Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
Terry, you have shown just enough interest so let's give this a go eh? (ie. Any at all) The crux of this is that it is possible to suck in fields by propper manipulation of space-time. (which is fluid) I can't say for sure if this relates to radio but it likely does, but now I'm going to have to disagree with our kind list owner. According to Mr. Beaty the reason energy sucking antennas work is not because the field of the transmitter is actually sucked into the receiving element, but because the field of the receiving element enhances the voltage induced. I have a problem with this however, it doesn't IMO make any sense. The fact that the receiving element might now be created a sizable net field does not impact on the effect of the transmitters field on the particles (electrons) in the receiver since as I believe is generally accepted electric and magnetic fields superimpose and it is not the effect of field against field but rather of (transmitter) field against matter. (whether or not the antenna is creating a net field should not matter) In other words having a huge measurable field does not make the antenna as large as the field because the transmitted field is according to Bill still at the same density at the receiver regardless and as force is placed on the particles and not the fields as fields do not (mostly) interact with each other* (and besides the fields are present and have the same reach and reality regardless of if they net to zero or not) then the answer IMO is that the field is literally sucked in and that this can be O/U if carried out in the near field. *For instance it was on this list where I first was told that the reason a transformer has induction around it despite the flux being seemingly trapped inside the core is because it isn't but it sum's to zero everywhere else with the obvious exception of the induction adds, same as Hooper-Moonstein experiment. Also if the mere presence of a field means that the receiver is more 'sensitized' due to it's larger field then it need not be at any frequency. I think the reasoning according to Bill though is simply that otherwise it violates the CoE so it must be that for whatever reason producing the counter wave enhances the receivers response to the field without actually changing the field or the receivers exposure to it. Nevertheless let's just assume that Bill is right about that, now I am going to investigate evidence for fields being literally projected or sucked. (As implied above I am going to be using a fluid aether model, this is one I was not attracted to but which kept on making more and more sense as I tried to look for clues and correlations in the designs of various anomalous devices) 1: This one is pulled from the Weird Science experiments page, it is worth noting that according to some Tesla designed his coil experiments to pump the aether and not electrons. (I am reasonably sure he did but I have not read him say so himself) I was building a electromagnet and It was starting to look good. I had put a switch on it to divert the power at my will. Also, i had added a minutere tesla coil to the design for optimal power. when i hooked it up to a 9 volt battery and i held up the screwdriver which i had wrapped the wire around to magnatise. i was able to take my other hand and metal objects would attract to it as if my hand were a magnet. Anonymous http:/// USA - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 03:55:25 (PST) Here we have Tesla Coils which show signs of outputting a current not explained fully by charge flow according to many drag a static magnetic field through a human body and go to wherever the electro-aetheric (cold current) current was flowing. 2: Boyd Bushman made a device consisting of various magnets with norths pointing in except on one side which this strong north pole beam projected from, this beam device had many odd effects and among them was the fact that the magnetic field shot out of it to 20 feet or so. (also increased HV electrical discharge though air distance dramatically, fell slowly etc...) This is in agreement with other things which suggest that aetheric energy (Chi, Orgone) shoots out of the North pole. BTW orgone is the same thing as ZPE/F, Torsion fields etc, all just eddies and various agitations of the aether (There is evidence for this stuff, ignoring it because it doesn't sound like your idea of science doesn't make it right) 3. Earl Ammann made a device that put out energy thanks to being within 10 miles of a small transformer device in his basement. http://www.rexresearch.com/feg/feg1.htm#amman 4. Ground Radio not only works where seemingly it should not, it works better than it has any right to. There are various articles on the Borderlands (BSRF) website about ground radio experiments where stations would come in stronger and stronger as listened to, but a momentary disconnection of the radio from the ground antenna and that signal would be weak only to be brought back slowly. It
Re: [Vo]:Attractors, Part 2
