Free-Energy Physics, Free-Energy Inventors, Mainstream Science, and the Global Elite

Tying it all together

I have written several posts on these topics (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and it is time to conjoin them a little more, as a comprehensive perspective is needed to successfully navigate these issues. Many rabbit holes to nowhere beckon, as people grind their axes.

This post was inspired by a comment that I made yesterday, that the Michelson-Morley experiment predated Einstein’s explanation of it by many years, with his special theory of relativity in 1905. In that case, the data preceded the theory to explain it. But for Einstein’s general theory of relativity a decade later, in 1915, his theory preceded any data for it other than Mercury’s orbit, and the 1919 eclipse expedition was the first confirmation of general relativity and made Einstein a household name. But general relativity spawned many ideas that even Einstein himself denied but were later confirmed. Even in orthodox circles today, Einstein’s cosmological constant, dark matter, and dark energy are suspected to be fudges to preserve Einstein’s equations, similar to how a phantom planet was proposed to preserve Newton’s equations. Einstein himself thought that relativity would eventually be supplanted by new theories, but that the best parts of relativity would survive in them.

Heat engines were more than a century old before Carnot applied his theoretical framework to them. Theory could lag far behind practice. Yesterday’s post on the “laws of physics” objection to free energy is also relevant. Every Epoch of the human journey had its arrogant intellectuals who thought that they had the universe all figured out or nearly so, and it is no different today. The giants of physics were far more modest in their assertions than the priesthood of science has been, as they sip their sherry and attack anything that diverges from today’s dogma. In Brian O’Leary’s Suppression Syndrome, the first named force of suppression is the scientists themselves, as they defend their shaky paradigms. The Wright brothers flew for five years, ignored by the media and ridiculed by scientists for their impossible, “fabled” feat. They actually had to leave the USA and fly over Paris for a week before scientists finally admitted that the “impossible” had been done. Thomas Edison faced similar ridicule over incandescent lighting, even while the public strolled under his lights in Menlo Park. Soon before he died, Brian informed me that today’s scientists are even more close-minded than they were when the Wright brothers first flew.

There have been many demonstrations of free-energy technology, going back at least as far as Moray in the 1920s. Sparky Sweet’s demonstration was one of the more recent, and years after I heard about Sparky, my friend was kidnapped for his underground exotic technology show. When I eventually told Brian about it, he was not even surprised, and replied with, “So, he got a show from the spooks.” That was the same day that I met Mark, and I soon heard him tell an abbreviated version of his rough treatment after inventing a free-energy prototype. One of my scientist friends confirmed Mark’s story with one of his professors, Elizabeth Rauscher, who invented her own free-energy prototype. Mark has been called the “father” of his branch of research.

Not long after that, I heard James Gilliland talk about a free-energy device that he was involved with, which worked similarly to how Sparky’s did (it got cold when it worked), and how the spooks came running, people died, and the rest of that familiar mayhem before they realized that they were in way over their heads and ceased their efforts.

Sparky mailed off working prototypes to the leading energy institutions, expecting the tickertape parade, but his harassment began then, his fatal “heart attack” may well have been induced, as Brian’s first one likely was, and as with Mark and many others, Sparky’s equipment was confiscated after his death. This is how the real world works, but naïve scientists in their comfortable, sherry-sipping berths will never learn any differently. Mainstream science is worthless in this field. Only after free-energy technology is delivered to the public will mainstream scientists begin to wake up, but that goes for the world at large, too. Until free energy is delivered to the public, it will be denied, ridiculed, called “impossible,” etc. This is nothing new.

The global elite lead the organized-suppression activities, but it is really a small part of the dynamic. Far more important are the somnolent masses, those sherry-sipping scientists, a compliant media, and so on, in what I call the 1% conspiracy and 99% complicity situation, which is typical in situations like this. The degenerative-disease and infectious-disease rackets operate similarly, and the sociologies for all of the global rackets are similar. Blaming organized suppression for all of this is the victim’s view of the world. We all have a hand in this.

Expecting a fully-fleshed-out theory to explain free-energy technology is silly. I respect free-energy theorists, but they can’t all be right, as I have seen about a dozen alternative physics models, and the primary upshot of all of them is free energy. Jeane Manning collected more than 30 names that have been proposed as the source for free-energy technology. We will see which one sticks when free-energy tech comes in from the shadows, if it does.

Theoretical efforts such as the quest for quantum gravity I see as incipient attempts to create a unified field theory. While I respect such attempts, until the technologies that my friend saw can be studied by mainstream scientists, I won’t have much interest in those theoretical efforts. I don’t need mainstream-approved unified field theory to do what I do. As with special relativity, heat engines, incandescent lighting, and man-powered flight, theory is going to bring up the rear on the free-energy and antigravity issues.

The free-energy field is in a state of arrested development, with its focus on free-energy inventors, free-energy theories, and taking the well-worn paths of failure. I am trying something different.