The Atmos Clock: Perpetual Motion Machine

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
And don't you see the logical inconsistency of his claim? He claims the media was contacted and told it would be a violation of national security if they broadcast the interviews of him, and yet what are we watching? An interview of him. How do you rationalize that he's doing the very thing he said was being suppressed, an interview? It doesn't look suppressed to me since it's on youtube with thousands of views.


Arbitrageur,

He was talking about 24 years ago.




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

The point being what? Why was it a national security issue 24 years ago and not today?

Is it now your claim that the suppression has stopped in the last 24 years? If so, why are you still bringing it up?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The pretext and silly excuse given him not to do interviews was 24 years ago, Arbitrageur.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I'm still not following why you brought him up at this time.

I thought you were citing him as an example of something being suppressed, yet he seems to be an example of exactly the opposite, that there is currently no suppression of him and he's free to do interviews.

Whether he was actually suppressed even 24 years ago is questionable, but do you agree that even though you brought him up as an example of suppression, he's not currently being suppressed in any way?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


He looks healthy in the YouTube videos. Obviously, he is a survivor.

Bedlam had said if there is any suppression, it's probably from investors.

Come to think of it, that's true if the investors are those invested in the status quo.

The fact that the suppression was 24 years ago is irrelevant. It has been your stance and the stance of others who claim free energy has not been demonstrated that there is no evidence of suppression of the violent kind.

We all have the same internet. In my opinion, we're all morally obligated to research the claims of violent suppression of inventors. This is a public affairs issue. It's not a curiosity or something to be taken lightly.

Guaranteed: Wikipedia is not a reliable source on the topic.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Bedlam had said if there is any suppression, it's probably from investors.

I'll quote one of your profound replies

Mary Rose
Yeah, right.


Bedlam
If one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Is that the source for your claim?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Bedlam
If one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.



DenyObfuscation
Is that the source for your claim?


Yes.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I'm surprised that a former English teacher would fail to see the difference between what he said and what you twisted it into.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


What did he say and what did I twist it into?

Please, enlighten me.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


What did he say and what did I twist it into?

Please, enlighten me.


It's in writing, plain to see. I can't read it to you.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Okay, DenyObfuscation, I can see that you need assistance.

Here is the sequence of events:


Mary Rose

Your series of questions indicate your belief that if he had something, we would be using it. There's no such thing as suppression.

I haven't researched the story of John Houston's Thermal Plant from 1930 yet, but in general, I know from research that suppression has been a very real thing in the free energy movement.

But you don't believe that, do you? No one has been threatened, had their lab ransacked, had their loved ones threatened, and no one has been killed over it. That's your belief?



Bedlam
If one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I hope you realize this is not a recreational endeavor.

First, these two sentences are used to make a point


Bedlam had said if there is any suppression, it's probably from investors.
Come to think of it, that's true if the investors are those invested in the status quo.

Bedlam did not actually say what you said he did. It would look like this if you had actually used his words,

Bedlam had said if one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.
Come to think of it, that's true if the investors are those invested in the status quo.

That doesn't even form a logical statement. You had to change his words in order to fit your point.
edit on 2-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: in the brackets
edit on 2-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: there are no brackets. i added the word like because it was omitted because i can't write



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Of course I did, DenyObfuscation. They are my words, and my opinion, not his.

Now, what's your point?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Of course I did, DenyObfuscation. They are my words, and my opinion, not his.

Now, what's your point?


You misrepresented his statement to suit your purpose. It's pretty sad that this has to be explained to you like this.

Now, what's your excuse?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Of course I did, DenyObfuscation. My purpose is to seek the truth.

Now, what's your purpose?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Of course I did, DenyObfuscation. My purpose is to seek the truth.

Now, what's your purpose?


What truth requires such deception in order to be sought?

Good luck in your search.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Bedlam
If one of them has been threatened it's probably by a pissed off investor.


The root word of "investor" is "invest."

One who has invested in a cutting edge technology is probably trying to get rich. Failure to get rich might cause anger, yes. But I don't think the anger is intense enough to motivate violence.

On the other hand, the entrenched powers that be guarding what they believe is their aristocratic divine right is a horse of a different color.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
That is a great point. The perpetual part is that variations of this "perpetual" thread never cease.

I think the answer to that is easy. People continually come into this world, grow up and some actually pay attention in science, and understand the laws of thermodynamics. These people know that there is no such thing as a closed system that can produce enough energy to sustain itself, and accept it.

The others continually doodle up drawings of motors turning generators that plug back into the motor, despite what science, or those that accept science say or do.

It will never stop. So , perhaps there is a somewhat sound basis for the term Perpetual.





top topics
 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum