"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You stated that it's just a matter of time before we have "free energy", before we have any proof of that.

That statement is based on all the research I've done since becoming a researcher - not just what I've posted on this Rodin thread.

I am keenly interested in alternative history and alternative science and I've done loads of work on the subject.

That is my belief.

I don't have to see a free energy device commercialized successfully to understand what is going on.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just to clarify, I consider Bearden's claim to be a free energy claim, but not the cold fusion claims.

Yes, the Mallove interview pointed out that there are 3 categories:

1. Cold fusion/LENR
   
2. Vacuum/aether energy
   
3. Environmental energy
   

Cold fusion/LENR devices would generate power so cheaply that they would be virtually free energy but there would be a cost other than the cost of the device, agreed?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When I say that Reich and Mallove wend mad, I don't consider that name calling, but rather my amateur diagnosis of their mental state being so completely disconnected from reality, supported by plenty of evidence.

Not name calling as bad as "fraud" or using the adjective "criminal" but you were casting aspersions. And I don't believe you show supporting evidence for your ridicule of people.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This looks like name calling though:

Agreed. He also called people "brain-dead."

I've been wondering whether this interview had anything to do with his death, which was three months later. (The powers that be have ways of planting news stories, etc.)

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for the clarification. But that doesn't say that Rowan University is the only lab that BLP used so I'm still not quite sure what your point was?

You seemed to be indicating that the only thing Mills was associated with was Rowan University, which you proceeded to ridicule.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
When I read some of Mills materials a while ago, they didn't seem as bad as they do now, because this time I'm paying more attention. And it's dead, cold, absolute stupidity that I find there.

That seems to be the mainstream consensus. Apparently not all investors have shallow brains, to use Dr. Park's terminology. Someone, apparently a physicist, posted on physicsforums that he'd been hired to review Mills' work, presumably by a potential investor. And he told the potential investor more or less what you just said. So this would be consistent with our earlier discussion that there should be plenty of funding available for something that actually works.

I agree with your other comments, thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You seemed to be indicating that the only thing Mills was associated with was Rowan University, which you proceeded to ridicule.

You may have missed my points which were that:

1. Rowan university may not be a truly independent source when it comes to their relationship with BLP, and
2. Nobody else has replicated Mills work and confirmed the existence of the hydrino.

I don't recall saying Mills never used any other labs for testing.

Regarding ridicule, I don't ridicule the possibility of cold fusion or the research published by the US Navy scientists, but yes I do see the work of Dr. Mills as being worthy of ridicule. He meets probably five of the seven criteria of pseudoscience as defined by Dr Park:

seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific

1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
   
2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
   
3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
   
4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
   
5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
   
6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
   
7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
   

If I looked hard enough I might be able to find where 4 and 5 also apply but I haven't seen those yet in Mills' case, though I think I've seen where the others apply.

This thread certainly has plenty of nos. 4 and 5 in it, along with the rest of the criteria, with your recent topic of alternative medicine relying heavily on #4.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Swerdlow... was also once ambassador to the planet Umo
As a former ambassador, he probably still has connections there, and you don't want him saying bad things about you to the inhabitants of the planet Umo, do you?

(On the other hand, I have no idea where the planet Umo is, so maybe you shouldn't lose too much sleep over it).

But apparently the other Montauk boy, Cameron, was the chief psychic in the experiments:

It turned out that Cameron had been the chief psychic in the experiments. He was strapped in a device called the "Montauk Chair", psychotronically linked to a computer, and sexually stimulated. In this inflamed state, his telepathic powers reached stunning heights. "The energy from my erection," Cameron explains today, quite solemnly, "was used as horsepower for the Chair."

That's got to be the granddaddy of all free energy stories, one 14 year old boy generating more power from his erection than the combined capacities of every power generating station on Earth, as would be needed to bend space and time in such a fashion (according to Michio Kaku).

And Mary, I'm willing to suspend my skepticism about free energy researchers getting arrested in this case since the alleged experiment revolved around energy emanating from the erections of 14 year old boys...it frankly wouldn't surprise me if someone actually might get arrested for researching that, though I never heard of any arrests in the Montauk case, maybe because as ATG pointed out the facility wasn't even available at the time as claimed?

From your link above, stealthskater.com, here is a screenshot of the author of "It Came From Outerspace": Chris Ketcham:



He says he went out to Camp Hero to chart how a conspiracy theory had transformed into something like a religion. So I presume he did his own research.

