appear claiming "failure," and the like.

So We must be aware of that as We examine what science has for Us. Given that I have personal awareness of EG and its attendant effects, and that it was "made secret" (pulled into black ops), I include what I know and know there has been a very wide gap between what We COULD do and what We have been allowed to do. (Thus I am conspiracy aware.)

Oh, what the heck:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Your link is dead, but the hyperlink is clearly an article about virtual particles. Thanks, but that has nothing to do with over unity devices. You stated that "there are ways of extracting that energy in useful form". Show me the science to support the idea that such energy can be extracted, then show me the evidence that this is being done. Do NOT link me to speculative websites, link me to academic papers. You choose to cherry pick scientific concepts to support your argument, then you shall play the game using ONLY credible, peer-reviewed sources from reputable journals (aka real science). Otherwise, leave legitimate science well alone, it is not to be distorted to suite your agenda.

EDIT to add: Check the link in the above text - I know I did not put that "L" at the end of the link - it says at the end of the URL: are-virtual-particles-rea (no "L" at the end). It works like that.

Meh. If You are going to limit Me to controlled information - You know I can't produce. [shrug] But I did My best and maybe you will accept what I offer...

Here is some cited info, some from those links You don't want, but some from Scientific American and Los Alamos National Lab Physics E-Print Archive:

www.stealthskater.com...

Here's a forum discussion with interesting links:

www.physicsforums.com...

Here's some interesting vids - but this is probably a site You won't accept. [sigh]

wn.com...

Anyway... Have fun.

..twisting scientific concepts, yet dismissing peer-reviewed science... unbelievable.

Um... No. Knowing full well about electrogravitics and its effects - and We covered the admissability above. Quit accusing me of something I never did - i.e., dismiss "peer reviewed" anything.

Overunity: getting more energy out than is put in. If We build an energy extraction interface (whatever it might be) that extracts this plenum energy, then the energy We put in to do this will be less than what We are extracting - overunity.

Citation needed.

Huh? Like a descriptor needs citation? It's a self-evident word, m'dear. Unity is used to suggest equal power in and out. Most things We use are underunity. But overunity is a reality in black ops. Whether You wish to believe it or not.

As for whether it's a "real" term... I find that science dictionaries have nothing mentioned, but I will use Wikipedia (since You think that is a good source to go to:

Though this is on a device of questionable function, the term is clearly used as I defined it:

en.wikipedia.org...

And more use of "overunity" as I defined it:

www.encyclopedia.com... (What became of THIS, I wonder...)

No. Overunity does NOT violate the laws of physics - unless One assumes that there is no source of energy. I did not say the methods One might use to draw on the plenum energy are "ordinary." I said there is nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source. Perhaps Your reading comprehension is impaired...

It certainly is extraordinary, since contemporary science does not agree with you. Unless you can cite some peer-reviewed, academic papers from relevant, credible journals? After all, you want to play the science game by using it to support your argument, then you shall play by the rules by only citing proper scientific papers. Otherwise, leave the science alone.

Contemporary science is based on only half of Maxwell's quaternions, too. Are We to presume then that contemporary science has all the answers and is not controlled? And no... I don't have to "play" by stacked rules. I can play however I want. If YOU don't like the way I play... Heh. Whatever.

It isn't "wild" to claim the existence of something that One knows exists, methinks. I did not say the devices were "ordinary" - that was Your word. In fact, My husband and I are working on building an invention of His which will draw on the plenum energy - but We are quite poor at the moment and funding for the project often runs into a wall. He expects to have it built within the next month or so, though.

More conjecture. See my previous replies.

Um... Conjecture? Where? I disclaimed something You accused me of and told You what I was doing. Where is there conjecture? Or does the "next month or so" speculation on when completion will be count as "conjecture?"

I did NOT say there was "no evidence." Let's quit putting words in My "mouth," eh? I said there IS evidence, in the form of declassified documents (I provided links in my earlier post that You failed to respond to...), in the form of My memories, and hidden in black ops. That *I* can't access what is in black ops does not follow that there is nothing there supporting what I know.