Yea, Notice Robert A. Heinlein identified his book Stranger in a strange land ( Wiki) to be a work of science fiction. The Manson cult borrowed heavily on it's text.. which only goes to prove that the devil is in the details. Richard - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Attractors, Part 2 On 10/26/07, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh what the hey, it's Friday! The dreadful truth of the matter is that I'm just having a blast playing God-in-a-Box with my highly simplified hydrogen atom model! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_Art_God Terry -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1094 - Release Date: 10/26/2007 8:50 AM
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
John Berry wrote.. Did I waste my time typing this? (if you read this in interest please say so) Howdy John, Discussion among Vorts is never a waste of time. Bill Beatty's challenge to Ron Stiffler began a most healthy dialogue much needed as the search goes on. It was unfortunate that Ron felt abused rather than challenged by comments posted. I have often returned to the subject of vortex as a dampener of skeptics regarding the search for available energy. Anyone studying a hurricane gets a first hand glimpse of the amazing energy represented... not by the concentration of the wind forces circulating at high speed.. but the simple more overlooked eyewall. In the center, some huge hurricane eyewalls are 20 miles or more across. Search planes entering this eyewall find a calm, full sunshine and birds flying around. It is the calm that is the phenomena. I have experienced this back in the 1940's near Houston when the eyewall came across our home with a sudden calm and sunshine. Ron has presented an interesting series of experiments and conclusions. I .like many in this group, am a horse of a different color and gain a mental image of a relationship between the massive energy of the hurricane and the equal massive energy represented by the calm. What my point is... is that there is more useable energy available in the calm than in the winds.. IF.. we learn how to tap it.. There is a relationship between Ron's work.. When looking thru a window with no walls.. one must decide.. does one look out or in the window? The calm or the wind? Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
Interesting post, John. Lots of ground covered, but returning to one point: 6. Osamu, a patent where 2 magnets sandwich a diamagnetic material with a coil wound over) produces stronger reception of signal, much. (lots of correlations with joining of diamagnetic materials with magnetic ones... ...BTW compare Osamu with Coler, both have magnets sandwiching diamagnetic materials with coils wound over top. Is this patent 6798329 you are referencing ? Two of the inventors have the first name of Osamu, so this may not be the one you are referencing. Also - Coler: where is the diamagnetic material there? Jones IN the context of the Stiffler circuit, this might be helpful. You said you had tried and failed to get a stable resonance from one of the cores, right? There is always the possibility that a better core is out there. I had hoped by now that there would have been some published replications. Maybe this weekend. If and when, or should I say 'as soon as' this happens, then people will be thinking about how it might be possible to take the concept to the next level. One strategy of interest would be an Edisonian approach to the finding the best possible core, the best possible LEDs and then the best possible combination of the two.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
There is already a crude replication on Hartmann's site. Details sparce, but the core is not radioactive, at least. I had hoped by now that there would have been some published replications. Maybe this weekend. If and when, or should I say 'as soon as' this happens, then people will be thinking about how it might be possible to take the concept to the next level. One strategy of interest would be an Edisonian approach to the finding the best possible core, the best possible LEDs and then the best possible combination of the two.
Re: [Vo]:How could Ron's discovery be AM-powered?
3) Dr. Stiffler has significant residual charge from when he was elevated to the top of the tower during the lightning storm with jacobs' ladders playing in the background . . . On 10/27/07, William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two things confuse me about my idea that Ron's device is picking up RF energy from the AM radio tower. 1. It *must* resonate exactly to a harmonic of the AM station To intercept large wattage as Ron is doing, the loopstick coil must exhibit a very sharp resonance to create a large voltage. And sharp resonance has narrow bandwidth. What are the chances that his coil's natural frequency would land right on an upper harmonic of the AM station? At the very least, I'd think that he'd need a big pile of loopstick coils, and he would find that only one of them would happen to hit the right frequency. The others would only work if the number of windings was tweaked. 