I checked the index of my copy of Montauk - The Alien Connection by Stewart Swerdlow, Edited by Peter Moon, Copyright 1998, Second Printing 2002, by Expansions Publishing Company; Publisher Sky Books. I'm going to quote from the first page indicated, pages 57-59:

My role was to prepare the boys for use with the Project psychics, particularly Duncan Cameron, who was the lead mentalist throughout the experiment. Used as batteries, or boosters, for his mental energies, the creativity and imagination of a small child is without comparison. This energy was tapped, amplified, and plugged into Duncan to magnify his mind power to the point where he was able to open doorways to other dimensions, thus creating a pathway. His abilities were used to connect to hyperspace and the astral plane where all pre-physical reality materials and blueprints are stored. He then brought the information back in usable form so that technologies could be built.

The boys were often drained of energy very quickly and had to rest a lot. Whenever one of them was "burning out," a fear program was instigated to create a high adrenaline flow. This usually extended the final amounts of energy out of them until they could no longer be used. Then, their little hearts gave out, they went insane, had a stroke, or some combination of the above.

Whenever a teenage boy or young adult was used as a battery pack, sexual arousal and fear programs were combined to boost energy output. Frequently, the dead bodies of these individuals were given to the greys because they used the blood and soft body tissue as nutrients. Understand that the greys do not eat as human beings do. Instead they require the hormones stored in various organs and tissues of other species, particularly humans, because they were created from human genetics many millennia ago. . . .

The most painful experience for me, beyond my own pain and suffering, was hearing the death screams and the cries of fear from the boys and teenagers who were burning out during the experiments. My actions were responsible for putting them in this position, yet I could do nothing to help them. I thought of the parents and relatives who would never know the truth about what happened to their child. I also considered the children who longed for their mommies and daddies. A lump would develop in my throat and on my chest. To this day, I wake up in the middle of the night gasping for air and screaming after remembering dreams of my involvement. Looking at my own sons, I vow that no one will ever put them through that. I realize that I did not control the events, nor was I in a frame of mind to stop them. But, I realize that something in my soul-personality needed to experience this, and that frightens me. I pray that God have mercy on the souls of those innocent victims, and also on the souls of the perpetrators.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, how much did you end up paying Swerdlow for his materials e.g. books and DVDs?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Honest to God, you're serious? You're asking this question with a straight face?





Why are you on this forum?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Honest to God, you're serious? You're asking this question with a straight face?

Well, look at you Mary. With a straight face, as I can only assume, you contact Swerdlow asking him what "vortex" was. He says that it's all laid out for you in his DVD set, which can be yours for up to $700 (there are several purchase options). I'm not sure if Swerdlow could keep a straight face when he was telling you that, because he was likely rubbing hands and chuckling at the thought of another ignoramus paying him lots of money for his New Age cr@p. Then you continue to quote said Swerdlow here, all with a straight face. What if I wanted to know the dollar price of such sublime knowledge? What's wrong in being upfront?

Why are you on this forum?

It's in the ATS logo. It reads "deny ignorance". Ignorance denied, Mary.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Regarding the face of evil that is alluded to in the post being replied to, similar subject matter is discussed by Alex Jones and David Icke, referencing at the beginning of the discussion a scandal that has recently surfaced regarding Penn State, among other things . . .

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . you contact Swerdlow asking him what "vortex" was.

To be accurate, this is what I asked:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Mary Rose says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

I have seen the word “vortex” applied as a type of mathematics. It seems that it is based on Pythagorean math and that it is thought to be related to alternative energy technology.

Is the vortex significant in that it is something that is part of suppressed knowledge/technology?


*
Stewart says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:18 pm

A vortex connects different realities together. I explain this in my Simultaneous Existence DVDs.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thanks for validating my point. So, how much did you pay?

ATTENTION!!!!!

Please post on topic.


The bickering ends NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It must have been a lot!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding the face of evil that is alluded to in the post being replied to, similar subject matter is discussed by Alex Jones and David Icke...

Back on page 119 I posted a list of the top ten anti-science websites on the net, and both of Alex Jones websites tied for the #3 worst spot:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites

Many of these sites promote some particular ideology, but I want to be clear that that's not why they're here. Sites that make this list are only here because of the quality of the science information that they advocate.

There's nothing wrong with being anti-government and anti-corporate; they're perfectly valid philosophies, if that's the way you roll. Alex Jones' sites are on this list for having almost daily made predictions of New World Order takeovers, global currencies, and mass executions for many years, none of which have ever come true; and for distorting virtually every aspect of modern society into evidence of some vague worldwide plot to control or kill law abiding citizens.

