How I Came to My Approach to Bring Free Energy to Humanity, Part 5: My Days of Study

They have not ended, but the first few years were particularly revelatory.

The only time that I ever saw or heard of TV coverage of Dennis Lee that was not part of a smear campaign was the first time. The day that I met Dennis, he spoke that evening in front of several hundred people to announce his intention to compete against the electric companies. He had a bodyguard that day, because of the many death threats. Several camera crews filmed his speech, and at least one was from Canada. The next week, a Canadian news clip about Dennis’s speech aired, and it was evenhanded, even positive. That was similar to how the most popular documentary in Canadian history to its time was the documentary about Noam Chomsky’s life, and it has never aired on American network TV that I know of. That kind of says it all about the media.

About a week after that Canadian clip about Dennis aired, a Seattle news station finally reported on Dennis’s speech, and it was a smear job that lied about the tax credit that Dennis’s heat pump qualified for. I do not know of an American TV show since then that did not smear Dennis, and none of them ever wanted to interview me (not that I would let them, liars that they are).

When our effort ended up in my home town and the global elite decided to take us out, I had already had quite a few awakening moments during my journey with Dennis. The day after the raid, the newspaper that I grew up reading and that my mother worked for published its first of many libelous articles about us, as it was simply a mouthpiece for the corrupt officials who had been sicced on us. A year later, while Dennis sat in solitary confinement with his astronomical bail, the Los Angeles Times, the other newspaper that I grew up reading, was finishing its “investigation” of Dennis, which I read the next month. It took about an hour to read it, and when I finished it, I said to myself, “They can simply make it up as they go.” I never saw a mainstream article about Dennis that was not a smear job (except once, after Dennis subpoenaed a lying reporter during the prosecutorial misconduct hearings – he knew how to write accurate articles, but that was not his job), and they generally had quite a bit of outright lying in them.

The next year, when I heard about a new magazine that exposed the media’s lies, I was ready for its message, and before the year ended, I subscribed to it and began to learn at Noam’s and Ed Herman’s scholarly knees. I began the journey of learning how deeply that I had been lied to in my lifetime, and the first few years were the most revelatory. I soon learned that mass-murdering thieves were held up to me as heroes and saints. I learned that same year (1990) that the book that saved my father’s health was banned in the USA, as if I had been raised in book-burning Nazi Germany. I later learned that Noam and Ed’s first joint book was subjected to one of the most outrageous instances of censorship ever. I began wondering if anything that I had been taught in school was true.

I soon discovered Ralph McGehee’s CIA memoir. I already knew that Oswald did not shoot JFK and that the CIA covered it all up. I soon learned that I was a beneficiary of history’s greatest crime. If I had not had my life-ruining journey of awakening with Dennis, I wonder if I would have ever heard of Noam or Ed, or doubted the media and mainstream history that much. The popular culture in the USA is erected on a bloody mountain of lies, and I quickly discovered that nobody wanted to hear about it, as everybody nurtures their comforting illusions.

There is nothing really to dispute about Ed’s statistical analyses that falsified the idea that the media was some kind of pursuer of the truth. Ed’s Propaganda Model has never been credibly challenged, and Noam said that it won’t be, either. Ed’s and Noam’s critics could not string two rational thoughts together when they were not lying outright. On American foreign policy, Noam and Ed were second to none.

In 1991, I met Brian O’Leary, and within the first five minutes of meeting him, he identified Sparky Sweet as the free-energy inventor that my friend visited. Some years later, I heard from a close friend about his kidnapping and underground technology show given by a dissident faction of the people who run the world. The demonstration included free energy and antigravity technology. When I told Brian about that show, he was not even surprised and he was more interested in my CIA-contract-agent relative who worked for Henry Kissinger.

In those days, not only was I deep into study, but I was also exposed to events such as those. I came to realize that little on the fringes is valid, and I got sucked into Velikovsky’s catastrophism, Moon landings issues, and other fringe and often conspiratorial topics. After years of study, I concluded that a brand of catastrophism that is peddled today, of global celestial catastrophes in the past several thousand years, does not have much, if any, credible evidence in its favor, while the Moon landings happened as NASA presented them, although ET encounters may well have been covered up. When Brian hosted a UFO conference, the military arrived and tried to take it over. Immediately after Brian refused their “offer” to do classified UFO work, he nearly died in a life-shortening incident, which Brian believed was their response to his rejection. The same people tried to co-opt Steven Greer’s effort, and they dangled two billion dollars at him (a billion more than the CIA offered Dennis).

I also studied quite a bit of the history and current practice of Western medicine, and most of Western medicine is worthless, as the entire biomedical field is deeply corrupt, particularly concerning infectious and degenerative disease.

I am constantly approached by people who peddle their fringe ideas, and not much of it survived my scrutiny. The fringes are filled with chaff. Few fringe enthusiasts take a scientific approach to the subjects of their enthusiasm. They often hang their hats on the flimsiest of evidence and ignore robust evidence that falsifies them. One of many instances that come to mind is Graham Hancock’s idea that Antarctica was ice-free in historical times. There is not a living scientist who believes that. The ice sheets at Antarctica are incontestably many millions of years old, but I keep getting approached by people who peddle ideas like ancient technologically advanced civilizations, à la Hancock, but their “evidence” is thin to non-existent, and then they insult me when I don’t buy what they are selling.

Bart Sibrel had me going for a couple of days, before I realized that his idea was untenable. But Bart will go to his grave believing that he found evidence that the Apollo astronauts never left low-Earth orbit. I have seen people with this kind of fixation that is impervious to the evidence in probably every area that I have looked into.

Whether they are mainstream or fringe theories, nearly everybody gets fixated on their favorite ideologies and won’t budge. The evidence does not matter to them, and such people cannot help with my task. Winnowing the wheat from the chaff, whether in the mainstream or on the fringes, takes hard work and a willingness to be wrong and have one’s cherished evidence falsified. That is the scientific ideal, which is all too infrequently seen in the real world.

These kinds of situations helped me hone my tools of discernment and contributed to my current approach, as those experiences helped me develop my comprehensive perspective. The people that I seek need to think comprehensively. Otherwise, they get lost and fail to distinguish between what is important and what is trivial, and end up going down rabbit holes to nowhere.

The arrival of free energy for public use will be the biggest event in the human journey, and everything else is noise.