My most honest answer would be to indicate various relative articles to relevent snow-balling current R&D events published by such as Janes Defense Weekly/JDW on such as so-called Anti-Grav R&D(misnomered somewhat) and obvious evidentiary occurances such as the Norway Spiral missle interdiction test a la' Russia as a 'shot' over Nobel-Obama's US bow. Frank Znidarsic's work is relavant and Joachim Hauser's work on TORSION WAVES is particularly relavant. NASA PR-chief Marc Millis's team posted some future 'Projected Hyper-Speed' starship concepts on-line in past recent years that were basic models of concepts that I had been sharing with the NASA Advanced Propulsion Research/BBP-Breakthrough Propulsion Research project at the time. It kind've looked roughly like a cross between a dart fusilage through a large gyro-scope-like configuation. If the NASA artist and my inputs were merely happenstancial-accident of the moment; I can only guess. I never 'spoke' with the artist. Also at the moment of my inputs when I 'know' that the project was somewhat floundering well-short of actionable R&D designs my designs coicided nearly to the second of NING LI taking over and being Black-Project sequestered to the tune of HUGE FUNDING from congress that they COULDN'T EVEN ADMIT/SPEAK OF WHAT THE PROJECT WAS other than hint at exotic hyper-speed propulsion. . . .(hard-copy that Russia had also and did indeed build with the predicted phenomenon success) And of course Podkletnov, & Aethyr Physicist Antonov, & Ning Li, & even John Hutchison added very relevant inputs as well as numerous other not as publically verbose as moi.
But I'm thinking that other publications such as JDW, & ZPEnergy, AmSci, etc. that give some tacit acknowledgement to the potential relevance of my work are not routinely gaffed for doing so. I have published under the the name of 'Joachim Harbach,' & 'Jake Lev Harbach,' & 'Jack Harbach,' & 'Jack O'Sullivan,' & 'Jack Harbach O'Sullivan,' & with variation using the O'Sullivan alternative spelling of Gaelic O'Suileabhain. Rather than incipient schizophrenia; the name variations allow me to catalogue-recognize these articles on sight relative to the 'time' when I first wrote/published them. And then I can quick-search-locate them in a particular archive efficiently. I wrote of this under the variation of my name 'Jake Lev Harbach' published by the Science Foundation(its still on line) and NOBODY WAS LAUGHING. So if I got to swim in these waters and be apart of raising planetary conscious by some even slightly significant increment; then---:-)-<Cool> Notably: Within the last 48 hrs. or so 'somebodies' fairly notable computer-power/hacking abilites has shanhaid that very [email protected] email site and now have locked me out and are in full control of my archives. I find that somewhat intriguely interesting. I would tend to conjecture that those who took not of my disjointed CAPS ramblings were aware that they dovetailed with the 'real' results/real proof of concept R&D, and that my insights have given them a further theorectical leg-up; or not; time will tell. And real restoration of integrity depends on the 'Proof in the Pudding.' I should live so long. The JDW connection is that their publicly-rated highly credible articles concerning Aerospace Company References to Boeing Phantom Works, Ning Li, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works etc. that have purused my inputs(at their request) etc. But obviously your officianado-inquires are going to admit to SQUAT. And this is obvious considering National Defence Protocols & the future Mega-Profits. Acknowledgement on their part would commit them to royalties. Get real. An extreme example would be: "How much royalties were paid to Albert Einstein for 'Relativity &/or the A-Bomb?" Answer:-->"ZIPPITY-DO-DA." (Oh crap; 'cap's makes this point irrelevant!~;-) Note: Einstein got his Nobel for Solar-Votaic-Effect & NOT for Relativity eg. E=MC^2. The CAPS is largely & boringly a (somewhat elitist) non-issue (which is inane/ pertinent info/data ignored because of caps? or the 'wrong-language'/ or unclear-articulation because a 'non-English' speaker is trying to communicate inadvertantly 'clumsily' in his/her non-native language; for instance &/or be the same issue his spoken syntax is difficult to follow in translation? These arguments are arrogant; & absurd; and unworthy of vortex-l. Since I have 'belabored' your-alls patience; these explanations are due; but as justifications every person is responsible to their own take, pro-or-con on the whole affair. Ciao Amigos~JHO~ From: [email protected] Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:42:29 +1300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:~Norway proof of concept/Man-made Man-played~ To: [email protected] Isn't this a bit backwards? Shouldn't we be skeptical of the person often talking in all caps, making up new words and claiming government connections? Maybe Jack's stuff is a distorted view of the work I'm doing, or maybe it's bunk I am not in the right mood to check, but Jack, have you shared any evidence/proof that what you claim is true? Either way maybe that is a better thing to focus on. On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan > <[email protected]> wrote: >> ?Am I speaking with contracted >> Govt.-debunkers/hecklers/discreditors/here. > > Esa is not the government debunker assigned to Vortex-L. That is my job. For all the Vorts who might have trouble following JHO'S posts, here's a primer on the weaponization of spin: http://www.shipov.com/science.html Jack Sarfatti has put it all on youtube anyway. T