Then show me the evidence, then! Surely it cannot be that hard? All you have done is retorted with conjecture.

No. I stated My knowledge. You conjecture that I... Heh. Don't know what I remember? Uh... Think I'm lying? Uh... I have no clue what obstacle You are obstinately putting in Your path.

Declassified document:

www.padrak.com...

I am telling what I know. Take it or leave it. I have little vestment in enlightening You.

I'll leave it thanks, by belly is full from all this conjecture for the time being.

LOL! You should stop conjecturing then.

[Um... I provided a bunch of evidence in that post You (I'll be generous here) missed. Perhaps You should go back and see what I provided, eh?

You have not posted a single shred of evidence in any of your responses. All you have posted is conjecture.

Declassified documents confirming electrogravitics is not good enough, eh? It would seem that You will not be satisfied, period. Oh. Unless I find something that has been scrubbed from the sources You will accept. [shrug]

No win if You are going to keep conjecturing that I am clueless. Have a nice life.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Nothing in "peer-reviewed" science conflicts with plenum energy - oh, wait. You think I use "sciency-sounding words..." Guess You need help. Lessee... Plenum: The opposite of vacuum. The root of vacuum means "empty." The root of plenum means "full." The plenum is all space between particles, which seethes with "virtual" particles which add energy to Our universe. This is well established in science. Do I really have to show You the papers on this? It's well known. (And don't think I have no scientific training, love. That would be a poor assumption. I have studied quantum mechanics and cosmology extensively.) Oh, what the heck:

Clearly you are taking something out of context:

Under just the right conditions -- which involve an ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator -- it could be possible to create something out of nothing, according to University of Michigan researchers.

a

So yes, you can create something out of nothing, it just takes a high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator.

Nothing!

Oh and all the energy needed to run the system.

Of course, this isn't so much energy from nothing, as it is conversion of energy. But even scientists like to be sensational sometimes.

Is there potential in this research for something more? I believe so....

Is there potential in spinning magnets to harness some unseen energy? Ummm....

The charlatans would like you to believe so....

[sigh] Bonch, We're NOT speaking of creating MATTER (which You have kindly evaluated). We're speaking of drawing off energy already present. Unclear on the concept, are ya then?

Yeah... Have a nice life.

Originally posted by boncho
So the all powerful energy mafia sends "burly men" to push the guy around and tell him to"burn gasoline", but they fail to acquire the plans of the devices they are trying to suppress....

Well, I am unsure why the plans were not taken - maybe because They figured without a working prototype or device, people (like You) will figure He's just another free energy messiah (fraud) and will ignore Him. Or maybe They didn't think They could acquire all copies anyway so why bother. Just sayin' that there are plausible explanations.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Saying something is in black ops is NOT lack of evidence. It is inaccessibility of the evidence. Geez. Shills like to suggest that because the black ops information is inaccessible there is no evidence. You might want to watch that lest someOne think You are one...

Do You deny that the US has black ops programs? You don't believe me when I say I have direct knowledge of electrogravitics and its uses - and that the science is VERY MUCH in black ops? Whatever. [shrug]

Ok, now we're going round in circles. So you cite Black Ops as evidence, only to go on to say "It is inaccessibility of the evidence". So where is the evidence if it's inaccessible?

Not at all. Peer-review science is fine. HOWEVER... It does NOT define ALL and the ONLY valid science. Certain categories have been suppressed - and Wikipedia articles appear claiming "failure," and the like.

Then show me the peer reviewed science! Cite papers from the relevant, credible journals!

So We must be aware of that as We examine what science has for Us. Given that I have personal awareness of EG and its attendant effects, and that it was "made secret" (pulled into black ops), I include what I know and know there has been a very wide gap between what We COULD do and what We have been allowed to do. (Thus I am conspiracy aware.)

*Sigh* MORE conjecture...

