Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Frank Grimer]

I'm not sure how to start a new thread in Vortex-l but since this most
concerns you Jed I'm posting to you in this thread.

In your book on Mizuno (which I seem to have mislaid - probably lent it to
someone who didn't return it) you describe at experiment with specimen of
finely divided metal (palladium?) which he stopped because it was heating
up rapidly and he was afraid it was going to go critical.

I've now realised what was going on.

Clays have an analogous functionality to metals. With clays the fluid
(FLEID) phase is water, With metals the fluid phase is electrons (FIELD).

As the aggregations of clay particles become finer the negative pressure or
suction (pF- analogous to pH) becomes greater.

A similar process must be taking place in the metal. Metals like
palladium must have deeper negative pressure wells than metals further down
the table which gives more opportunity for nuclear catalysis to take effect.

Many years ago Ross and I wrote a paper for an International Conference
describing the effect.
The thing I found surprising was that the strength (a measure of pF)
of aggregations of
different sizes all having the same moisture content, increased with
decrease in aggregation size.

https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/1/41/1957_02_0021.pdf

I fear that once this works its way through, it will be much easier to make
nuclear fusion artillery shells and no doubt you and I, and a few others on
the forum will find ourselves in Guantanamo Bay. 



On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 18:18, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker
>> fire.
>>
>>
>> Exactly hence conspiracy
>>
>
> Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, the
> whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon
> monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a pile
> of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there was a
> fire, it was small.
>
>
>
>> It was massive but not that massive.
>>
>
> Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the
> crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.
>
>
>
>> Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese
>> engineering is some of the best in the world.
>>
>>
>> And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?
>>
> They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As
> one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a
> document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented the
> disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended improvements, no
> project would ever be finished and no power reactor would go online. The
> tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not the sort of thing you
> would normally make a priority.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire.



What I recall - there were several fires in the bunkers on and off at 
different times; so a lot of heat damage.





Jed:No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it 
was unsinkable.


Are you sure about that? As you point out -

Jed: A few people said that to the press, and some of the passengers may 
have believed it


There was big publicity telling the public that it was unsinkable;  the 
publicity could easily have started to fool those more professional. 
Those employees- being around the public and continually telling them it 
was unsinkable - could easily start believing the lie themselves. (When 
I was in sales it was pointed out that the best salesman is the one 
believing the lies that they tell the customers. It would have been the 
same with the Titanic employees - tell the lie to the customers and 
believe the lie yourself --> because if you don't believe the lie you 
are telling them then most people can spot liars.) The reasoning for why 
it was deemed unsinkable was - it had hull compartments; and it would 
take (I think the number was ) 4 hull compartments to be breached for 
Titanic to sink, and that was deemed impossible that 4 would be 
breached- hence unsinkable.




-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Thursday, 23 Jun, 22 At 01:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.


You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two 
bunkers which were not on fire. That is physically impossible.





Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it was 
unsinkable. A few people said that to the press, and some of the 
passengers may have believed it, but no one who knew about ships would 
ever say such a thing. This was made clear in both the British and U.S. 
investigations. Senators and others asked about this.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and
> heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.
>
You mean the heat magically jumped 70 feet, and then spread past two
bunkers which were not on fire. That is physically impossible.


> Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my
> perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the ship
> was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, there was
> nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable unlike other ships.
>
No marine architect, sailor or White Star Line official believed it was
unsinkable. A few people said that to the press, and some of the passengers
may have believed it, but no one who knew about ships would ever say such a
thing. This was made clear in both the British and U.S. investigations.
Senators and others asked about this.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: I can always be wrong.


I take it that you are, because I'm not.

I take it that the photo is not the best so doesn't show everything; and 
heat was so bad at one time that it spread a long way.




Jed:Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill 
them.



But put them under enough pressure of losing their jobs etc and promises 
that all will be well and .


Jed: A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be 
life-threatening to everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with 
smoke. Especially a streak that magically appears 70' away from the 
fire, with no streak near the fire! That would upset sailors because 
they tend to be superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It 
should bewilder you!


Well you can say that from hindsight, it would bewilder me from my 
perspective in the NOW. But at the time they would have been told the 
ship was unsinkable and whereas in other ships it might be worrying, 
there was nothing to worry about in this ship because - unsinkable 
unlike other ships.


Jed:I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the 
merchant marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on 
nearly every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was 
finally maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of 
his life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship.


I have worked down the docks, one of the big cranes fell over - there 
was a big coverup after that - all the cranes had not followed safety 
regulations.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 23:38
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong.

Well, pretty sure. I can always be wrong. (I suggest you practice saying 
that to yourself: 'I can always be wrong.')





 I would have thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along 
the hull and be even was where the photo was not showing it.


It is not going to jump ~60' away from the bunker that is on fire, and 
then produce a 30' streak on another part of the hull while having no 
effect where the bunker is. The streak will not then vanish. That's 
preposterous.





They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill them. 
A major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be life-threatening to 
everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with smoke. Especially a 
streak that magically appears 70' away from the fire, with no streak 
near the fire! That would upset sailors because they tend to be 
superstitious. It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It should bewilder 
you!




Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.


I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the merchant 
marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on nearly 
every voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was finally 
maimed, almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of his 
life. Sailors did not then and they do not now casually disregard 
regulations when there is something like a fire large enough to scorch 
the outside of the ship. They are not suicidal. Pilots do not casually 
take off when one engine will not start. Construction people building 
apartments do not ignore it when a wall collapses.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong.
>
Well, pretty sure. I can always be wrong. (I suggest you practice saying
that to yourself: 'I can always be wrong.')

I would have thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the
> hull and be even was where the photo was not showing it.
>
It is not going to jump ~60' away from the bunker that is on fire, and then
produce a 30' streak on another part of the hull while having no effect
where the bunker is. The streak will not then vanish. That's preposterous.


> They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under
> dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking
> regulations.
>
Sailors seldom break regulations when they know it might well kill them. A
major fire that could cause a 30' streak would be life-threatening to
everyone on board. It will fill the whole ship with smoke. Especially a
streak that magically appears 70' away from the fire, with no streak near
the fire! That would upset sailors because they tend to be superstitious.
It would bewilder them. Or anyone. It should bewilder you!

Jed: Regulations back then were tight.
>
>
> From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those in
> charge; same would apply then.
>
I do not think you have worked in a hazardous trade such as the merchant
marine. My father saw someone killed or maimed at the docks on nearly every
voyage he made. He came close to being killed, and he was finally maimed,
almost losing his arm. It was disfigured for the rest of his life. Sailors
did not then and they do not now casually disregard regulations when there
is something like a fire large enough to scorch the outside of the ship.
They are not suicidal. Pilots do not casually take off when one engine will
not start. Construction people building apartments do not ignore it when a
wall collapses.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to be 
the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 
<https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html>



http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 
<http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html>






O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: So I think it was an artifact of the photo.


So, you are not sure and only "think" and could be wrong. I would have 
thought the heat from the coalfire would have gone along the hull and be 
even was where the photo was not showing it. The photo was supposed to 
be the only photo of the Titanic on that side before setting sail, so 
pointing out you want other photos is asking for something impossible.


Jed: If the crew ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers 
would lose their licenses and never sail again.


They didn't get back from the voyage to be told off for sailing under 
dangerous conditions; so not out of the question that they were breaking 
regulations.


Jed: Regulations back then were tight.

From my experience regulations are broken when forced to do so by those 
in charge; same would apply then.








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 22:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.

I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other 
disasters. I have heard about such things directly from people who 
sailed on ships made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' 
black streak on the outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. 
The fire would be readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew 
ignored it and sailed, the captain and all officers would lose their 
licenses and never sail again. It is simply out of the question. 
Regulations back then were tight. Fire is one the worst shipboard 
disasters.



More to the point:


1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so 
it would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was 
reportedly on fire is located.

3. The streak disappears in other photos.


So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to 
that conclusion. See:



https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html 
<https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html>



http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html 
<http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html>






O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out.
>
I have read about shipboard fires, shipwrecks, storms and other disasters.
I have heard about such things directly from people who sailed on ships
made before WWI. Any fire large enough to leave a 30' black streak on the
outside of the Titanic would be very large indeed. The fire would be
readily apparent to everyone on board. If the crew ignored it and sailed,
the captain and all officers would lose their licenses and never sail
again. It is simply out of the question. Regulations back then were tight.
Fire is one the worst shipboard disasters.

More to the point:

1. The 30' streak is far larger than a bunker, which is only 9' wide, so it
would have to be in several bunkers.
2. It is in the wrong part of the hull, not where the bunker that was
reportedly on fire is located.
3. The streak disappears in other photos.

So I think it was an artifact of the photo. Other people have come to that
conclusion. See:

https://www.titanicswitch.com/coalbunker_fire.html

http://glinds-diversions.com/titanic/titanic-fire-2.html


O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad
> engineering.
>
That is true. There are examples of disasters caused by bad engineering.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

typo correction

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 19:00
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a  document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented  the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwood pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

I found reference to the documentary - 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/titanic-the-new-evidence
It wasn't as massive a fire as you are trying to make out. The facts as 
presented by the documentary are disputed by some and there are 
alternative facts of course, as per all good conspiracy theories have.


That covers Titanic, next the Japan Fukushima disaster-

Jed: As one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always 
find a document on file recommending an improvement that would have 
prevented the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.


I think that bad and a cover up - usual thing to make excuses.

O-ring of Challenger disaster should never have happened, just bad 
engineering.


Silkwodd pointed out bad engineering at Atomic plant and that made her a 
martyr etc



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 18:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy



Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, 
the whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon 
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a 
pile of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there 
was a fire, it was small.






It was massive but not that massive.



Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the 
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.






Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As 
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a 
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented 
the disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended 
improvements, no project would ever be finished and no power reactor 
would go online. The tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not 
the sort of thing you would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker
> fire.
>
>
> Exactly hence conspiracy
>

Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, the
whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon
monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a pile
of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there was a
fire, it was small.