2. It would have to chop the AM carrier to create upper harmonics. I doubt that the AM station is broadcasting powerful upper harmonics which resonate with the loopstick coil. However, it's very easy for the LEDs to chop the AM signal and create a whole collection of higher frequencies. Nonlinear devices near powerful transmitters create unwanted harmonics. However, in order to do this, the LEDs have to already be lit, and system already has to be oscillating at the upper frequencies! So his stand-alone device should not start up by itself. To get started would need to be zapped somehow, perhaps by touching it with a finger, or shorting parts out with a screwdriver, etc. After the first tiny pulse, the LEDs would flash briefly, which would twang the resonant coil, which would oscillate and goose things into operation. And if it was disconnected from ground, it would probably stay dark if reconnected, and need another tiny zap to get itself going. So an artifact of AM tower RF would probably have two features: only a very special loopstick coil would work, and others would not. And also there would be some hysterisis, where the device could be turned on and off by touching the right parts with a screwdriver. PS Here's a very good test for artifactual AM energy pickup: THE AM SIGNAL IS MODULATED. If it's powering the LEDs, then their light would *have* to be modulated with audio. If they're not, then it's not the AM station that's powering them. So, if a small silicon photovoltaic sensor was hooked to the input of an audio amplifier, with loudspeakers connected to the output, and the sensor was held near the lit LEDs... would we hear a hum? A buzz? A chaotic fractal signal indicative of 1/F spectrum from the Casmir underworld of electromagnetism? Or would we hear an AM disk jockey playing music tracks? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Attractors, Part 2
At least they did not eat their dead. Or did they . . .? Terry On 10/27/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea, Notice Robert A. Heinlein identified his book Stranger in a strange land ( Wiki) to be a work of science fiction. The Manson cult borrowed heavily on it's text.. which only goes to prove that the devil is in the details. Richard - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Attractors, Part 2 On 10/26/07, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh what the hey, it's Friday! The dreadful truth of the matter is that I'm just having a blast playing God-in-a-Box with my highly simplified hydrogen atom model! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_Art_God Terry -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1094 - Release Date: 10/26/2007 8:50 AM
Re: [Vo]:Sean McCarthy of STEORN recently interviewed
On 27/10/2007 10:16 AM, OrionWorks wrote: For those who don't have google sniffing out news feeds on STEORN, Sean McCarthy granted another interview on Oct 26. http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/ If you can believe the contents it would appear that STORN technology will rise again. From the interview: FE Truth: In your opinion does Orbo create or extract energy? Sean: It¹s a question of views. I would say that, in the same way as there is a mass/energy equivalent there is also a form of time/energy equivalent and whether you consider that energy creation or conversion is a matter of semantics. The explanation behind Orbo is that ÄT can equal E as simple as that. ...The key idea. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Interesting moving optical illusion
With regard to: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html I just noticed that the shadow only makes sense if the figure is rotating counter-clockwise. Rotating counter-clockwise, you should only be able to see her left foot when it's at a distance and in the background, not the foreground. This should bias the results as many people will subconsciously notice this. Craig Haynie (Houston)
Re: [Vo]:Sean McCarthy of STEORN recently interviewed
Malakey, IMO. I am not familiar with a time/energy equivalent equation. Unless you simply solve Einstein for time: s = m(kg/j)^1/2, seconds equal distance times the square root of mass over energy ? Sprain believes the same thing. I think both have a problem understanding movement of energy from beyond the zero point. Terry On 10/27/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/10/2007 10:16 AM, OrionWorks wrote: For those who don't have google sniffing out news feeds on STEORN, Sean McCarthy granted another interview on Oct 26. http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/ If you can believe the contents it would appear that STORN technology will rise again. From the interview: FE Truth: In your opinion does Orbo create or extract energy? Sean: It¹s a question of views. I would say that, in the same way as there is a mass/energy equivalent there is also a form of time/energy equivalent and whether you consider that energy creation or conversion is a matter of semantics. The explanation behind Orbo is that ÄT can equal E as simple as that. ...The key idea. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Interesting moving optical illusion
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Craig Haynie wrote: With regard to: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html I just noticed that the shadow only makes sense if the figure is rotating counter-clockwise. Rotating counter-clockwise, you should only be able to see her left foot when it's at a distance and in the background, not the foreground. Yeah, and I think it also involves the height at which we seemingly are viewing her. If our eyes are at her eye level, then she HAS to be rotating counterclockwise, since the perspective effects very strongly show this fact. But maybe if we're viewing her from six feet under a glass floor, would the perspective effects tell us that she's rotating the other way? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:How could Ron's discovery be AM-powered?
