Jones—

I could go on and on about other possible examples of government/National lab 
cover-ups.  MHO (my humble opinion) is the same as you expressed below:
____________
Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.

It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R&D. This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something.

Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden.

Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R&D to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.

Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.

In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come.

So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it.

Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought he 
had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this null 
assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not a 
resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both ways – 
cheap energy at no risk of weaponization.

Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in clear 
energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You can’t 
weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes)…

It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably best 
left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out there.

_____________


Since I tend to believe the Mill’s theory about hydrino’s and evidence for same 
UHH 50 years ago, I have wondered why UDD has not been measured by Mills.

I would bet that Shelby Brewer and other “connected folks” who were directors 
of Black Light Power in the 1990’s (see the link to the BLP item with its list 
of directors in this thread) asked the question and decided not to pursue the 
question for one reason or another.  And Mills is making good hay ($$$) 
following their advice not to pursue the question  and to delay release of his 
technology, keeping it out of the public domain.

Brewer,  who is now passed on, apparently indorsed the following about Mills 
and BLP:

“I grew up and was educated (1960s) in a time when Einstein’s lifelong (but 
unattained) quest for a unified field theory was celebrated rather anecdotally, 
as a sort of historical curiosity. One spoke of theories as â ˜tools set” or  a 
˜model set”.   The prevailing mentality was  ˜one model does not fit all.”  A 
model would work and be useful in one set of circumstances, but not another; 
use a model to get practical results,  but a pursuit of absolute unifying truth 
was regarded largely as a waste of candle wax. Other characteristics of this 
time in science were intolerance, arrogance, and rigidity. Scientists preened 
and postured, became intensely political, and delegated the ˜doing™ of science 
to students. Science was becoming big science, a big governmental and corporate 
enterprise, demanding more resources and becoming less accountable. We now have 
an expensive standing army in American science, marching in place, with little 
creative, definable mission. Most of what passes for science is merely 
chauvinism ,  who has the largest accelerator, etc.

Now along comes Randell Mills.  Without expending billions or even millions or 
even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers dollars, Dr. Mills has apparently 
completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory. Dr. Mills’s theory is 
presented in his book,   /The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum 
Mechanics/ (July 2002).   This is a huge achievement for three reasons.   
First, the Mills Theory tidies up theoretical physics by stitching together 
quantum mechanics and relativity.  That in itself is a major triumph.   Second, 
and more important, the Mills Theory explains several major empirical anomalies 
that have vexed physicists for decades: the sun’s energy balance deficit; the 
dark matter in space phenomena; and mountains of atomic-electron spectral data 
that is inconsistent with prevailing theory. Third, the Mills Theory gives rise 
to the possibility of an inexhaustible energy source based on phenomenology not 
yet recognized and accepted by the scientific community.

Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy generation 
application as an entrepreneur’s without largesse from the US Government, and 
without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood.   Because his 
enterprise does not suffer these two impediments, it just might succeed.   If 
so, Mills will be the next Thomas Edison.”

/Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (top nuclear official 
in the Reagan Administration)/

I thought in the 1980’s that Brewer was a pretty good (honest broker) as DOE 
Secretaries go.

Bob Cook


Reply via email to