Meh. If You are going to limit Me to controlled information - You know I can't produce. [shrug] But I did My best and maybe you will accept what I offer...

Accept what? I refer you the the 2nd link in my sig.

Here is some cited info, some from those links You don't want, but some from Scientific American and Los Alamos National Lab Physics E-Print Archive:

www.stealthskater.com...

And what is that supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

Here's a forum discussion with interesting links:

www.physicsforums.com...

Again, what is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

Here's some interesting vids - but this is probably a site You won't accept. [sigh]

wn.com...

And finally, what is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

If you're not going to post proper peer-reviewed papers instead of websites, forums and videos, don't bother posting them at all.

Um... No. Knowing full well about electrogravitics and its effects - and We covered the admissability above. Quit accusing me of something I never did - i.e., dismiss "peer reviewed" anything.

Again, show me the peer-reviewed science that electrogravitics is not a failed hypothesis and I will concede.

Huh? Like a descriptor needs citation? It's a self-evident word, m'dear. Unity is used to suggest equal power in and out. Most things We use are underunity. But overunity is a reality in black ops. Whether You wish to believe it or not.

Conjecture. Round and round and round we go...

As for whether it's a "real" term... I find that science dictionaries have nothing mentioned, but I will use Wikipedia (since You think that is a good source to go to:

Though this is on a device of questionable function, the term is clearly used as I defined it:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sorry, but this proves what, exactly? The "toy" clearly doesn't work. Where is the evidence that this toy is in any shape or form "over unity"?

And more use of "overunity" as I defined it:

www.encyclopedia.com... (What became of THIS, I wonder...)

For the love of... ANOTHER unsubstantiated video? Please see the first link in my sig.

Contemporary science is based on only half of Maxwell's quaternions, too. Are We to presume then that contemporary science has all the answers and is not controlled? And no... I don't have to "play" by stacked rules. I can play however I want. If YOU don't like the way I play... Heh. Whatever.

Please see the second link in my sig.

Um... Conjecture? Where? I disclaimed something You accused me of and told You what I was doing. Where is there conjecture? Or does the "next month or so" speculation on when completion will be count as "conjecture?"

Please see my previous post in this thread were I posted up a dictionary-definition of the word 'conjecture'. Please commit it to memory this time.

No. I stated My knowledge. You conjecture that I... Heh. Don't know what I remember? Uh... Think I'm lying? Uh... I have no clue what obstacle You are obstinately putting in Your path.

Please see the above response.

Declassified document:

www.padrak.com...

Another unsubstantiated source from the interwebs. This is getting very tedious.

LOL! You should stop conjecturing then.

Please see my previous post in this thread were I posted up a dictionary-definition of the word 'conjecture'. Please commit it to memory this time.

Declassified documents confirming electrogravitics is not good enough, eh? It would seem that You will not be satisfied, period. Oh. Unless I find something that has been scrubbed from the sources You will accept. [shrug]

Unsubstantiated interwebs pages are not good enough, no. As I have iterated many times already, i do not want conjecture, I want peer-reviewed science. If you are not prepared to present evidence in the form of the latter, please refrain from replying as I will not respond in kind.

reply to post by john_bmth

These credible institutions you deride have given us the very technology we are using to talk to each other,

You are the one who is lazy. Where is your evidence that this is true. Do you have clue about the development of the internet?

Where was the first search engine and server developed? Who were the pioneers who developed the critical technology?

Do some research, and wake up to the reality, most critical developments are done by people outside of the institutes. Starting with Benjamin Franklin, Bell, Tesla, or Farnsworth.

Farnsworth's story is another prime example of how institutions oppress technology and manipulate the system until they can control and profit from it.

reply to post by poet1b


Actually, things like trafficking protocols and search engine algorithms are very much the product of peer-reviewed science. Have a look around on the ACM Portal to get an idea of how much IT tech is derived from peer-reviewed science.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Saying something is in black ops is NOT lack of evidence. It is inaccessibility of the evidence. Geez. Shills like to suggest that because the black ops information is inaccessible there is no evidence. You might want to watch that lest someOne think You are one...