Interdimensional demon entities feeding off the "energy" of prepubescent children? There's having an open mind and then there's being so open-minded your brain can fall out.

After all his failed predictions, at what point does Jones begin to lose credibility? Like the author of that list I think there may be valid reasons to fear corporate greed, ala wall street, Enron, etc. So I could understand why people express such opinions factually, there are plenty of facts about how we were swindled by Enron and Wall street bankers.

But using Alex Jones as a source doesn't really help make the point because like Marko Rodin, his credibility is pretty low. And what do we see at the beginning of that video? The very logo of the #3 worst science site on the internet according to Dunning. And it doesn't get much worse than that does it?

With David Icke it does:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Motile
Personaly I have followed David Icke right up until he went nuts and started talking about god and 9 foot tall lizards, if you strip away the insane ranting backed up by nothing more than Icke's own theorys then you have a hard core can of worms, maybe Dave got too close and went nuts from the awful truth of it all, his mind creating fantacy as a means of escaping the hopeles deep dark hole humanity has been put in. I have done a lot of research on this bloke, theres a guy on this very forum who has met him, so im sure there was a truth in everthing he said right up until he went radio ga ga with the lizards.

But then he would say its my mental programming telling me it cant be lizzards, maybe he's right, who knows.

Maybe HAARP has fried my brain and that's why I can't see the lizards, but this seems like a new low in the lack of credibility for a mathematics thread.

If you are trying to convince anyone of Rodin's credibility (or Reich, or Mills, or whoever your "homme du jour" is), it would help to have more credible sources than a guy talking about 9 foot tall lizards that nobody but him can see.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Nice - thanks for the link - proved useful somewhere else for exactly the same reason!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It must have been a lot!

You think it's funny?

I don't.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's having an open mind and then there's being so open-minded your brain can fall out.

There's always that expression, isn't there? Like a mantra for you.

I'm not familiar with your skeptoid.com website or Brian Dunning. Tell me, what is it about him that makes you want to parrot his opinion? What contribution is Brian Dunning making to society?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've been reading about Brian O'Leary's work recently, and a passage I just read made me smile regarding the conflict between traditional, mainstream, authority figures in the world of science and technology and innovators such as Rodin. From the page "Radical Innovation, Relocalization and Sustainability - Brian O’Leary, February 2011 on brianoleary.info

I'm reading his book The Energy Solution Revolution Copyright 2009, Published by Bridger House Publishers, Inc.

On page 27 he states:

From ten years' direct experience at witnessing new energy breakthroughs in laboratories around the world, I can personally vouch for the successes in solution energy research, whether it be cold fusion, advanced hydrogen chemistry or vacuum energy. But, like during the Wrights' first flights, we are not delivering the product yet. We are in the research phase of a research and development cycle. The research, if properly supported, will inevitably lead to the deployment of energy systems that will profoundly change the world.

Saying we're in the research and development phase corresponds to what Mallove said in the interview. There are problems with the technology that need resolution. What is needed is for the work to be continued, rather than ridiculed and thrown out the window because time has passed and commercialization has not materialized.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

It has been my experience when viewing dot org websites that, in addition to their "About Us" page, they have a page detailing their source(s) for financial support.

Does anyone know whether the organizations behind dot org websites are required or expected in any way to provide this information?

Always follow the money.

Continuing my search for information about the dot org website "The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice," and how they are funded, I've just noticed that they have a logo at the bottom left-hand side of their Homepage:



I thought CFI was just the dot com paid webmaster for The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice's "endorser," the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. But they're not. They're a dot net and they ask for donations: "Donor/Member Options."

But I guess we don't know whether there are any foundations among the donors, or not.

With a topic such as Wilhelm Reich, whose writings were burned, an absolutely astounding event to occur, it would be helpful to know who is behind a website accusing Reich of mental instability.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
BS,

Don't you know that there are numerous front groups, financed by foundations, which are, in turn, front groups for wealthy oligarchs, who, in the guise of "philanthropy," "educate" the public using the internet?

In my opinion, Alan Watt is the best source of insight about this sort of thing.

I see on Watt's website that he talked about "Major Foundations and Their Many Front Organizations" not on his own program but during an interview of him on September 22, 2009:

"Alan Watt as Guest on The Patrick Timpone Show" Scroll down and you can download the audio archive free if you're interested in listening.