> It was massive but not that massive.
>

Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the
crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.



> Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese
> engineering is some of the best in the world.
>
>
> And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?
>
They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As
one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a
document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented the
disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended improvements, no
project would ever be finished and no power reactor would go online. The
tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not the sort of thing you
would normally make a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Which is probably farther than you know.


nah, you are making stuff up.

Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire.



Exactly hence conspiracy

Jed: It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would be 
filled with smoke.


It was massive but not that massive. There was a documentary - photo of 
Titamic before it set sail showed damage to the superstructure from the 
heat.




Jed: Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of the Titanic 
disaster.



About recouping losses

Jed: First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent.


nah, there was big strike on at the time that would have reduced ability 
to get the best. There was a documentary taking a critical look at the 
captain and decided he wasn't the best



Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese 
engineering is some of the best in the world.


And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?

etc


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know

Which is probably farther than you know. As I said, I happen to know 
about ships of that era, mainly from books, but also from old sailors, 
long dead, who sailed on ships built at the same time as the Titanic. 
That makes you think about the nature of time and history, doesn't it? 
The past is not as distant as we think.





- would they be so incompetent that they would go to sea with a massive 
coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible to put out?


No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker 
fire. It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would 
be filled with smoke. The passengers would refuse to board. There might 
have been a small fire. Such things were fairly common. It is likely 
they would have extinguished it before setting sail. It was common 
enough that they knew how to deal with it. Regulations ensured they 
would know about even a small fire.





 It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, and you 
get the money from insurance scam.


That's preposterous. Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of 
the Titanic disaster.




A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.


First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent. They were 
some of the best people in the industry, because it was a high status 
ship and it paid well. The people running Fukushima were also first 
class. Japanese engineering is some of the best in the world. Second, it 
is not possible to deliberately cause something like the Titanic or 
Fukushima disaster. No one can known in advance how to sabotage such 
complex systems. They are designed with multiple layers of protection to 
prevent that. Both disasters were almost -- but not quite -- prevented.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed: Then I suggest you read a dictionary.


Don't see any big difference.

this points out it is a vague term ->

The concept of stigmergy was introduced by Pierre-Paul Grasse in the 
1950's to describe the indirect communication taking place among 
individuals in social insect societies. Stigmergy was originally defined 
by Grasse in his studies on the reconstruction of termite nests. Grasse 
showed that the regulation and coordination of the building activity do 
not depend on the workers themselves but is mainly achieved by the nest: 
a stimulating configuration triggers a response of a termite worker, 
transforming the configuration into another configuration that may 
trigger in turn another, possibly different, action performed by the 
same termite or any other worker in the colony. Although Grasse's 
concept of stigmergy was attractive and stimulating, it has been 
overlooked by students of social insects because it left open the 
important operational issue of how stimuli must be organized in time and 
space to allow perfect coordination. Despite the vagueness of Grasse's 
formulation, stigmergy is a profound concept, the consequences of which 
are yet to be explored.

https://www.stigmergicsystems.com/stig_v1/stigrefs/article1.html?858732

given its "vagueness " -> just can end up as another form of conspiracy



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English>  STIG-mər-jee 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key> ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coordination> , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy#cite_note-mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de-1> 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment>   by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding  action by the same or 
different agent. . . .



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned.

Then I suggest you read a dictionary. The two are completely different.




 A chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



Except that with stigmergy no one pushes over the domino. And no one 
pushed it with the Titanic or Fukushima. With cold fusion, everyone 
knows who pushed the dominos, so it was not secret, and therefore not a 
conspiracy. The people who pushed the dominos bragged about that for the 
rest of their lives.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on


Jed : "No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only 
"acting in harmony toward a common goal.""


I disagree, they would say something nice like that in the prep talks 
when join - that working towards a common goal.




-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 17:01
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>


--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

"Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an analogy."

Doesn't say that -- no use of "only" there!

So, you misunderstand definitions



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>


--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition



You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an 
analogy.



: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances conspired to defeat 
his efforts.… the sun and the wind conspired to make splinters out of 
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant



No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in 
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in 
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.




You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they 
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look 
stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

definition 2
>
> to act in harmony toward a common end
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire
>
>
> --> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal
>
>
> -> not your definition
>

You misunderstand. Definition 2 only applies to inanimate objects, as an
analogy.

: to act in harmony toward a common endCircumstances *conspired* to defeat
his efforts.… the sun and the wind *conspired* to make splinters out of
solid wood.— B. J. Oliphant

No one would say that people engaged in a conspiracy are only "acting in
harmony toward a common goal." They have to be secret, and engaged in
nefarious conduct, or it ain't a conspiracy.

You should stop arguing that words do not mean what everyone knows they
mean, and what every dictionary says they mean. It makes you look stupid.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

*Stigmergy* (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
> *STIG-mər-jee*
> ) is a
> mechanism of indirect coordination
> , through the environment,
> between agents or actions.[1]
> 
> The principle is that the trace left in the environment
>  by an individual
> action stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or
> different agent. . . .
>
Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned.
>
Then I suggest you read a dictionary. The two are completely different.


> A chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone
> pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.
>
Except that with stigmergy no one pushes over the domino. And no one pushed
it with the Titanic or Fukushima. With cold fusion, everyone knows who
pushed the dominos, so it was not secret, and therefore not a conspiracy.
The people who pushed the dominos bragged about that for the rest of their
lives.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> Jed: There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They
> never sank a ship as far as I know.
>
>
> So, as far as you know.
>
>
> As far as you know
>
Which is probably farther than you know. As I said, I happen to know about
ships of that era, mainly from books, but also from old sailors, long dead,
who sailed on ships built at the same time as the Titanic. That makes you
think about the nature of time and history, doesn't it? The past is not as
distant as we think.


> - would they be so incompetent that they would go to sea with a massive
> coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible to put out?
>
No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker fire.
It would be obvious to everyone there was a fire. The ship would be filled
with smoke. The passengers would refuse to board. There might have been a
small fire. Such things were fairly common. It is likely they would have
extinguished it before setting sail. It was common enough that they knew
how to deal with it. Regulations ensured they would know about even a small
fire.


> It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, and you get
> the money from insurance scam.
>
That's preposterous. Insurance did not pay for even a small fraction of the
Titanic disaster.

A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am concerned.
> If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor meltdown by a
> collection of people - then just employ incompetent people at each stage of
> the process.
>
First of all, the sailors on the Titanic were very competent. They were
some of the best people in the industry, because it was a high status ship
and it paid well. The people running Fukushima were also first class.
Japanese engineering is some of the best in the world. Second, it is not
possible to deliberately cause something like the Titanic or Fukushima
disaster. No one can known in advance how to sabotage such complex systems.
They are designed with multiple layers of protection to prevent that. Both
disasters were almost -- but not quite -- prevented.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


Well the problem here is what definition are you going by

going by Merriam- Webster

conspiracy

definition 1
: the act of conspiring 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire>  together

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

to know what conspiring means

leads to
definition of conspire

definition 2
 to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire

--> nothing about a conspiracy has to be unlawful or illegal

-> not your definition





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 16:36
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






There are open conspiracies -

That is a contradiction of terms. The dictionary definition of 
"conspiracy" is:
"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." 
Dictionary.com
"1 · a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful ; 2 · the 
act of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful." 
Webster
"the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad 
or illegal" Cambridge Dictionary


If it is open and not secret, it is not called a conspiracy.



H.G.  Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy”


I doubt that was the right word back then, but anyway, in modern English 
that would be an organized movement, not a conspiracy.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> There are open conspiracies -
>
That is a contradiction of terms. The dictionary definition of "conspiracy"
is:

"a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful."
Dictionary.com

"1 · a secret agreement to do something harmful or unlawful ; 2 · the act
of plotting with others to do something harmful or unlawful." Webster

"the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or
illegal" Cambridge Dictionary

If it is open and not secret, it is not called a conspiracy.


> H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early
> twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, inspired
> multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World State” as
> the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an international order,
> Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the destruction of World
> War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open Conspiracy”
>
I doubt that was the right word back then, but anyway, in modern English
that would be an organized movement, not a conspiracy.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Stigmergy (/ˈstɪɡmərdʒi/ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English>  STIG-mər-jee 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key> ) is a 
mechanism of indirect coordination 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coordination> , through the environment, 
between agents or actions.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy#cite_note-mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de-1> 
The principle is that the trace left in the environment 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment>  by an individual 
action stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or 
different agent. Agents that respond to traces in the environment 
receive positive fitness benefits, reinforcing the likelihood of these 
behaviors becoming fixed within a population over time. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy



Just sounds like another form of conspiracy as far as I am concerned. A 
chain reaction of unfortunate events - domino effect - with someone 
pushing over the first domino that causes all the other dominos to fall.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:04
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy>


Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy. 
The US defeat in Afghanistan – after the longest war in US history, 
20yrs+  -  is one example.  Congress, The White House,  the mass media, 
the Pentagon lie and deceive  for decades and get away with it.  The WSJ 
claimed 6 intelligence reports about Afghanistan said nothing about the 
whole thing collapsing.


And that harmful trend continues as no one seems to scream about an 
ineffective US intelligence community.  I also think the same thing will 
happen with Russia/Ukraine and the sanctions Cold War.


All too often science goes the same way.  Termites denying anomalies 
such as Cold Fusion obediently.




From: Jed Rothwell 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:49 AM
 To: Vortex 
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone





ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.





Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --





1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the  attack against cold fusion.






2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know  who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we  know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers  never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.






There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese  navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."









CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed:  There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They 
never sank a ship as far as I know.



So, as far as you know.

As far as you know - would they be so incompetent that they would go to 
sea with a massive coal bunker fire which they were finding impossible 
to put out? It was asking for the ship to sink as far as I am concerned, 
and you get the money from insurance scam.