Do You deny that the US has black ops programs? You don't believe me when I say I have direct knowledge of electrogravitics and its uses - and that the science is VERY MUCH in black ops? Whatever. [shrug]

Ok, now we're going round in circles. So you cite Black Ops as evidence, only to go on to say "It is inaccessibility of the evidence". So where is the evidence if it's inaccessible?

Let's see if You can follow this:

1. I know electrogravcitics is in black ops from personal experience.
2. Because it is in black ops and not in Your sources, the evidence is not available except for the declassified documents.
3. The evidence location is wherever They chose to put it in wherever the that black ops endeavor is located. Why do You keep asking ME where it is? *I* didn't put it there. I just have experience that allows me to KNOW it's there somewhere.

Not at all. Peer-review science is fine. HOWEVER... It does NOT define ALL and the ONLY valid science. Certain categories have been suppressed - and Wikipedia articles appear claiming "failure," and the like.

Then show me the peer reviewed science! Cite papers from the relevant, credible journals!

The suppressed info? The scrubbed info? Please stop sounding like a broken record. You know They don't have it available.

So We must be aware of that as We examine what science has for Us. Given that I have personal awareness of EG and its attendant effects, and that it was "made secret" (pulled into black ops), I include what I know and know there has been a very wide gap between what We COULD do and what We have been allowed to do. (Thus I am conspiracy aware.)

*Sigh* MORE conjecture...

[sigh!!!] Again... WHERE? Personal awareness is not conjecture. Having My father who worked on it tell Me it was secret is not conjecture. Seeing what is out there now and comparing it to what I KNOW the science of electrogravitics offers is not conjecture (try comparison maybe, eh?). So. Show me which is conjecture.

That's the SECOND time You called something conjecture when it was anything but.

Then again, Your stock reply is beginning to show here. Call it conjecture whether it is or not. I will try your method...

Meh. If You are going to limit Me to controlled information - You know I can't produce. [shrug] But I did My best and maybe you will accept what I offer...

Accept what? I refer you the the 2nd link in my sig.

The links I offered...? Below this comment of Mine...? Oh, here it is now:

Here is some cited info, some from those links You don't want, but some from Scientific American and Los Alamos National Lab Physics E-Print Archive:

www.stealthskater.com...

And what is that supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

People who have input on electrogravitics, it would seem. I read the title (and content) and that's what it says... I mean You asked for sources and some of them seem to fall into Your requirements...

Here's a forum discussion with interesting links:

www.physicsforums.com...

Again, what is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

Well, it's clear that many in the scientific community accept electrogravitics as a genuine science. And I thought You might want to peruse the links there. [shrug]

Here's some interesting vids - but this is probably a site You won't accept. [sigh]

wn.com...

And finally, what is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

More evidence that electrogravitics is accepted by some in the scientific community (non-locality was once unaccepted - did that mean it didn't exist before the community at large accepted it?).

If you're not going to post proper peer-reviewed papers instead of websites, forums and videos, don't bother posting them at all.

Cute. If I am not going to provide the evidence that has been scrubbed and suppressed such that I have no access to it, don't bother. Gotcha. I won't bother to respond heretoforth after this post. [smile] Feel better?

Um... No. Knowing full well about electrogravitics and its effects - and We covered the admissability above. Quit accusing me of something I never did - i.e., dismiss "peer reviewed" anything.

Again, show me the peer-reviewed science that electrogravitics is not a failed hypothesis and I will concede.

Again with...what shall I call it as You have called My responses "conjecture" when they were not... Again with Your obstinate obfuscation! (Ooo! That alliterates!)

Huh? Like a descriptor needs citation? It's a self-evident word, m'dear. Unity is used to suggest equal power in and out. Most things We use are underunity. But overunity is a reality in black ops. Whether You wish to believe it or not.

Conjecture. Round and round and round we go...