William Beaty wrote: Two things confuse me about my idea that Ron's device is picking up RF energy from the AM radio tower. The problems you point out with the AM radio explanation are serious. To tell the truth, I've had trouble with that explanation all along -- it still seems, gut-feel, like Ron would have be almost frying from the RF intensity in order for that to account for what he's seeing. On the other hand, it may be worthwhile to step back and look at the big picture of what Ron's got here. Let's blur out the details, and just look at the broad outlines. I come at this from lots of time spent fiddling with relativity, so my tendency is to use a gedanken experiment. I'll do that here: Let's imagine we have a wire, with one end connected to something which is not specified. The free end of the wire, however, is known to be NEUTRAL, positive and negative charge carriers in perfect balance, no signal present, no E field at the end of the wire, and no ambient E field in the region near the end of the wire. Now let's suppose we have a second wire, made of the same material as the first wire, with one end connected to something-else which is also not specified. But the free end of our wire-2 is also dead-neutral, charge carriers in balance, no fields, no signal. OK so far? Now, what happens if we connect the two free ends together? = NOTHING -- at least, if we're talking about electricity, that is. No field present, no charge imbalance, identical materials so no P/N junction formed = no current will flow and no fields will be perturbed. Furthermore, the something attached to the first wire can't even tell that the wires have been connected together ... at least, if it just uses electrical effects within the system to detect the connection. * * * Now, let's turn it around. Let's suppose that, when we connect the wires together, the something responds in some way -- any way. If we assume that it uses only electricity to sense the connection, then, if it responds in _any_ way at all, we can conclude that either: a) The wire attached to something was actually carrying a signal, or was not totally neutral Or: b) The wire attached to something-else was actually carrying a signal, or was not totally neutral. For if they were _both_ neutral and carrying no signal then the something could not have detected the connection being made. * * * OK, now, let's suppose something is Ron's apparatus, and something-else is the thing the ground wire is tied to. If connecting the ground wire makes the circuit respond, then either there's a signal present in the circuit, or there's a signal present on the ground wire. The first question, then, should /not/ be Is there an external signal? Rather, the question should be, What signal is present, and where is it coming from? If an extremely thorough search fails to turn up any external signal, then it's time to start looking for NON-electrical effects -- for, sure as shootin', there can't be any /electrical/ effects here unless there's a signal coming from someplace. * * * Conversely, if you don't believe there is a signal present (before the ground is connected), then I submit that you must assume from the start that there is something besides electricity actuating this circuit. ===
Re: [Vo]:How could Ron's discovery be AM-powered?
Has anyone noticed that at some point in the progress that Ron started using an AC coupling through the bottom of the breadboard backing plate? For example see Fig. 22 of the following: http://www.drstiffler.com/ce4.asp I have a question about parts. The above gives specs for the diodes as: 1N4148 100VRRM 0.5A (Switching) This spec doesn't seem to match any 1N4148. The versions I've found for sale rated at 100VRRM are rated at 0.3A or less. It would be useful to know the exact part number and source for the switching diodes and the LEDs. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold electricity indeed
On Oct 26, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Perhaps there's a thermoelectric (Peltier) heat pump effect. There are obviously junctions between different conducting materials. An interesting control experiment would be to power the LEDs with ordinary DC and see what kind of heat they generate. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
[Apologies if folks have already seen this one -- it was new to me. I think Jones may already have speculated about this possibility also, but this article goes into quite a bit more detail than anything I noticed previously on Vortex.] Interesting article, with a possible explanation for the impossible missing nukes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6909 Capsule summary: The nukes were intended for Iran, and the plane was supposed to head off to war. But there is a lot of reluctance in the upper echelons of the military to take the (arguably insane) step of nuking Iran, and instead of going according to plan, the whole thing blew up in the government's face, derailed by folks who decided blow the whistle rather than march over a cliff on Cheney's orders. * * * I tend to discount such complex and implausible-sounding theories in general but in this case, every other theory I've heard for how the military could have lost track of 6 (or 5) nuclear-armed missiles has seemed to require an inconceivable level of incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty on the part of quite a number of people. This explanation, at least, has the advantage of actually explaining what we saw, rather than just exchanging one totally unbelievable chain of events for a different one. (The notion that the plane was heading for Iran only makes sense, however, if it's practical for a B-52 to fly nonstop from the U.S. to Iran on a bombing mission. Otherwise, it still would have made more sense to ship the things to Diego Garcia by transport plane and load them onto the wings of the bomber at that point, and we're back to square 1 with people in the Air Force behaving in senseless ways for no apparent reason. I don't know the answer to this one; with mid-air refueling they could do it, but would they plan on that, and would they prefer that (rather dangerous) operation to stopping over at DG? Or could a B-52 do the whole mission without refueling?)