A series of unforunate events is easy to arrange as far as I am 
concerned. If it takes a series of unfortunate events to cause a reactor 
meltdown by a collection of people - then just employ incompetent people 
at each stage of the process.





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 15:16
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its 
coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't 
want the Titanic to survive the journey.


There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never 
sank a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would 
be incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if 
you managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors 
ignoring the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire 
undetectable, which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with 
thermocouples, and bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew 
fires were common. Or making the fire impossible to put out, which it 
would not be. Or simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with 
the conspiracy and ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible 
because it was impossible to know there would be icebergs, and without 
them, even a large fire would cause no harm. Also because the captain 
would never agree to such a thing.



It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have 
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of 
this nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there 
is no reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.



In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known 
people involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly 
unlikely it would cause serious damage.




 A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by 
someone to happen.


Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the 
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination 
of unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection. 
One failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person 
-- or even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right 
combination of failures because no one knows in advance what has to 
fail. For example, no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in 
the Titanic, because no one at that time knew what effect that would 
have, and no one would even know the sulphur was in the steel. Without 
the sulphur there would have been no tragedy. A person who 
surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would have no way of knowing the 
embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and no way to influence the 
captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later. Most ships never 
struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had been brittle 
(without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused any harm.




(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a 
thing or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on 
one, albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired 
ships when he sailed.)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Esa Ruoho]

so hey i found the craddock engineering phonenumber but i'm not sure how to
proceed since i'm in finland.
craddock engineering was founded by anthony craddock, a boss of energetic
productions, that produced the energy from the vacuum dvd science series.
and since both energy from the vacuum and cheniere websites are down,
getting in touch with him would be really important to getting the pages
reinstated.
i just realized there are now 46 DVDs of Energy from the Vacuum science dvd
series, and i only have episodes 1 to 33, so i'd need to buy 34-46 to have
the full collection.
nobody on the energeticforum seems to have an inkling as to what has
happened.


ke 22. kesäk. 2022 klo 18.07 ROGER ANDERTON (r.j.ander...@btinternet.com)
kirjoitti:

> Jed
>
> There are open conspiracies -
>
>
> H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early
> twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, inspired
> multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World State” as
> the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an international order,
> Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the destruction of World
> War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open Conspiracy” – a movement of
> organizations and people seeking the establishment of a world collective –
> was forefront in his thinking.
> https://www.forcingchange.org/open-conspiracy/
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jed Rothwell" 
> To: "Vortex" 
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 14:48
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
>
> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>> This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a
>> conspiracy theory.
>>
> Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --
>
> 1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold
> fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published
> books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They
> were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.
>
> 2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and
> editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of
> people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof,
> and you don't know who the people are. Although you might speculate about
> who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I
> suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers"
> that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am saying: "we know who
> opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature published signed
> editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion researchers at MIT called
> Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that Fleischmann and Pons be
> arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied doing that. We have the
> news reports and quotes from them.
>
> There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy
> theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their
> role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying
> "perhaps it was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but
> we will never know for sure."
>
>

-- 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/music | http://twitter.com/esaruoho |
+358403703659

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed

There are open conspiracies -

H.G. Wells was one of the most influential visionaries of the early 
twentieth century. His many books, both fiction and non-fiction, 
inspired multitudes of men and women who, like Wells, looked to a “World 
State” as the savior of humanity. Although he wrote often of an 
international order, Mr. Wells’ optimism for the future waned due to the 
destruction of World War II. Nevertheless, his desire for an “Open 
Conspiracy” – a movement of organizations and people seeking the 
establishment of a world collective – was forefront in his thinking. 
https://www.forcingchange.org/open-conspiracy/



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 14:48
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory.


Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --


1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold 
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published 
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. 
They were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.



2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and 
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group 
of people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no 
proof, and you don't know who the people are. Although you might 
speculate about who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed 
cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma 
fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am 
saying: "we know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature 
published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers never 
denied doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.



There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy 
theory and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about 
their role in destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like 
saying "perhaps it was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 
1941, but we will never know for sure."

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy.


That is a great word! I have never heard it. You learn something new every
day. Here is another definition:

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Stigmergy

Yes, the opposition to cold fusion was stigmergy. It was spontaneous and
unorganized at first, but later self-organizing. Many people thought it was
in their interests to suppress cold fusion, from Robert Park at the APS and
other mainstream physicists, to the editors at Nature, to the plasma fusion
researchers. They had different reasons. Some reasons made sense, others
did not. The plasma fusion people feared their budget would be cut. They
were right; it would have been. Robert Park made his reputation as a
naysayer. As Gene Mallove said, his column "What's New" should have been
called, "What's New -- that I hate." The physicists were reacting
emotionally, and playing the usual academic politics. There was no
coordination at first, but as the attacks intensified, each group of
opponents made use of the other groups. You might say they all left
pheromone tracks in the public record, and the tracks all led in one
direction.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port with a fire in its
> coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds to me that didn't want
> the Titanic to survive the journey.
>
There were many coal bunker fires in the ships of that era. They never sank
a ship as far as I know. Trying to sink a ship by that method would be
incompetent. It would almost certainly fail. It would only work if you
managed to arrange many other improbable events, such as sailors ignoring
the fire -- something they never did. And making the fire undetectable,
which is impossible, because bunkers were equipped with thermocouples, and
bunkers were checked regularly, because everyone knew fires were common. Or
making the fire impossible to put out, which it would not be. Or
simultaneously inveigling the captain to go along with the conspiracy and
ignore iceberg warnings. That would be impossible because it was impossible
to know there would be icebergs, and without them, even a large fire would
cause no harm. Also because the captain would never agree to such a thing.

It is also a conspiracy theory because you have no idea who might have
arranged it; there is no solid evidence that it happened; and fires of this
nature were common and caused by spontaneous combustion, so there is no
reason to think anyone set it -- assuming there even was a fire.

In short, this is a conspiracy theory. No written evidence, no known people
involved, no motivation, and if the event occurred it is highly unlikely it
would cause serious damage.

A series of unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by
> someone to happen.
>
Nope. Just about every major industrial accident in history, from the
Titanic to Three Mile Island to Fukushima, was caused by a combination of
unfortunate events. These systems have multiple fail-safe protection. One
failure cannot destroy them. It takes multiple failures. One person -- or
even a group of people -- could not arrange to have the right combination
of failures because no one knows in advance what has to fail. For example,
no one would deliberately add sulphur to the steel in the Titanic, because
no one at that time knew what effect that would have, and no one would even
know the sulphur was in the steel. Without the sulphur there would have
been no tragedy. A person who surreptitiously arranged for sulphur would
have no way of knowing the embrittling effects of extreme cold it has, and
no way to influence the captain to ignore an iceberg warning years later.
Most ships never struck an iceberg or anything else, so even if they had
been brittle (without anyone knowing that fact), it would never have caused
any harm.


(Note that some of what I wrote here is not well documented. I know a thing
or two about ships of that era because my father was a fireman on one,
albeit with oil instead of coal. There were still many coal fired ships
when he sailed.)

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy

Many of these things are technically not conspiracies, just stigmergy.The 
US defeat in Afghanistan – after the longest war in US history, 20yrs+  -  is 
one example.  Congress, The White House,  the mass media, the Pentagon lie and 
deceive for decades and get away with it.  The WSJ claimed 6 intelligence 
reports about Afghanistan said nothing about the whole thing collapsing.

And that harmful trend continues as no one seems to scream about an ineffective 
US intelligence community.  I also think the same thing will happen with 
Russia/Ukraine and the sanctions Cold War.

All too often science goes the same way.  Termites denying anomalies such as 
Cold Fusion obediently.

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a conspiracy 
theory.
Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --

1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold fusion 
was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published books, papers, 
newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They were proud to lead 
the attack against cold fusion.

2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and editorials. A 
"conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of people carried 
out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof, and you don't know 
who the people are. Although you might speculate about who they are. If I had 
said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I suspect it was the editors 
at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers" that would be a theory. I am not 
saying that. I am saying: "we know who opposed cold fusion, because the editor 
at Nature published signed editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion 
researchers at MIT called Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that 
Fleischmann and Pons be arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied 
doing that. We have the news reports and quotes from them.

There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and 
attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their role in 
destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying "perhaps it was 
the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but we will never know 
for sure."



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a
> conspiracy theory.
>
Perhaps it did sound like that, but it was not. Because --

1. A conspiracy is organized and surreptitious. The opposition to cold
fusion was unorganized and very much in the open. Opponents published
books, papers, newspaper editorials, editorials in Nature and so on. They
were proud to lead the attack against cold fusion.

2. It is not a "theory;" it is a fact. You can read the books and
editorials. A "conspiracy theory" means an assertion that a hidden group of
people carried out an organized campaign of opposition. There is no proof,
and you don't know who the people are. Although you might speculate about
who they are. If I had said: "we don't know who opposed cold fusion, but I
suspect it was the editors at Nature and the plasma fusion researchers"
that would be a theory. I am not saying that. I am saying: "we know who
opposed cold fusion, because the editor at Nature published signed
editorials excoriating it, and the plasma fusion researchers at MIT called
Boston newspaper reporters and demanded that Fleischmann and Pons be
arrested for fraud." Those researchers never denied doing that. We have the
news reports and quotes from them.

There is a world of difference between an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory
and attacks carried out in public by people who bragged about their role in
destroying cold fusion. Calling that a "theory" is like saying "perhaps it
was the Japanese navy that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but we will never
know for sure."

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed


This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a 
conspiracy theory. Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port 
with a fire in its coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds 
to me that didn't want the Titanic to survive the journey. A series of 
unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by someone to 
happen. Thanks for the links. But as far as I am concerned from my 
observations of people - they often say one thing and do the opposite; 
so, in case of scientific method - yes scientists are supposed to follow 
the scientific method, but when it comes down to what they actually do - 
its usually the opposite.