Ah! That's THREE mislableings! "Overunity" is a descriptor, so THAT's not conjecture. The things We use ARE underunity, so THAT's not either... I have knowledge that EG went into black ops - so THAT's not conjecture. Shall I conjecture as to whether or not You wish to believe this? LOL! I say not.

More obstinate obfuscation.

As for whether it's a "real" term... I find that science dictionaries have nothing mentioned, but I will use Wikipedia (since You think that is a good source to go to:

Though this is on a device of questionable function, the term is clearly used as I defined it:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sorry, but this proves what, exactly? The "toy" clearly doesn't work. Where is the evidence that this toy is in any shape or form "over unity"?

What did I say it was? "[T]he term is clearly used as I defined it." WHY did I do that? Because You ASKED FOR "CITATION!" on the term "overunity." Obstinate obfuscation.

And more use of "overunity" as I defined it:

www.encyclopedia.com... (What became of THIS, I wonder...)

For the love of... ANOTHER unsubstantiated video? Please see the first link in my sig.

For the love of... Please read WHY I am linking. Here, in bold: And more use of "overunity" as I defined it. You are obstinate in Your obfuscation, aren't You?

Contemporary science is based on only half of Maxwell's quaternions, too. Are We to presume then that contemporary science has all the answers and is not controlled? And no... I don't have to "play" by stacked rules. I can play however I want. If YOU don't like the way I play... Heh. Whatever.

Please see the second link in my sig.

Obstinate obfuscation.

Um... Conjecture? Where? I disclaimed something You accused me of and told You what I was doing. Where is there conjecture? Or does the "next month or so" speculation on when completion will be count as "conjecture?"

Please see my previous post in this thread were I posted up a dictionary-definition of the word 'conjecture'. Please commit it to memory this time.

Please answer the question instead of obstinately obfuscating. I KNOW the definition, but evidenced by Your claims - THRICE (so far) - of conjecture when there was none, it is likely YOU that needs to reread the definition.

No. I stated My knowledge. You conjecture that I... Heh. Don't know what I remember? Uh... Think I'm lying? Uh... I have no clue what obstacle You are obstinately putting in Your path.

Please see the above response.

Obstinate obfuscation.

Declassified document:

www.padrak.com...

Another unsubstantiated source from the interwebs. This is getting very tedious.

Yes, it IS tedious when someOne rejects overwhelming evidence in favor of a narrow band of information. And is obstinate in Their obfuscation.

LOL! You should stop conjecturing then.

Please see my previous post in this thread were I posted up a dictionary-definition of the word 'conjecture'. Please commit it to memory this time.

Taking away context helps make You sound like You have something valid to say, eh? Clever that. Obstinate obfuscation.

[

Declassified documents confirming electrogravitics is not good enough, eh? It would seem that You will not be satisfied, period. Oh. Unless I find something that has been scrubbed from the sources You will accept. [shrug]

Unsubstantiated interwebs pages are not good enough, no. As I have iterated many times already, i do not want conjecture, I want peer-reviewed science. If you are not prepared to present evidence in the form of the latter, please refrain from replying as I will not respond in kind.

My personal experience is NOT conjecture (much as You obstinately try to obfuscate that fact). Oh, and hey! Ya got your wish! If You want to believe it's rubbish, hey, more power to You! I will not even read a response You give. You will not accept personal testimony and call it "conjecture" (which nowhere in that definition did I see "personal experience"). So... Meh.

Have a nice life.

reply to post by john_bmth


No, trafficking protocols and search engine algorithms are the products of the people who submitted the articles.

The peer reviewed articles are a way that people with ideas can communicate with each other, but the problem is that the institutions get to control what articles get published. If you don't think these institutions that control these publications do not act with their own agenda, then you are a completely duped.

There are times when these institutions serve humanity well, but unfortunately, there are times when these institutions work against the public good. These institutions are primarily controlled by wealthly donors. If you think they won't bury technology and concepts that their wealthy donors are adamantly against, then again, completely duped.