John Searl Magnetics

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Specifically, how would the incident with the video camera during the demonstration of the SEG apply to the use of Searl Technology by the military for an inverse gravity vehicle?

You're saying the IGV could be shot down the same way the SEG stopped working?

The next sentence after your close quote is:

And so that is how he got the key on how to control the SEG. Through a remote control he could now slow it or stop it entirely. Up to this point he was not stopping it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Specifically, how would the incident with the video camera during the demonstration of the SEG apply to the use of Searl Technology by the military for an inverse gravity vehicle?

According to Searl, it is stopped by RF. The two sources differ as to what RF would do the job however. One says the RF needs to be the same as the freq of the AC used to magnetize the rollers. (Why would that happen?) The other source says the RF is a harmonic or resonant freq of the primary freq of the IGV, whatever all that means. BTW, yet another source claims the rollers for the SEG are magnetized using both AC and DC. Either way it would be about as vulnerable as wax wings on a mission to the Sun.

Also remember

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Why would "panning the camera down until it pointed at the device" stop it?

It would require that the camera be emitting a collimated beam of whatever out of the lens, right? RF doesn't work that way.

Also, note the usual semi-random tossing around of 'frequency', 'harmonic' et al in ways that don't exactly match the more accepted uses of the words. I'm surprised he didn't invoke Tesla there.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Either way it would be about as vulnerable as wax wings on a mission to the Sun.

How do you know?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Also remember

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Why would "panning the camera down until it pointed at the device" stop it?

It would require that the camera be emitting a collimated beam of whatever out of the lens, right? RF doesn't work that way.

Also, note the usual semi-random tossing around of 'frequency', 'harmonic' et al in ways that don't exactly match the more accepted uses of the words. I'm surprised he didn't invoke Tesla there.

Clearly, Bedlam is speaking from the standpoint of mainstream, university-taught science and technology.

The Searl Technology is cutting edge science and technology that is obviously alternative. That's why you read about it in the publication Extraordinary Science.

reply to post by Mary Rose


"extraordinary science" = crank.

You can't really try to use science terminology when it sounds impressive then run for cover when you're caught out. If you say that some camera "operates on a frequency" (a fairly crappy statement anyway...what operates on what sort of frequency?) then when it's pointed out you're using the term stupidly ir's a bit disingenuous to try to claim you're magically using the term in a new unexpected mystic way.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Clearly, Bedlam is speaking from the standpoint of mainstream, university-taught science and technology.

You forgot verifiable. Can you verify the existence of a IGV killing video camera that fires death ray RF?

The Searl Technology is cutting edge science and technology that is obviously alternative.

I can't argue with you on that. I can't prove that Searl tech doesn't exist in some alternate reality, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

LUXUS,

By any chance do you know who "flowerbower," who apparently is writing a book about Searl, is?

These screenshots are taken from a John Searl 50 page .pdf file "The Law of the Squares." I see the name "Flowerbower" in a portion of the document about a seminar "Star Ship Ezekiel MK V Concept" that apparently goes back to 10th July 1968.



Page 29 of 50:



Page 33 of 50:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see the name "Flowerbower" in a portion of the document about a seminar "Star Ship Ezekiel MK V Concept" that apparently goes back to 10th July 1968.

Here is the first page of another 50 page .pdf file mentioning a "Flowerbower":



This time the date is 23rd October 1986 and it is for a course entitled "TM222 The Digital Computer - Robotics in Industry." Page 5 of 50:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is the first page of another 50 page .pdf file mentioning a "Flowerbower":

Confirmation is on page 30 of 50 at the bottom of the page:

reply to post by Bedlam


I didn't claim that.

The use of the term "crank" is one of the ways mainstream science has been suppressing "alternative" science.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You forgot verifiable. Can you verify the existence of a IGV killing video camera that fires death ray RF?

I don't know what you mean.

Can you elaborate?

Originally posted by Bedlam
It would require that the camera be emitting a collimated beam of whatever out of the lens, right? RF doesn't work that way.

Thank you for the specific question. I will try to get an answer.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Thank you for the specific question. I will try to get an answer.

Bedlam,

Does the following definition of "collimated beam" agree exactly with what you mean? Do you disagree with the definition in any way?

From The Free Dictionary:

collimated beam [′käl·ə‚mād·əd ′bēm]
(physics)

A beam of radiation or matter whose rays or particles are nearly parallel so that the beam does not converge or diverge appreciably.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You forgot verifiable. Can you verify the existence of a IGV killing video camera that fires death ray RF?

I don't know what you mean.

Can you elaborate?

Hopefully this will help.

Collimated beam - A beam of radiation or matter whose rays or particles are nearly parallel so that the beam does not converge or diverge appreciably.

That's not characteristic of a video camera.

ETA: I see you found it already. Your last post wasn't there yet when I began this reply.

Originally posted by Ayana
Mod Note

Keep to the topic and stop the sniping and personal attacks, please.

I can applaud the intention of this comment and the policy to which it refers, but at times it seems that these are applied in a one-sided way. For reasons that I can't begin to comprehend, it's acceptable to you that someone posts something like "mainstream scientists are afraid of alternative science because it threatens their livelihoods. They don't think twice before collaborating with the darkest, the most nefarious corners of the evil Government in order to suppress these revolutionary discoveries which are sure to bring happiness to the billions of people around the globe".

You can slice it and dice it all you want, but that's a personal attack. If you don't see it as such, you are not worthy your title and position of a Moderator. If you insist on removing the grit from these threads, please do it consistently and weed out the crap like one I mentioned.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The Searl Technology is cutting edge science and technology that is obviously alternative. That's why you read about it in the publication Extraordinary Science.

I just want to register my amusement. Apparently, a properly designed title of a publication is the ultimate testament to veracity of its contents.

Wow, just wow.

It wouldn't cost me much to start a monthly rag titled "True predictions of a world-famous genius" and publish whatever I please under its covers. It would automatically become the established.truth.

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes Flowerbower has known John Searl since the early days and is old enough to know that this craft you see photos of never flew. In fact I understand the book he is writing will include some of the people who actually worked on the project who will go on record and testify that it never left the ground and that John Searl is a fraud....its going to be all over for John Searl soon!

reply to post by Mary Rose

I see the name "Flowerbower" in a portion of the document about a seminar "Star Ship Ezekiel MK V Concept" that apparently goes back to 10th July 1968.

I see the SISRC goes back to Nov 24, 1998. www.duedil.com...

Do you know more about this?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Okay.

When I saw your use of the term "death ray" in reference to the military and the IGV I wasn't sure whether we were still on topic of the science of why the SEG stopped working.

One thing I need to know is whether a video camera and a television camera are exactly equivalent for the issue at hand. First the article says "And so the video camera came down and panned down real close . . . " but then it's "He realized immediately that the key was in the frequency and that the frequency of the television camera . . . "

reply to post by Mary Rose



This one is hilarious and just shows you how fruity John Searl actually is. He has taken information available in any chemistry textbook regarding the properties of the elements, put them in a few columns and declares it as a personal achievement as if he discovered these things hahaha...what a fruit cake!

reply to post by LUXUS


Okay we have a basis for further discussion.

The reason why I've been convinced it did fly is largely based on the DVD, about which I'm at a distinct disadvantage on because no one, as far as I know, on this thread has seen it and I can't change that.

But I have lots of new resources at my disposal now so I'll see what I can find in writing.