There is also a free transcipt:

"Sept. 22, 2009

Alan Watt on The Patrick Timpone Show

Broadcast on oneradionetwork.com"

I see foundations were discussed within the context of the Club of Rome:

. . . The Club of Rome is a big think tank that all the other lesser think tanks use. And The Club of Rome, back in the '70s came up with the idea of how to unite the planet under one central government, the United Nations. And they said that we only obey authority and allow freedoms to be taken away under the guise of warfare. . . . They said, they came up with the idea of global warming so man was the enemy of the planet, so that would fit the bill. That's the words they used. That would fit the bill.

Patrick: So, that's so interesting, so as they create a brand name like terrorism or whatever, to have something to fight, then they can create an enemy in the planet. Then you have something to fight.

Alan: So there's too many people, we're hearing this now. There's too many people. We've got to have an authority to decide who can breed and who can't breed. It's the old eugenics program, going way back to Darwin and then followed by Nietzsche and Superman and the Fabian Society.

Patrick: And who are these Club of Rome people?

Alan: Club of Rome, they call themselves the premier think tank. They come up with the ideas to steer and guide the future and advise governments. So, they look ahead, fifty, a hundred, two hundred years, even longer. And they hit on the ideas. Then they pass it on to the other think tanks and round table societies, who have to implement the ways of getting this into the people's minds, through media, propaganda, movies, novels, and so on.

Alan: Well, you'll find that in the world, there's maybe about a dozen, maximum, major foundations, who fund hundreds and hundreds of other foundations as front groups. The foundations, they call themselves philanthropists, philanthropic groups. And they're run by the richest people on the planet, like the Rockefellers, you know the Ford Foundation, Carnegie, is all really run by the Rockefellers now. They took it over. You'll find that in Britain too, you have the Rothschilds, the bankers in other words. They call themselves the parallel government. And Professor Carroll Quigley talked about it in Tragedy and Hope. He said that democracy, this is what the Club of Rome said too, that democracy was too cumbersome. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see foundations were discussed within the context of the Club of Rome

And Watt also often talks about NGOs. From "June 17th, 2011 (#857) Alan Watt 'Cutting Through The Matrix' LIVE on RBN: Poem Copyright Alan Watt June 17th, 2011: Feudal -- Big Fees Paid to Ruling Few:":

. . . hopefully, I’ll give you shortcuts to understanding this massive system that you’re born into, with its many layers and levels, and show you how the superstructure of interlocking foundations, NGOs, non-governmental organizations, and ex-politicians too, and prime ministers and presidents, all form a parallel government. And, of course, the whole idea of democracy is a sham, as we go through really planned changes. We’ve been going through it for over a hundred years. Long before that too, but definitely well documented for the last hundred years. And lots of them at the very top tell us where they’re taking us all as well. And it’s not very pleasant. We’re living through it. Most folk will adapt and won’t notice much. . . .

And the Earth Summit’s a private NGO run by Maurice Strong of Canada . . .

We don't want to go off-topic and start discussing NGOs that have nothing to do with this thread.

The point is, Alan Watt is the most well-read researcher regarding the powers that be and how they operate that I know of. I recommend that people pay attention to what he has to say.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading his book The Energy Solution Revolution Copyright 2009, Published by Bridger House Publishers, Inc.

On page 27 he states:

From ten years' direct experience at witnessing new energy breakthroughs in laboratories around the world, I can personally vouch for the successes in solution energy research, whether it be cold fusion, advanced hydrogen chemistry or vacuum energy. But, like during the Wrights' first flights, we are not delivering the product yet. We are in the research phase of a research and development cycle. The research, if properly supported, will inevitably lead to the deployment of energy systems that will profoundly change the world.

Saying we're in the research and development phase corresponds to what Mallove said in the interview. There are problems with the technology that need resolution. What is needed is for the work to be continued, rather than ridiculed and thrown out the window because time has passed and commercialization has not materialized.

That comparison with the Wright brothers is 100% undiluted demagoguery. The Wright brothers went to some great length to conduct large-scale public demonstrations of their invention long before there was large-scale commercialization. Look, they could have said that the plane they had invented promptly took off and disappeared in the sky (a la Searl) or that it flew really well but then was "promptly destroyed" (a la Bearden). Or, they could say that in due time they will cure all decease in the world, and although the plane does not fly, it sure carries the fingerprint of God (a la Rodin). Instead, they acted like real men instead of a bunch of buffoons, photographed and documented their research and showed it to everyone who cared to watch.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, you post a large quote that's very clearly off-topic, including references to NGO etc. Then you go on to say that it's wrong to discuss NGOs in that thread. And it all happens in one post.

Oh yeah, and before that you even went on to post a large piece on Club of Rome. Wow, just wow.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The point is, new energy R&D is in need of funding and support from the public.