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
I still have to chuckle over the six (or maybe it was five) thing... ...it's almost to the level of a comedy routine. Where are Abbott and Costello when we need them? Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [Apologies if folks have already seen this one -- it was new to me. I think Jones may already have speculated about this possibility also, but this article goes into quite a bit more detail than anything I noticed previously on Vortex.] Interesting article, with a possible explanation for the impossible missing nukes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6909 Capsule summary: The nukes were intended for Iran, and the plane was supposed to head off to war. But there is a lot of reluctance in the upper echelons of the military to take the (arguably insane) step of nuking Iran, and instead of going according to plan, the whole thing blew up in the government's face, derailed by folks who decided blow the whistle rather than march over a cliff on Cheney's orders. * * * I tend to discount such complex and implausible-sounding theories in general but in this case, every other theory I've heard for how the military could have lost track of 6 (or 5) nuclear-armed missiles has seemed to require an inconceivable level of incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty on the part of quite a number of people. This explanation, at least, has the advantage of actually explaining what we saw, rather than just exchanging one totally unbelievable chain of events for a different one. (The notion that the plane was heading for Iran only makes sense, however, if it's practical for a B-52 to fly nonstop from the U.S. to Iran on a bombing mission. Otherwise, it still would have made more sense to ship the things to Diego Garcia by transport plane and load them onto the wings of the bomber at that point, and we're back to square 1 with people in the Air Force behaving in senseless ways for no apparent reason. I don't know the answer to this one; with mid-air refueling they could do it, but would they plan on that, and would they prefer that (rather dangerous) operation to stopping over at DG? Or could a B-52 do the whole mission without refueling?)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
On 10/27/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry, you have shown just enough interest so let's give this a go eh? (ie. Any at all) Whew, what a summary! Yes, I am familiar with most of your examples. Okay, my wife is laid up with cosmetic surgery and I have some time between the bell rings (her method of summons). I've built a 555 oscillator which I can tweek between 1 and 10 MHz although it's not quite linear over the range. I'm ripping apart some old junk radios from the attic; but, I'm not sure how to identify BaFe material. Are all old AM antennae magnetic? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold electricity
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, John Berry wrote: According to Mr. Beaty the reason energy sucking antennas work is not because the field of the transmitter is actually sucked into the receiving element, but because the field of the receiving element enhances the voltage induced. Probably my article wasn't clear enough. The field of the receiving element CANCELS OUT a large region of radio waves. To do this it has to be at the same frequency, and have the right phase and amplitude. The transmitter is sending out EM waves, and the small receiving antenna is punching a huge shadow in those waves. The missing energy is the absorbed energy. In order for a tiny antenna to create a huge downstream shadow, that receiving antenna must send out fairly intense waves of its own. Or in other words, this is an interference pattern, where some incoming plane waves from the distant transmitter are combined with some sphere-waves coming from the receiving antenna. It's counter-intuitive, in part because the cancellation is mostly happening a quarter wavelength away from the receiver (which might be tens or hundreds of yards away.) Right at the receiver are some very intense EM fields. Or another way to understand the process is to look at diagrams of energy-flow of EM waves (called Poynting vector diagrams.) see the GIF diagrams near the bottom of: http://amasci.com/tesla/nearfld1.html The synchronized fields of the reciever cause the plane-waves from the transmitter to deflect inwards as if they've passed through a lens. I have a problem with this however, it doesn't IMO make any sense. The fact that the receiving element might now be created a sizable net field does not impact on the effect of the transmitters field on the particles (electrons) in the receiver since as I believe is generally accepted electric and magnetic fields superimpose and it is not the effect of field against field Superposition can give a net energy loss (meaning, an energy absorption.) Now if you just add two plane-wave patterns together, the superposition does cancel out waves in one place, but it makes them twice as strong in another place. It only moves EM energy around. If you instead superpose a spherical wave with a plane wave, or superpose two spherical waves, then, depending on the phase relationship you can create a net loss of energy. So, if you put two radio transmitters near each other, and adjust them for 180deg relative phase, the waves in the distance all cancel out and vanish, and instead you've created something like a transformer, or a pair of capacitor plates. The two transmitters can then exchange EM energy without broadcasting