Originally posted by roguetechie
So you'll ignore my posts because nick cook said some of the things i do?
As I said I'd love to discuss individual points.
What about popular mechanics, Popular Science, Air and space, Mechanics Monthly?
There's no doubt that these publications discussed free energy devices as the next bing thing in the 1950's. But then again, there's plenty of
examples of these "next big thing" stories that turned out to be unfounded.
The current stance of these publications on free-energy devices is that there are none that deliver constant, verifiable and therefore scientifically
legit positive results.
WHat about the articles in newspapers etc and company org charts that show these organizations existing....
Which organizations? Free Energy Organizations?`('???)
What about the Ornithopter Stuff I posted?
A good example of what I said earlier - the Gemans were cutting edge engineers and were very succesfull in refining concepts that were already long
established. As far as I could glean from what I read in your links and some years earlier the propulsion technique of this device is totally
conventional, although cutting edge.
I would simply take that as an example of what I said: They were very good in taking 19th century physics and refining it to a degree that the Allies
didn't reach until they built the MIC and let it operate for years.
This example is a far cry from being lightyears ahead. And call me stupid but as far as I can see it is not propelled by an exotic engine.
THe reality is technological development has been artificially stymied especially in certain fields since the turn of the TWENTIETH century! It's not
that the germans were that far ahead they just stopped letting certain interests keep innovations from at least getting a try in the lab.
While this may very well be a possibilty, there's not much evidence, be it material or circumstancial, to let me think that.
The biggest problem I have with this premise is that the kind of Free energy device alluded to by Cook and others do not require big institutional
structures. For god's sakes Schauberger got his ideas from staring at rivers.
IMHO; being involved with research and funding in science there's simply no way to stiffle such technologies, as basically anyone in his garage can
reproduce them. With the A-bomb, or other technologies that take an institutional complex in order to be built - there you can simply fuss with every
state that tries to develop it - keeping 7 billion people from working in their back yards isn't possible.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strange thing how most of the people who claim to have invented free energy devices or some such
thing never seem to get bothered by the secret cabal.
Overall though as everyone points out as evidence of the nonexistence of the phenomena even though they broke ranks they still never took advantage
of the advances they made of a non conventional nature.
That's one possibility, and I won't deny it. But then there's the other: That they simply misjudged the technology . something that happens often in
science - and came to realize that it's i) a hoax or ii) not reproducable in a way to make it scientific (therefore excluding it from being considered
as a mass-applicable method)
FORD after FORD carrying the troops supplies and etc for the NAZI's
Yes, that's a fact, acknowledged by Historians.
Now you can either see this as some sort of conspiracy ( HF was a rabid Nazi and Anti-Semite and even inspired Hitler, Hitler had a pic of Henry in
his office at the brown house, an ally of Hitler claimed a Ford agent provided the NSDAP with two payments in 1923, etc.) and there's certainly some
merit to question Ford's motives.
Or you can simply contextualize the whole thing: Ford as an Anti-Semite was interested in investing in Germany and help rebuild and re-conservatize
Germany, therefore he bought up Opel. When the Nazis came to power there was no way to bring the profits out of Germany as reinvestment in the War
economy was dictated by the law. So Ford had the chance to either quit the market in order not to be part of the German war machine ( something that
is very unlikely in the light of HF's sympathies but also in light of normal business rationale) or simply shut up and put up and enjoy the profits. I
find this a plausible scenario - and it's supported by the documents. It's not uncommon, these things - go take a look at where the Soviet trucks for
the Viet Cong were produced - that's just business.
It's even more disturbing though how many modern foundations like the aspen institute etc had ties to funding the human research done in the camps
same with our pharmaceutical corporations who funded to varying degrees and BENEFITTED from the fruits of the twisted things that happened in those
camps.
Actually there was very little pharmaceutical experiments in the camps, allthough there certainly was collusion by pharma. Of course the Nazis never
put Fluoride in the water of the camps and other claptrap.
When it comes to human experimentation it was the americans, quite independent of the Nazis, that set the worst record, even after establishing the
principle of "informed consent" in the trials.
All in all I don't see all your points adding up. That's why I'm more of the guy to discuss individual points. Rebutting Cook's or Farrell's research
in one post is quite impossible.
As I said, both have their merits, both seem rather honest. But neither of them is a competent historian, which kind of ruins most of the appeal of
the book.
edit on 13-10-2010 by NichirasuKenshin because: spelling