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




sounded like conspiracy theory.



What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?


As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a 
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The 
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that, 
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite 
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio 
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress 
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If 
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It 
sounds extremely improbable, but it happened.






As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion>


The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical 
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma 
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no 
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid, 
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between 
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf>



See also:


https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf>



That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there 
is. There are no others.



The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known 
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and 
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> sounded like conspiracy theory.
>

What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?

As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that,
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It sounds
extremely improbable, but it happened.



> As for cold fusion -
>
>
> Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either
> pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have
> occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat measurements
> as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or controls. There
> are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are an unlikely
> explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion claims.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
>
The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid,
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

See also:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there is.
There are no others.

The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

sounded like conspiracy theory.


As for cold fusion -

Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either 
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have 
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat 
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or 
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are 
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion 
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion



-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:26
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



Please provide proof.

You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on 
line, at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't 
believe them, you will not believe anything else that I provide.



The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. 
Take the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of 
pages of authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various 
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who 
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!



It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have 
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who 
have published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. 
They were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their 
papers. On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places 
like Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the 
like. They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually 
give any science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed 
(imaginary) people found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these 
people have never read and do not know anything about.



So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. 
I go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they 
say. They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not 
know the difference between energy and power has no credibility. That 
crowd of hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the 
editors at Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots 
sometimes manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows 
that.



It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, 
it is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics 
are out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> Please provide proof.
>
You don't need me to do that. There are many authoritative sources on line,
at places like the FBI and the Senate Committee. If you don't believe them,
you will not believe anything else that I provide.

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a fact is easy to spot. Take
the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers. You can find thousands of pages of
authoritative analyses from places like NIST, FEMA and various
universities. These explain every detail. Or you can believe people who
know nothing about engineering and have no proof at all. Take your pick!

It is the same situation with cold fusion. On one side we have
distinguished experts such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Srinivasan, who have
published peer-reviewed, definitive proof that cold fusion is real. They
were the creme-de-la-creme of the establishment. They signed their papers.
On the other side, we have an anonymous crew of idiots at places like
Wikipedia, who name themselves after comic book characters and the like.
They claim that cold fusion is not real, but they never actually give any
science-based reason. They say only that other, unnamed (imaginary) people
found (undescribed) errors. Errors in papers these people have never read
and do not know anything about.

So which side do you believe? I am conservative. Establishment oriented. I
go with established experts who publish detailed proof of what they say.
They have credibility. The cartoon character crowd that does not know the
difference between energy and power has no credibility. That crowd of
hapless flakes happens to include some scientists and the editors at
Scientific American, but that only goes to show that idiots sometimes
manage to get high level jobs. Any experienced person knows that.

It may seem as if cold fusion is outside the establishment. Politically, it
is. But from a scientific point of view, it is inside and the critics are
out there in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 00:49
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves 
corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. . . .




Is that a conspiracy theory?

Nope. It is a fact. Well documented. Proven to a fair-thee-well.






Please provide proof.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves corrupt.
>> Some work for the Russian government. . . .
>
>

> Is that a conspiracy theory?
>
Nope. It is a fact. Well documented. Proven to a fair-thee-well.

If it were a conspiracy theory, there would be authoritative experts who
say it is not true. Even if it were true, a difference of opinion would
make it a "conspiracy theory." There are no intelligence experts in the
U.S. or any of our allies who doubt that Russian agents swarm over the
internet, uploading anti-American propaganda.

Not everything that looks like a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jed Rothwell wrote:Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are 
themselves corrupt. Some work for the Russian government. Their purpose 
is to disrupt U.S. society and destroy our institutions. You should not 
trust everyone who tells you there is a criminal conspiracy. They may 
have ulterior motives. Some of them are extremely gullible, ignorant, or 
flat out crazy.



Is that a conspiracy theory?

If it is a conspiracy theory - which one of the options are you?





-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 20:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Robin]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:53:47 -0400:
Hi,

Looking through the list I see that the highest power density is 438 kW/l. This 
is for an experimental fast neutron
reactor, which uses a 3 loop cooling system, sodium - sodium - water.
I would have thought it would make more sense to use gallium in the second 
loop. That nicely keeps the sodium and water
separate, in case of leaks, thus largely avoiding the risk of fire.
Gallium is not used in the primary loop because of its neutron absorption cross 
section.


>I wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:
>>
>> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html
>>
>> I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
>>
>> Average core power density [kW/kgU]
>>
>> I think it should say:
>>
>> Average Core power density [kW/l]
>>
>
>I wrote to the people at the IAEA. They confirmed this is a mistake in the
>column heading. It should be [kW/l].
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

conspiracy theories are about pattern recognition in human behaviour, and
> there are conspiracy facts -
>
> e.g.
> Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
>
There are indeed, but they are few and far between. Just because some small
number of conspiracy theories turned out to be true, that is not a good
reason to assume that most are true, or that all are true.

The thing is, most institutions work, most of the time. They would not
survive otherwise. Over the centuries, institutions have developed various
rules, traditions and so on to guard against events like the infamous
syphilis study. Everyone knows that these rules and traditions sometimes
fail catastrophically, but we also know they work most of the time, because
if they did not, these institutions would fail. They would go extinct.
Aviation has the strongest tradition of careful engineering, checking and
double checking for problems, because flying millions of people at 30,000
feet close to the speed of sound is a difficult and dangerous thing to do.
If aviation were not hyper-careful, airplanes would often crash. No one
would fly on airplanes. Boeing and the others would go out of business. Yet
despite that, we all know there are catastrophic failures in aviation, and
even corruption and deliberate covering up of problems. See:

*Boeing Charged with 737 Max Fraud Conspiracy and Agrees to Pay over $2.5
Billion*

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion

Just because that happened once, that does not mean it happens all the time
and you can never trust Boeing or any other part of the aviation industry.
It is certain you can trust them, because airplanes seldom crash.


It is foolish to think the authorities are always right, and there is never
any corruption, cover ups, or conspiracy. It is equally foolish to think
that everything is always corrupt, and all of the conspiracy theories
bandied about are true. You have to use good judgement and logic. Of
course, you can always be wrong.

Some of the people who spread conspiracy theories are themselves corrupt.
Some work for the Russian government. Their purpose is to disrupt
U.S. society and destroy our institutions. You should not trust everyone
who tells you there is a criminal conspiracy. They may have ulterior
motives. Some of them are extremely gullible, ignorant, or flat out crazy.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

conspiracy theories are about pattern recognition in human behaviour, 
and there are conspiracy facts -


e.g.
Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study
https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study


Bearden connected to others such as Myron Evans -
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Myron_Evans.html


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 16:37
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




I think a lot of things are going to disappear.

I doubt it. I think you are repeating groundless conspiracy theories. No 
one gives a damn about Beardon's theories or disputes about relativity. 
No one would bother to censor these things or make them disappear.




It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring

Nothing relating to cold fusion has been censored. I would know if it 
had. A lot of information has disappeared, but I know why. Nothing to do 
with censorship. Mainly because the authors or the people maintaining 
the websites died. Also, for example, old lCCF websites are gone, 
because no one thought to preserve them. I complained about this but the 
ICCF organizers did not listen.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:
>
> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html
>
> I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
>
> Average core power density [kW/kgU]
>
> I think it should say:
>
> Average Core power density [kW/l]
>

I wrote to the people at the IAEA. They confirmed this is a mistake in the
column heading. It should be [kW/l].

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> I think a lot of things are going to disappear.
>
I doubt it. I think you are repeating groundless conspiracy theories. No
one gives a damn about Beardon's theories or disputes about relativity. No
one would bother to censor these things or make them disappear.

It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring
>
Nothing relating to cold fusion has been censored. I would know if it had.
A lot of information has disappeared, but I know why. Nothing to do with
censorship. Mainly because the authors or the people maintaining the
websites died. Also, for example, old lCCF websites are gone, because no
one thought to preserve them. I complained about this but the ICCF
organizers did not listen.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

its cancel culture at work.


an - Einstein is wrong video I was watching has disappeared -> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpWq_gw31ao


I think a lot of things are going to disappear.

It used to be - Web was open to all ideas; now its about censoring








-- Original Message --
From: "Chris Zell" 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Sent: Tuesday, 21 Jun, 22 At 14:23
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone


I swear I entered “google” on Duck Duck Go this morning and it said no 
results found.


May be it’s the Russians. They seem to be the go to for blame these 
days.




From: Terry Blanton 
 Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:15 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone





Is Google dying?


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/google-search-algorithm-internet/661325/ 
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2022%2F06%2Fgoogle-search-algorithm-internet%2F661325%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C2787ec862e3e431c03cf08da5312c563%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C637913637338317683%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C=QaI7TXijYpadYkCMKb6kxkQgu%2FP1BSAvOK9aO1m7xFM%3D=0>





CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

I swear I entered "google" on Duck Duck Go this morning and it said no results 
found.

May be it's the Russians. They seem to be the go to for blame these days.

From: Terry Blanton 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Is Google dying?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/google-search-algorithm-internet/661325/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2022%2F06%2Fgoogle-search-algorithm-internet%2F661325%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C2787ec862e3e431c03cf08da5312c563%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C637913637338317683%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C=QaI7TXijYpadYkCMKb6kxkQgu%2FP1BSAvOK9aO1m7xFM%3D=0>


CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Terry Blanton]

Is Google dying?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/google-search-algorithm-internet/661325/

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Internet search algorithms have been changed; because protests were made 
that algorithms were creating echo chambers.