anything. but rather of (transmitter) field against matter. (whether or not the antenna is creating a net field should not matter) Wire antennas are far too narrow to interact with longwave EM. We might expect that a piece of wire could absorb light waves, or maybe microwaves of millimeter wavelength. But how could it absorb AM broacast band 600 meters long? Simple: the antenna resonantes with the incoming waves, broadcasts it's own EM field, and the receiver's EM field cancels out the incoming waves from the distant transmitter. Also note that this isn't a personal crackpot theory of mine. I figured it all out while trying to explain to children how receiving antennas work, but then RF engineers tell me what's the big deal, that's just how receiving antennas actually work, don't people already know that? And then while looking carefully, I do find homework problems in physics books which deal with similar concepts. However, I've never found a physics or engineering book which teaches these concepts directly. Instead they just teach the math, and the antenna aperture concept. Also if the mere presence of a field means that the receiver is more 'sensitized' due to it's larger field then it need not be at any frequency. Unfortunately the absorption process requires that the receiver emit a signal that's just the right frequency, the right phase, and even the right amplitude. Resonant antennas (halfwave, or loopstick) do this naturally. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
Yep! It would be funny.. except for the serious side to the equation. It senses more like a puppet master that has three puppets strung out.. the one you are told to love, the one you are told to hate and the one you are told to ignore. In the wizard of Oz, the wizard is revealed by Toto pulling back the curtain.. Picture a scenario where the curtain is invisible and you are taught there is a curtain you can't see through.. you actually can but a lifetime of being taught otherwise can cause a strong delusion.. hmmm ? Now where have I read that before.. the bible . Perhaps the king does have clothes but we are mesmerized into believing he is nakid.. Only the bartender at the Dime Box saloon knows but he is closely studying the Paladin Capital group and Cube's blade technology along with Crossbow Tech's smart dust.. stuff outa science fiction and ZigBee. Richard Jones wrote.. I still have to chuckle over the six (or maybe it was five) thing... ...it's almost to the level of a comedy routine. Where are Abbott and Costello when we need them?
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Yep! It would be funny.. except for the serious side to the equation. It senses more like a puppet master that has three puppets strung out.. the one you are told to love, the one you are told to hate and the one you are told to ignore. In the wizard of Oz, the wizard is revealed by Toto pulling back the curtain.. Picture a scenario where the curtain is invisible and you are taught there is a curtain you can't see through.. you actually can but a lifetime of being taught otherwise can cause a strong delusion.. Do not see the fnord. If you do not see the fnord, the fnord will not eat you. Do not see the fnord. hmmm ? Now where have I read that before.. the bible . Perhaps the king does have clothes but we are mesmerized into believing he is nakid.. Only the bartender at the Dime Box saloon knows but he is closely studying the Paladin Capital group and Cube's blade technology along with Crossbow Tech's smart dust.. stuff outa science fiction and ZigBee. Richard Jones wrote.. I still have to chuckle over the six (or maybe it was five) thing... ...it's almost to the level of a comedy routine. Where are Abbott and Costello when we need them?
Re: [Vo]:Sean McCarthy of STEORN recently interviewed
On 27/10/2007 1:49 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Malakey, IMO. I am not familiar with a time/energy equivalent equation. Novel ideas tend to be unfamiliar. I am not saying it is the mostest bestest idea. ;-) Unless you simply solve Einstein for time: s = m(kg/j)^1/2, seconds equal distance times the square root of mass over energy ? You can get the same dimensions for time simply by solving for time from E =1/2m[v^2] = 1/2m[(dx/dt)]^2 Sprain believes the same thing. I think both have a problem understanding movement of energy from beyond the zero point. Terry IMO, zpe is a highly improbable explanation, because taping zpe by accident is also highly improbable. Harry On 10/27/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/10/2007 10:16 AM, OrionWorks wrote: For those who don't have google sniffing out news feeds on STEORN, Sean McCarthy granted another interview on Oct 26. http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/ If you can believe the contents it would appear that STORN technology will rise again. From the interview: FE Truth: In your opinion does Orbo create or extract energy? Sean: It¹s a question of views. I would say that, in the same way as there is a mass/energy equivalent there is also a form of time/energy equivalent and whether you consider that energy creation or conversion is a matter of semantics. The explanation behind Orbo is that ÄT can equal E as simple as that. ...The key idea. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