In discussions of news media <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media> 
, an echo chamber refers to situations in which beliefs are amplified or 
reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and 
insulated from rebuttal.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29#cite_note-:1-1> 
By participating in an echo chamber, people are able to seek out 
information that reinforces their existing views without encountering 
opposing views, potentially resulting in an unintended exercise in 
confirmation bias <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias> .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29

-- Original Message --
From: "H LV" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Jun, 22 At 22:03
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Perhaps the designers are consciously or unconsciously incorporating an 
agenda into the search algorithm.
Instead of finding those things you want to know,  the algorithm steers 
you towards things that the designers think you need to know?

harry


On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:25 PM Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:


Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:

Google often does this in ignoring search terms, as happened to me 
recently in looking for a chain saw part.
Yes. I have a strange feeling Google has this problem more than it used 
to. I wonder if they need to tweak their algorithm? The other day I was 
looking for "fission reactor power density" and it kept giving me 
references to energy density. Which is a completely different thing. 
Today I was looking for "average monthly cost of natural gas" or 
"residential monthly bill," but it kept telling me the cost per therm.




Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the 
way:



https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html 
<https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html>



I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
Average core power density
[kW/kgU]
I think it should say:
Average Core power density [kW/l]
That makes more sense. Also, that is the heading for these same numbers 
are in another table:
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/power.html 
<https://aris.iaea.org/sites/power.html>

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[H LV]

Perhaps the designers are consciously or unconsciously incorporating an
agenda into the search algorithm.
Instead of finding those things you want to know,  the algorithm steers you
towards things that the designers think you need to know?

harry

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:25 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>
>> Google often does this in ignoring search terms, as happened to me
>> recently in looking for a chain saw part.
>
>
> Yes. I have a strange feeling Google has this problem more than it used
> to. I wonder if they need to tweak their algorithm? The other day I was
> looking for "fission reactor power density" and it kept giving me
> references to energy density. Which is a completely different thing. Today
> I was looking for "average monthly cost of natural gas" or "residential
> monthly bill," but it kept telling me the cost per therm.
>
>
> Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:
>
> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html
>
> I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:
>
> Average core power density
> [kW/kgU]
>
> I think it should say:
>
> Average Core power density [kW/l]
>
> That makes more sense. Also, that is the heading for these same numbers
> are in another table:
>
> https://aris.iaea.org/sites/power.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Google often does this in ignoring search terms, as happened to me
> recently in looking for a chain saw part.


Yes. I have a strange feeling Google has this problem more than it used to.
I wonder if they need to tweak their algorithm? The other day I was looking
for "fission reactor power density" and it kept giving me references to
energy density. Which is a completely different thing. Today I was looking
for "average monthly cost of natural gas" or "residential monthly bill,"
but it kept telling me the cost per therm.


Regarding fission reactor power density, I finally found this, by the way:

https://aris.iaea.org/sites/core.html

I think one of the column headings is incorrect. It says:

Average core power density
[kW/kgU]

I think it should say:

Average Core power density [kW/l]

That makes more sense. Also, that is the heading for these same numbers are
in another table:

https://aris.iaea.org/sites/power.html

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

I've searched all over for the drawing - I think by William Lyne - of how this 
reputed radioactive thorium battery worked ( as opposed to thorium reactors). I 
can't find it anymore.  Google often does this in ignoring search terms, as 
happened to me recently in looking for a chain saw part.

From: Nicholas Palmer 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

You suggested that the internet had been scrubbed of links, thus insinuating a 
conspiracy to hide the truth. That google search shows that there are still 
many links discussing it which haven't been scrubbed. If the 'main' sites run 
by the crackpot inventor no longer exist because he died and isn't paying the 
bills anymore, it's hardly surprising!
Nick Palmer


On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 17:04, Chris Zell 
mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
That google search turns up a huge number of references to thorium reactors. 
Generally, we don't we don't refer to the Chernobyl "battery" or Three Mile 
island "battery". I am talking about a small device reputed to be simple and 
provide huge amounts of power - whose links are dead.  Google frequently leads 
searches far away from what was intended.

Since the discussion is about Bearden - he thought Arie De Geus was murdered in 
regard to a potential radioactive battery patent.

From: Nicholas Palmer 
mailto:greendirectionconsult...@googlemail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and 
cheniere.org<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Cb91b120bc4b8443f04ef08da50c6dca1%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C63792317535520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=2XgkaUidHWR%2F14obQiSPrGvi6PeGQZ5jn4alHf4huWA%3D=0>
 gone

Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?

" A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a 
thousand items "

Nick Palmer



On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell 
mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
Ah, the expected narcissistic reply

But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor - as your citation 
seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites but not really 
about the reputed thorium plasma battery

And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.

https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergyfromthorium.com%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Fmythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Cb91b120bc4b8443f04ef08da50c6dca1%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C63792317535520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=7NuA%2F3jcbvR4bQdF%2Fjni1XXFYnuzZ%2FSv3sjIbmqiryg%3D=0>

And here is a site denouncing the idea - loaded up with dead end links, as I 
said.

From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Vortex mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and 
cheniere.org<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Cb91b120bc4b8443f04ef08da50c6dca1%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C63792317535520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=2XgkaUidHWR%2F14obQiSPrGvi6PeGQZ5jn4alHf4huWA%3D=0>
 gone

Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
I would say that the 'thorium battery' on the internet has been thoroughly 
scrubbed and every link eliminated.

A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a thousand 
items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an organization 
devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with academic meetings and 
so on:

Thorium Energy Alliance

https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Cb91b120bc4b8443f04ef08da50c6dca1%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C63792317535520%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=yWdRkkxHLwB2gL0uBp0FJOO%2BZf7jM19WDjagSaoiSnk%3D=0>


There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.

These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which is to 
say, zero validity.



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.


CAUTION: This message

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Robin]

In reply to  Jim Dickenson's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2022 02:54:54 +0900:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hi,
>
>This sounds like the most logical explanation or there were explicit
>instructions in his will to discontinue the web sites.  Who knows?
>
>Interestingly, a Bearden DVD was sent to Dutchsinse and he posted it to
>YouTube on 29 April 2022.
>
>Here's the link:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Ggmi_6JFU=13s

I found this fascinating, whether or not it's true. ;)
The scalar wave technology he describes would explain many of the strange 
anecdotal anomaly reports that have cropped up
over the years, from accelerated isotope decay to anti-gravity.
Overall, I like the idea, though it does seem rather dangerous. Imagine 
accidentally exploding all the Actinides on
Earth at once!
Controlled decay, at will OTOH, would be extremely useful, if it could be done 
safely on a small localized scale.

If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jim Dickenson]

Hi,

This sounds like the most logical explanation or there were explicit
instructions in his will to discontinue the web sites.  Who knows?

Interestingly, a Bearden DVD was sent to Dutchsinse and he posted it to
YouTube on 29 April 2022.

Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Ggmi_6JFU=13s

The opening comments written on the YouTube page for the video are:
"Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden has passed away, and his website has been
deactivated, or taken down!
His company, energetic productions, sent this DVD to me directly,
unsolicited, with a hand written note: "Michael, Wasn't sure if you had
seen THIS ONE of Tom's Tahri Energetic Productions 1988 lecture about
Russian Directed Energy weapons, given at the World Trade Center of all
places.
 "

It is very sad that Tom Bearden has passed away - he really opened up many
people's minds to the possibilities that still abound in science.

Cheers

Jim

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:50 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robin  wrote:
>
>
>> >Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also
>> gone. I wonder whats up now.
>>
>> No one paying the bill any more?
>> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>>
>
> I suppose he was paying for the website with his credit card, the way I
> pay for LENR-CANR.org. When a credit card holder dies, as soon as the bank
> finds out, all transactions are stopped. The day the website bill comes
> due, payment will be refused and the ISP told the card holder is deceased.
> Of course the site will be taken offline. Ad revenues have nothing to do
> with it.
>
> I am making arrangements to keep that from happening to LENR-CANR.org.
>
>
> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
> information is being purged from internet as part of the political
>> campaign to delete fake news
>>
>
> I am pretty sure this is only because he is dead. No conspiracy needed.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Internet censorship does occur, dealt with by wiki at -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship


if conspiracy then openly admitted conspiracy

-- Original Message --
From: "Nicholas Palmer" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 18 Jun, 22 At 02:06
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

You suggested that the internet had been scrubbed of links, thus 
insinuating a conspiracy to hide the truth. That google search shows 
that there are still many links discussing it which haven't been 
scrubbed. If the 'main' sites run by the crackpot inventor no longer 
exist because he died and isn't paying the bills anymore, it's hardly 
surprising!


Nick Palmer



On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 17:04, Chris Zell <mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:




That google search turns up a huge number of references to thorium 
reactors. Generally, we don’t we don’t refer to the Chernobyl “battery” 
or Three Mile island “battery”. I am talking about a small device 
reputed to be simple and provide  huge amounts of power – whose links 
are dead.  Google frequently leads searches far away from what was 
intended.


Since the discussion is about Bearden – he thought Arie De Geus was 
murdered in regard to a potential radioactive battery patent.




From: Nicholas Palmer <mailto:greendirectionconsult...@googlemail.com> >

 Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:29 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org <http://cheniere.org> 
gone






Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?


 " A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than 
a thousand items "






Nick Palmer

















On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell <mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:




Ah, the expected narcissistic reply

But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor – as your 
citation seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites 
but not really about the reputed thorium  plasma battery


And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.

https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/ 
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergyfromthorium.com%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Fmythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=OW6Pm7V25G1uvnmaCN8f7OW56aHTxISNkdrFaa5Q0uE%3D=0>


And here is a site denouncing the idea – loaded up with dead end links, 
as I said.




From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> 



 Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
 To: Vortex mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and  cheniere.org 
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rGpw3B0q1DRwyMJ82eAj1F%2BgyYpsTMD6RX8iPUqZ6wo%3D=0> 
gone





Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> > wrote:

I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been 
thoroughly scrubbed and every link eliminated.
 A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a 
thousand items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an 
organization devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with 
academic meetings and so on:


 Thorium Energy Alliance

 https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/ 
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=MmIlU9zQBSjKNIlzZxEavDerIOirpnS%2FOm6cgipMALg%3D=0>





There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.
 These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. 
Which is to say, zero validity.








 CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.







CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the 
sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

The ISP, Worldnic.com, appears to be offline. It can't be reached. That
could be the problem.

Then again, net sleuths say that worldnic.com changed its name to netsol.com,
and it may now be part of networksolutions.com, which is still active.

https://www.networksolutions.com/

That is who hosts the domain. I guess you should contact them if you want
to fix this problem. I think they will know who the ISP is. They may not
tell you. If you say the owner is deceased, and you give proof, they might
help.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Whois says the Domain is still active. It is paid for through 2024.
Probably, the ISP was not paid. As I said, the ISP will probably not delete
the content from its servers for a while. If someone contacts them, they
may help with reviving the site or transferring the data.

Here is the Whois data:

Domain:
cheniere.org
Registrar:
Network Solutions, LLC
Registered On:
2000-11-26
Expires On:
2024-11-26
Updated On:
2019-04-01
Status:
clientTransferProhibited
Name Servers:
ns87.worldnic.com
ns88.worldnic.com




Raw Whois Data

Domain Name: cheniere.org
Registry Domain ID: c388288b8f734c77a4ef4e01f26dc86d-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Registrar URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Updated Date: 2019-04-01T18:45:38Z
Creation Date: 2000-11-26T22:44:56Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2024-11-26T22:44:56Z
Registrar: Network Solutions, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 2
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [image: email]@web.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8777228662
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Name: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant City: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant State/Province: FL
Registrant Postal Code: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Phone Ext: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Fax: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Fax Ext: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Nicholas Palmer]

You suggested that the internet had been scrubbed of links, thus
insinuating a conspiracy to hide the truth. That google search shows that
there are still many links discussing it which haven't been scrubbed. If
the 'main' sites run by the crackpot inventor no longer exist because he
died and isn't paying the bills anymore, it's hardly surprising!

Nick Palmer


On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 17:04, Chris Zell  wrote:

> That google search turns up a huge number of references to thorium
> reactors. Generally, we don’t we don’t refer to the Chernobyl “battery” or
> Three Mile island “battery”. I am talking about a small device reputed to
> be simple and provide huge amounts of power – whose links are dead.  Google
> frequently leads searches far away from what was intended.
>
>
>
> Since the discussion is about Bearden – he thought Arie De Geus was
> murdered in regard to a potential radioactive battery patent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nicholas Palmer 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:29 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
>
>
>
> Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?
>
>
> " A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a
> thousand items "
>
>
>
> Nick Palmer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> Ah, the expected narcissistic reply
>
>
>
> But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor – as your
> citation seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites but
> not really about the reputed thorium plasma battery
>
>
>
> And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.
>
>
>
>
> https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergyfromthorium.com%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Fmythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=OW6Pm7V25G1uvnmaCN8f7OW56aHTxISNkdrFaa5Q0uE%3D=0>
>
>
>
> And here is a site denouncing the idea – loaded up with dead end links, as
> I said.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rGpw3B0q1DRwyMJ82eAj1F%2BgyYpsTMD6RX8iPUqZ6wo%3D=0>
> gone
>
>
>
> Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been thoroughly
> scrubbed and every link eliminated.
>
>
> A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a
> thousand items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an
> organization devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with
> academic meetings and so on:
>
> Thorium Energy Alliance
>
> https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=MmIlU9zQBSjKNIlzZxEavDerIOirpnS%2FOm6cgipMALg%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
> There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.
>
>
> These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which
> is to say, zero validity.
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender.
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender.
>

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

That google search turns up a huge number of references to thorium reactors. 
Generally, we don't we don't refer to the Chernobyl "battery" or Three Mile 
island "battery". I am talking about a small device reputed to be simple and 
provide huge amounts of power - whose links are dead.  Google frequently leads 
searches far away from what was intended.

Since the discussion is about Bearden - he thought Arie De Geus was murdered in 
regard to a potential radioactive battery patent.

From: Nicholas Palmer 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?

" A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a 
thousand items "

Nick Palmer



On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell 
mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
Ah, the expected narcissistic reply

But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor - as your citation 
seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites but not really 
about the reputed thorium plasma battery

And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.

https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergyfromthorium.com%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Fmythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=OW6Pm7V25G1uvnmaCN8f7OW56aHTxISNkdrFaa5Q0uE%3D=0>

And here is a site denouncing the idea - loaded up with dead end links, as I 
said.

From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Vortex mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and 
cheniere.org<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rGpw3B0q1DRwyMJ82eAj1F%2BgyYpsTMD6RX8iPUqZ6wo%3D=0>
 gone

Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
I would say that the 'thorium battery' on the internet has been thoroughly 
scrubbed and every link eliminated.

A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a thousand 
items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an organization 
devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with academic meetings and 
so on:

Thorium Energy Alliance

https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C77dd5fe570e8497ffcb408da4f37a5f0%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637909397712202226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=MmIlU9zQBSjKNIlzZxEavDerIOirpnS%2FOm6cgipMALg%3D=0>


There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.

These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which is to 
say, zero validity.



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.


CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Nicholas Palmer]

Chris Zell - what part of this in Jed's reply did you not understand?

" A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a
thousand items "

Nick Palmer



On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:34, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Ah, the expected narcissistic reply
>
>
>
> But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor – as your
> citation seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites but
> not really about the reputed thorium plasma battery
>
>
>
> And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.
>
>
>
>
> https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/
>
>
>
> And here is a site denouncing the idea – loaded up with dead end links, as
> I said.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
>
>
>
> Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been thoroughly
> scrubbed and every link eliminated.
>
>
> A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a
> thousand items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an
> organization devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with
> academic meetings and so on:
>
> Thorium Energy Alliance
>
> https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C581c6842721449e8b98e08da4e51fed6%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C637908411341485871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=%2BokZhE5iQNKjkRzbjhIe6PPW9SmCKnDTI5jKl3qFK38%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
> There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.
>
>
> These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which
> is to say, zero validity.
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender.
>

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

Ah, the expected narcissistic reply

But I was talking about a thorium battery, not a reactor - as your citation 
seems to talk about. You know how to use google?  Many sites but not really 
about the reputed thorium plasma battery

And then there was Arie De Geus and his patents.

https://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/

And here is a site denouncing the idea - loaded up with dead end links, as I 
said.

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:
I would say that the 'thorium battery' on the internet has been thoroughly 
scrubbed and every link eliminated.

A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a thousand 
items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an organization 
devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with academic meetings and 
so on:

Thorium Energy Alliance

https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthoriumenergyalliance.com%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C581c6842721449e8b98e08da4e51fed6%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C1%7C637908411341485871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=%2BokZhE5iQNKjkRzbjhIe6PPW9SmCKnDTI5jKl3qFK38%3D=0>


There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.

These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which is to 
say, zero validity.



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Esa Ruoho  wrote:

Anyway I've mailed Anthony Craddock about cheniere + energyfromthevacuum.
> Eagerly waiting for a response.
> He should be the go-to-guy for paying for those domains.
>

It may be the domain has lapsed, or the ISP annual fee, or both. (In some
cases, the ISP also maintains the domain and bills them both on the same
day.) If the ISP has lapsed the data is probably still there. They are not
going to erase the server right away. As soon as I paid my annual fee,
they restored access to the website.

I think it was a computer that turned off LENR-CANR.org. It was automatic.
If I had contacted tech support I expect they would have turned it back on
even before I paid. If someone contacts Bearden's ISP, they might turn it
back on temporarily. Or they might get one person access so you can backup
all the data and later restore it to another ISP. Or send you a backup.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Esa Ruoho]

Anyway I've mailed Anthony Craddock about cheniere + energyfromthevacuum.
Eagerly waiting for a response.
He should be the go-to-guy for paying for those domains.


ke 15. kesäk. 2022 klo 1.11 Jed Rothwell (jedrothw...@gmail.com) kirjoitti:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The day the website bill comes due, payment will be refused and the ISP
>> told the card holder is deceased. Of course the site will be taken offline.
>>
>
> My credit card number once changed, and I forgot to update the ISP
> account. On the day the payment came due, it did not go through. The ISP
> computer took LENR-CANR.org offline *that day*. Until I paid.
>
>
>
>> Ad revenues have nothing to do with it.
>>
>
> Ad revenues go to the website owner, not the ISP. Even if ads were paying
> thousands a day, if the fee to the ISP is not paid, they will take the
> website offline.
>
>

-- 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/music | http://twitter.com/esaruoho |
+358403703659

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The day the website bill comes due, payment will be refused and the ISP
> told the card holder is deceased. Of course the site will be taken offline.
>

My credit card number once changed, and I forgot to update the ISP account.
On the day the payment came due, it did not go through. The ISP computer
took LENR-CANR.org offline *that day*. Until I paid.



> Ad revenues have nothing to do with it.
>

Ad revenues go to the website owner, not the ISP. Even if ads were paying
thousands a day, if the fee to the ISP is not paid, they will take the
website offline.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been thoroughly
> scrubbed and every link eliminated.


A Google search for "thorium battery" (in quotes) turns up more than a
thousand items. Without the quotes, more than a million. There is an
organization devoted to this topic. It is very much in operation, with
academic meetings and so on:

Thorium Energy Alliance

https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/


There were also rumors about strange deaths connected with it.


These rumors probably have as much validity as what you just said. Which is
to say, zero validity.

RE: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Chris Zell]

I would say that the ‘thorium battery’ on the internet has been thoroughly 
scrubbed and every link eliminated. There were also rumors about strange deaths 
connected with it.

If you work at the NSA in a cublcle monitoring this stuff, I just want to say 
‘Hi!’.

Afghanistan may be the greatest proof of mass conspiracy in my lifetime.  The 
longest war in US history and a half dozen intelligence reports fail to predict 
the fall of the government when they get to the airport (WSJ).  Media, 
Congress, Pentagon deaf, dumb and blind for 20 years. How does that work?