They would have to refuel before returning but I see no reason take off from Minot when the mission would likely be flown out of Robbins anyway. Also, there are plenty of Nukes available at Robbins. If the AGM's were armed, active attached to the aircraft electronics the crew would know it. If the AGM's were just hung on the wings for a ferry flight the crew would not expect them to be live would have no indication that they were. I know that unless a lot of things have changed since I flew them a mishandling error of this magnitude would be impossible without the active cooperation of a lot of personnel. I doubt that we the Public will ever find out what really happened but the bombing Iran thing doesn't make any sense from what I know. Ron. --On Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:06 PM -0400 Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Apologies if folks have already seen this one -- it was new to me. I think Jones may already have speculated about this possibility also, but this article goes into quite a bit more detail than anything I noticed previously on Vortex.] Interesting article, with a possible explanation for the impossible missing nukes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6909 Capsule summary: The nukes were intended for Iran, and the plane was supposed to head off to war. But there is a lot of reluctance in the upper echelons of the military to take the (arguably insane) step of nuking Iran, and instead of going according to plan, the whole thing blew up in the government's face, derailed by folks who decided blow the whistle rather than march over a cliff on Cheney's orders. * * * I tend to discount such complex and implausible-sounding theories in general but in this case, every other theory I've heard for how the military could have lost track of 6 (or 5) nuclear-armed missiles has seemed to require an inconceivable level of incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty on the part of quite a number of people. This explanation, at least, has the advantage of actually explaining what we saw, rather than just exchanging one totally unbelievable chain of events for a different one. (The notion that the plane was heading for Iran only makes sense, however, if it's practical for a B-52 to fly nonstop from the U.S. to Iran on a bombing mission. Otherwise, it still would have made more sense to ship the things to Diego Garcia by transport plane and load them onto the wings of the bomber at that point, and we're back to square 1 with people in the Air Force behaving in senseless ways for no apparent reason. I don't know the answer to this one; with mid-air refueling they could do it, but would they plan on that, and would they prefer that (rather dangerous) operation to stopping over at DG? Or could a B-52 do the whole mission without refueling?)
Re: [Vo]:Loose Nukes -- in case anyone's still interested
Indeed Ron. And now 6 of those involved at Barkersfield and Minot have been killed. On 10/28/07, Ron Wormus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They would have to refuel before returning but I see no reason take off from Minot when the mission would likely be flown out of Robbins anyway. Also, there are plenty of Nukes available at Robbins. If the AGM's were armed, active attached to the aircraft electronics the crew would know it. If the AGM's were just hung on the wings for a ferry flight the crew would not expect them to be live would have no indication that they were. I know that unless a lot of things have changed since I flew them a mishandling error of this magnitude would be impossible without the active cooperation of a lot of personnel. I doubt that we the Public will ever find out what really happened but the bombing Iran thing doesn't make any sense from what I know. Ron. --On Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:06 PM -0400 Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Apologies if folks have already seen this one -- it was new to me. I think Jones may already have speculated about this possibility also, but this article goes into quite a bit more detail than anything I noticed previously on Vortex.] Interesting article, with a possible explanation for the impossible missing nukes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6909 Capsule summary: The nukes were intended for Iran, and the plane was supposed to head off to war. But there is a lot of reluctance in the upper echelons of the military to take the (arguably insane) step of nuking Iran, and instead of going according to plan, the whole thing blew up in the government's face, derailed by folks who decided blow the whistle rather than march over a cliff on Cheney's orders. * * * I tend to discount such complex and implausible-sounding theories in general but in this case, every other theory I've heard for how the military could have lost track of 6 (or 5) nuclear-armed missiles has seemed to require an inconceivable level of incompetence, stupidity, and dereliction of duty on the part of quite a number of people. This explanation, at least, has the advantage of actually explaining what we saw, rather than just exchanging one totally unbelievable chain of events for a different one. (The notion that the plane was heading for Iran only makes sense, however, if it's practical for a B-52 to fly nonstop from the U.S. to Iran on a bombing mission. Otherwise, it still would have made more sense to ship the things to Diego Garcia by transport plane and load them onto the wings of the bomber at that point, and we're back to square 1 with people in the Air Force behaving in senseless ways for no apparent reason. I don't know the answer to this one; with mid-air refueling they could do it, but would they plan on that, and would they prefer that (rather dangerous) operation to stopping over at DG? Or could a B-52 do the whole mission without refueling?)