From: ROGER ANDERTON 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 4:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

information is being purged from internet as part of the political campaign to 
delete fake news




-- Original Message --
From: "Esa Ruoho" mailto:esaru...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 17:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also gone. I 
wonder whats up now.

—

http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //

+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial

On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson 
mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fobits.al.com%2Fus%2Fobituaries%2Fhuntsville%2Fname%2Fthomas-bearden-obituary%3Fid%3D32759244=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Ce2f53277a90e4e6182cf08da4d7eea4e%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637907504771123666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=e4LceTbZysrlBLVN0JENe%2BP0QHSldmyJq69kAm2OewU%3D=0>

Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20220428030850%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheniere.org%2F=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7Ce2f53277a90e4e6182cf08da4d7eea4e%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637907504771123666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=xlya5zqRJEWwxUMjeWQe7Qx0sf9Acb1vYeHueP84OBM%3D=0>

I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades before I got 
the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he aimed for in a safe 
way.

David Jonsson



CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin  wrote:


> >Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also
> gone. I wonder whats up now.
>
> No one paying the bill any more?
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>

I suppose he was paying for the website with his credit card, the way I pay
for LENR-CANR.org. When a credit card holder dies, as soon as the bank
finds out, all transactions are stopped. The day the website bill comes
due, payment will be refused and the ISP told the card holder is deceased.
Of course the site will be taken offline. Ad revenues have nothing to do
with it.

I am making arrangements to keep that from happening to LENR-CANR.org.


ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

information is being purged from internet as part of the political campaign
> to delete fake news
>

I am pretty sure this is only because he is dead. No conspiracy needed.

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Robin]

In reply to  Esa Ruoho's message of Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:17:42 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also gone. I 
>wonder whats up now. 

No one paying the bill any more?
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

AI being used to remove fake news ->

How AI can Remove Fake News

https://bywire.news/articles/how-ai-can-remove-fake-news

-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 21:54
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

information is being purged from internet as part of the political 
campaign to delete fake news


-- Original Message --
From: "Esa Ruoho" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 17:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also 
gone. I wonder whats up now.


—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial

On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson  
wrote:



https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244 
<https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244>


Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/ 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/>



I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades 
before I got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he 
aimed for in a safe way.



David Jonsson

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[ROGER ANDERTON]

information is being purged from internet as part of the political 
campaign to delete fake news


-- Original Message --
From: "Esa Ruoho" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 13 Jun, 22 At 17:17
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also 
gone. I wonder whats up now.


—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial

On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson  
wrote:



https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244 
<https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244>


Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/ 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/>



I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades 
before I got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he 
aimed for in a safe way.



David Jonsson

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Esa Ruoho]

Not only that but seems like http://energyfromthevacuum.com is also gone. I 
wonder whats up now. 

—
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://www.lackluster.org // 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
http://youtube.com/c/LacklusterOfficial 

> On 13. Jun 2022, at 15.30, David Jonsson  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244
> 
> Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
> https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/
> 
> I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades before I 
> got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he aimed for in a 
> safe way.
> 
> David Jonsson
> 

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Jones Beene]

What is the meaning of Bearden's work - as you understand it? Was there 
reliable evidence of an energy anomaly?
As I recall, there were several high quality attempted replications of MEG - 
like that of Naudin which showed nothing more than a moderately efficient 
transformer

Jones


David Jonsson wrote:  
 
https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244
Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 
2022https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/

I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades before I got 
the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he aimed for in a safe 
way.
David Jonsson
  

[Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[David Jonsson]

https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/thomas-bearden-obituary?id=32759244

Is there a web archive somewhere? Here is one saved in April 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030850/http://www.cheniere.org/

I began faxing Bearden in the 1990s. It took more than two decades before I
got the meaning of his critique. I hope we can achieve what he aimed for in
a safe way.

David Jonsson

Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN

[Mark Goldes]

Steve,

You end with FWIW.

I have to say, as with much of Bearden's ranting...not much!

Mark

OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it was inevitable.

Tom Bearden has weighed in on the recent STEORN incident.

See:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/072107.htm

According to Bearden it would appear that the STEORN device may have
suffered the fate of having been ...moved to the 'new' site with a
new local vacuum dynamics. Just to clarify, Bearden's explanation is
a tad more technical than what the above sentence would lead one to
assume.

Predictably, Bearden also speculated that ...the bad guys may have
adversely altered the machine's operation ...from a distance.

It's clear that many in the Vortex group do not hold Bearden's
research in high regard. Nevertheless, Bearden's concluding
paragraphs, at least for me, seemed to capture the STEORN-KINETICA
mishap in a provocatively stimulating way:

With high probability, one or the other � a natural change of local
'system to vacuum' interaction and dynamics, or an 'artificial'
alteration of local 'system to vacuum' interaction with the Steorn
machine � was what happened to cause Steorn's failed demo.

The fact that it occurred with repeated change of the affected
bearings in the machine shows that it was (again with high
probability) not the bearings that were at fault. That means the
environmental vacuum potential was indeed altered and different from
what the machine is designed for.

FWIW,

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 23, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Zachary Jones wrote:





I suppose I largely hold this same sense - though it does make me  
think of the PK/mind-machine affect documented by the PEAR lab.   
(Tests in which operator intention causes deviations in random  
systems)


I think their random number generation was not random.  Their  
hysteresis correction method was not totally effective.   I put forth  
a better method but I doubt anything like it was ever used and I  
would have no reason to think they would have see it. I think the  
project is defunct.


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RandPad.pdf

I do wonder if any hysteresis correction at all was necessary  
though.  It might mask real stuff.  Output from truly random  
processes, though having biased distributions, might better have been  
handled by comparative statistical methods.



Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN

[thomas malloy]

Zachary Jones wrote:



On Jul 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:46 AM, thomas malloy wrote:



IMHO, it's not proper to substitute the word research for  
speculation, which AFAIK, is what the local vacuum dynamics is.  
I'm wondering what the other Vortexians have to say about that?



I can neither confirm nor deny...



I suppose I largely hold this same sense - though it does make me  
think of the PK/mind-machine affect documented by the PEAR lab.   
(Tests in which operator intention causes deviations in random systems)


I can't resist mentioning that we believe that there are fallen angels 
who have nothing better to do than mess with people's minds.



--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---

Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xwmode=relatedsearch=


Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/









On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:10 PM, William Beaty wrote:


On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Harry Veeder wrote:


John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.



Heh.  Introducing...

  THE BILL BEATY-TCHISON EFFECT
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw




(( ( (  (   ((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





Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[Horace Heffner]

Memo to self - read *all* posts before replying.


On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:27 PM, William Beaty wrote:


On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Mark S Bilk wrote:


A Youtube search for BEATY-TCHISON finds this page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8pTio26Xgw


Doh!  A firefox bug, it starts ignoring ctrl-C ctrl-V

Earlier version:

   camera in a box
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyULc3jCgg

All videos:

   http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=wbeaty





(( ( (  (   ((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





Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[William Beaty]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Harry Veeder wrote:

  John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
  by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
  and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.


Heh.  Introducing...

  THE BILL BEATY-TCHISON EFFECT
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw




(( ( (  (   ((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]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[Stiffler Scientific]

Well Said

Or shall I say for those with an IQ above 5?

-Original Message-
From: William Beaty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 3:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn


On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Harry Veeder wrote:

  John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
  by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
  and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.


Heh.  Introducing...

  THE BILL BEATY-TCHISON EFFECT
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw




(( ( (  (   ((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]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[Stiffler Scientific]

My real reply.

It is totally ironic in my mind how so many people are sucked in on such
cr__ and have been for so long.

Take a look at one of the big commercial sites www.overunity.com and see how
the  subject matter is like a skipping record...

A shame that Steorn did not produce, but really, does any one think that for
the last 200 years that The Secret has been missed by a slight adjustment
in PM orientation?

In today's world (Real Life) 5-10 people are having the same idea at the
same time and at least two are pursuing it. So are we saying it just took a
little Plexiglas and frog legs in the soup to get it to work?

The general population of vorts are better than the backing of Steorn
Thing, when you come to see they never intended to show WORK by the
device.

Bill B. you have hit the nail on the head...



-Original Message-
From: William Beaty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 3:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn


On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Harry Veeder wrote:

  John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
  by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
  and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.


Heh.  Introducing...

  THE BILL BEATY-TCHISON EFFECT
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw




(( ( (  (   ((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]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[Mark S Bilk]

On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Bill Beaty wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Harry Veeder wrote:
On 6/7/2007 6:47 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:

John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.

Heh.  Introducing...

THE BILL BEATY-TCHISON EFFECT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw

Hi Bill,

Er, that's the URL of the Perendev and Bedini motors video page.

A Youtube search for BEATY-TCHISON finds this page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8pTio26Xgw

which I think is the one you meant.  Wow, you have succeeded 
in creating antigravity by tapping the zero-point energy, 
as proved by the fact that at the end you actually pulled in 
a weird alien creature from another universe!

  Mark

Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn

[William Beaty]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Mark S Bilk wrote:

 A Youtube search for BEATY-TCHISON finds this page:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8pTio26Xgw

Doh!  A firefox bug, it starts ignoring ctrl-C ctrl-V

Earlier version:

   camera in a box
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyULc3jCgg

All videos:

   http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=wbeaty





(( ( (  (   ((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

[Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn -was: UPDATED VIDEO FROM JOSEPH NEWMAN

[Mark S Bilk]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:50:37PM -0500, JNPCo. wrote:
UPDATED VIDEO FROM JOSEPH NEWMAN:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-648523340419613894

There's no way to tell what's in that motor, or what's powering it.

http://www.josephnewman.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086hl=en

I spot-checked this 1+ hour video in 8 places and found no details
of whatever he's pushing.

The phenomenon described by John Hutchison as featured on the Science 
Channel, was predicted and demonstrated back in the 1980s ... and 

John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.
...

I have witnessed a demonstration of Joseph Newman's Electromagnetic 
Air and Space Vehicle prototype.  It consists of an aluminized helium 
balloon wrapped with #38 gauge copper wire.  The system is nominally 
heavier than air.  When the wire coil is connected to a 200 volt 
battery, the balloon gradually lifts into the air.  It then aligns 
with the earth's magnetic field as it rises.  If the current is cut 
off, the balloon immediately begins to fall.  If the current 
...

So he made a helium balloon with enough lift to almost carry 
an electromagnet and battery, and when he switches on the magnet
it repels enough against the earth's magnetic field to provide
the remaining lift and the thing floats.

Big deal.  If he'd used a bigger helium balloon he wouldn't have 
to switch on the electromagnet and use up the battery.  Wow, 
he's invented the Zeppelin!  But I think there's prior art.

The following is the original letter from Thomas Bearden regarding 
energy machine inventor Joseph Newman's pioneering work:
...

Tom Bearden is a total fraud.  He just makes up reams of 
pseudoscientific bullshit in order to sell his books and CDs.  
His patented MEG generator doesn't work, as many people who built 
one found out.  If it did work, and generated 40 watts at 120 VAC 
out of nothing, forever, as the patent says, he could sell 
millions of them for $500 each and be a billionaire.  He doesn't,
because it's a hoax.

Bedini...

As to the various magnetic motors, Bedini, Steorn, etc., if every
permanent magnet field is conservative, meaning that the energy 
gained by going around any closed loop in the field back to the 
starting point is always zero, then the motors can't possibly work, 
right?  That's been mentioned here before.  That Russian one gets 
its energy from the work done by pushing the rotor into the stator, 
and after a few seconds slows down and stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_field

It's like those wheels with the pendulum weights that flop over
at the top, which don't work either, because gravity is a 
conservative field too.  (I'm a social-democrat myself.)

Why does anyone here think the Steorn motor has any chance of 
working?  

Sorry, I don't mean to be a party-pooper. I believe in hydrinos!

  Mark

Re: [Vo]:Re: Newman, Hutchison, Bearden, Steorn -was: UPDATED VIDEO FROM JOSEPH NEWMAN

[Harry Veeder]

On 6/7/2007 6:47 PM, Mark S Bilk wrote:


 
 John Hutchison is a total fraud who makes levitation videos
 by fastening a camera to a wooden box, putting objects in it,
 and flipping the box over, so the objects appear to fall upwards.
 ...

When I am feeling generous I see his work as a kind of art.
His medium is the language, imagery and instruments of modern physics.

Harry

[Vo]:Tom Bearden on suppression of overunity systems

[Paul Lowrance]

Some recent articles by Tom Bearden on the suppression of overunity systems --

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html



Paul

[Vo]: Bearden site

[thomas malloy]

I came across this website. I asked the author why he bothered posting 
this garbage.


http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm


--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---

Re: Bearden

[John Coviello]

Title: Bearden



Weather modification and control might seem really 
outlandish. But, we could be nearing the point where where weather 
modification and control could be possible. We do have a black budget 
infested government with plenty of spare cash and research space to pursue 
concepts like weather modification and control. Has anyone heard of the 
HAARP program in Alaska? That is an effort to control the ionosphere and 
related natural phenomenon with high frequency radio waves. Would it 
really be impossible to use this sort of technology for weather modification and 
control? No. Perhaps not a perfect science at the moment, but if you 
could engineer a minor storm into a major hurricane and generally control its 
movement within the confines of upper air steering patterns (such as using your 
technology to enhance a High pressure system to steer the storm in a desired 
direction), then you'd have serious power at you disposal. You'd have the 
power to enhance or destroy a storm like Katrina, or direct it towards or away 
from land masses. Katrina is going to cost an astounding $200 
Billion. That's a huge tool for blackmail. 

I'm not saying weather modification and control are 
a reality in 2005, I have no evidence to support that conclusion, but it 
iscertainly not beyond the scope of possibilities in this modern 
era. One disturbing thing to consider is the fact that the HAARP program 
is now controlled by the Bush Family controlled Caryle Group corporation. 
That is a scary thought. HAARP could potentially be used for many sinister 
purposes including massive mind control and altering the natural 
environment.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  thomas malloy 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:03 
  AM
  Subject: Bearden
  
  Vortexians;
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong but; AFAIK, Tom Bearden has yet to demonstrate a 
  working machine. As for modifying the weather, IMHO, that's right out of the 
  conspiracy theory fever swamp.
  
  Subject: 
  FWD: About Thomas Bearden and Hurricane Katrina, et. 
  al.Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:20 
  -0700Status: 
  NormalFrom: Patrick 
  Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]Save AddressThanks Janet!Subject: Thomas Bearden...Those of us who attended the 
  New Energy Conferences held in Colorado in the early 90's had the good 
  fortuneof hearing Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (retd) speak. 
  Here is some of the latest from his website.Janet LeeLt. Col Thomas E. Bearden 
  (retd).  
  http://www.cheniere.org/toc.htmlPhD, MS (nuclear engineering), BS (mathematics - 
  minor electronic engineering)Co-inventor - the 2002 Motionless Electromagnetic 
  Generator - a 
  replicated overunity EM generatorListed in Marquis' Who'sWho in America, 
  2004Here 
  is the latest update from Tom Bearden on hurricane Katrina. He feels we are 
  now into the kind of scalar electromagnetic war he has been warning about for 
  years. This is from the correspondence section 
  http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html Tom Bearden. referring to the work ... US Patent awarded March 26, 
  2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues. .. 
  http://www.cheniere.org/ Source 
  of foregoing quote by Tom Bearden: For specific (but not all) analytical 
  details, see book by Tom Bearden, "Fer de Lance" (updated 2nd edition 
  2002), 
  http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s64.htmPlease see the paper on my website listing more than a dozen of the 
  known terrible falsities in the CEM/EE model, at link 
  http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . Another related paper is at 
  http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analogy3.doc 
  .E.g., in 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already 
  highly-curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations. He thereby ARTIBRARILY discarded 
  all 
  asymmetrical Maxwellian 
  systems, including those that freely take their excess energy from the vacuum, 
  just to get simpler equations easier to algebraically solve. So he restricted 
  our electrical power systems to only that class of systems that self-destroy 
  their own energy extraction from the vacuum, faster than they power their 
  loads. These STUPID symmetrized Lorentz equations are still being taught to 
  all our electrical engineers as "gospel" and 
untouchable.

RE: Bearden

[R . O . Cornwall]

Title: Bearden








Weather control:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7995











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Coviello
Sent: 14 September 2005 10:56
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Bearden







Weather modification and control might seem really
outlandish. But, we could be nearing the point where where weather
modification and control could be possible. We do have a black budget
infested government with plenty of spare cash and research space to pursue
concepts like weather modification and control. Has anyone heard of the
HAARP program in Alaska?
That is an effort to control the ionosphere and related natural phenomenon with
high frequency radio waves. Would it really be impossible to use this
sort of technology for weather modification and control? No.
Perhaps not a perfect science at the moment, but if you could engineer a minor
storm into a major hurricane and generally control its movement within the
confines of upper air steering patterns (such as using your technology to
enhance a High pressure system to steer the storm in a desired direction), then
you'd have serious power at you disposal. You'd have the power to enhance
or destroy a storm like Katrina, or direct it towards or away from land
masses. Katrina is going to cost an astounding $200 Billion. That's
a huge tool for blackmail. 











I'm not saying weather modification and control are a
reality in 2005, I have no evidence to support that conclusion, but it
iscertainly not beyond the scope of possibilities in this modern
era. One disturbing thing to consider is the fact that the HAARP program
is now controlled by the Bush Family controlled Caryle Group corporation.
That is a scary thought. HAARP could potentially be used for many
sinister purposes including massive mind control and altering the natural
environment.







- Original Message - 





From: thomas
malloy 





To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Sent: Wednesday,
September 14, 2005 2:03 AM





Subject: Bearden











Vortexians;











Correct me if I'm wrong but; AFAIK, Tom Bearden has yet to demonstrate
a working machine. As for modifying the weather, IMHO, that's right out of the
conspiracy theory fever swamp.












Subject: FWD: About
Thomas Bearden and Hurricane Katrina, et. al.
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:20 -0700
Status: Normal
From: Patrick Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Save Address
Thanks Janet!
Subject: Thomas Bearden...
Those of us who attended the
New Energy Conferences held in Colorado in the early 90's had the good
fortune
of hearing Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (retd)
speak. Here is some of the latest from his website.
Janet Lee
Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden (retd). 
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
PhD,
MS (nuclear engineering), BS (mathematics - minor electronic engineering)
Co-inventor - the 2002 Motionless Electromagnetic Generator - a replicated overunity EM generator
Listed
in Marquis' Who'sWho in America,
2004
Here is the latest update from Tom Bearden on
hurricane Katrina. He feels we are now into the kind of scalar electromagnetic
war he has been warning about for years. This is from the correspondence section
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html 
Tom Bearden. referring to the work ... US
Patent awarded March 26, 2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues. .. http://www.cheniere.org/ 
Source of foregoing quote by Tom Bearden: For
specific (but not all) analytical details, see book by Tom Bearden, Fer
de Lance (updated 2nd edition 2002),
http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s64.htm

Please
see the paper on my website listing more than a dozen of the known terrible
falsities in the CEM/EE model, at link
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . Another related paper is at
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analogy3.doc
.
E.g., in 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already highly-curtailed
Maxwell-Heaviside equations. He thereby ARTIBRARILY discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, including those that freely
take their excess energy from the vacuum, just to get simpler equations easier
to algebraically solve. So he restricted our electrical power systems to only
that class of systems that self-destroy their own energy extraction from the
vacuum, faster than they power their loads. These STUPID symmetrized Lorentz
equations are still being taught to all our electrical engineers as
gospel and untouchable.