I'm not exactly sure, but I think you miss the point entirely. We all know
about the claims of Hendershot, Moray, Hamel, Kenyon, Johnson, the list is
endless. Their claims are not evidence of any proof at all. Would you also
say that claims of UFO sightings and/or abductions are proof that aliens
exist? Some do. Based on your definition of a proof, there is enough
'evidence' to support the existance of the Easter Bunny - can a few hundred
million children be wrong? As I have said to you, I have all the hope in
the world that a way can be found to open the door to a functional free
energy solution - and I work towards that goal. Regardless of your own
personally held belief, the evidence at present is not so cut and dried as
you would prefer to believe.
It is what it is, I don't have a problem with that. But you can not support
your case with evidence that is purely anecdotal at best. IMO, Jerry is
quite correct in his approach to any claim of success in this field - prove
it. This position is born from experience. The alternative to this stand is
some quasi-religious mumbo jumbo land where everyone wades through a sea of
claims that remain unproven. Give me hard cold fact any day. I can't run my
household appliances on anything less can I?
Perhaps this thread is wearing a bit thin. All the talk in the world 'aint
going to solve our problem now is it? Work, work, work.
At 23:25 1/04/99 +1200, John Berry wrote:
>Bill McMurtry wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> I may have a problem with NTSC, yes. Surely someone in the US would be
>> interested in such an experiment. Absolutely nothing to loose in trying it
>> You say "the evidence is that it has already been proven (free energy)".
>> What evidence do you refer, I'm familiar with lots of claims and I can't
>> think what it is you're refering to. Sure there are lots of videos and
>> statements from people who honestly believe they have free energy in one
>> form or another. Would you call this evidence valid?
>Absolutely, In the case of permanent magnetic motors all they have to do
>many have done this, for instance Johnson.
>Or how about hubbard and hendershot, What about Moray or hamel, Kenyon
>or many others that have been made and tested, there are many such devices
>I had a good enough memory could write a book about, You can chose to
>the demo's were faked or flawed but if so I can say that of many things,
>there is much more proof of free energy than many things we take for
granted to be
>Anyway I know it is true because I have figured out the link, That is to
>have realized the dynamic that they have and it is without doubt not just
>I now understand their workings.
>> I've been privy to and conducted many examinations of various claims. All
>> have eventually been found in error for one reason or another. Most of the
>> claimants are honest and truthful (though there have been exceptions) and
>> have made genuine mistakes. Problem is we hear about the claim but we
>> rarely hear about the outcome of an examination if it is negative (nobody
>> wants to hear a negative result?). Some claims, by their very nature,
>> remain unchallanged. Therefore it seems unwise to use the number of claims
>> to add weight to an arguement for the affirmative.
>> It's not that I don't want to believe. It would probably be more correct to
>> state the opposite
>Only probably? You probably want free energy to be real???
>> , otherwise we would'nt be having this conversation,
>> don't you think? What is the evidence that drives your belief that free
>> energy has already been proven beyond doubt? We can believe what we like,
>> that is thankfully our own business. However, a claim is a statement of
>> belief based on, hopefully, physical evidence. If the physical evidence
>> does not exist or is in error then the claim and belief are based on error.
>Some can be in error, however I do not consider OU tests to be that
>to being reliant on meters, There are many devices that have no input (or
>I have to believe a hell of a lot of people to be lying, this isn't after
>glamorous field, the only people who find it interesting are us, there are
>few fakes because there are few gains.
>I hope I don't need to tell you about my reasons, buy a book or surf the
>not my job to tell you of the evidence, But as I said it would have to be
>class conspiracy to lie and fake as I must believe to thing it's all fake,
>get caught up i your own inability to do anything after 20 years, the ones
>have looked at seemingly didn't work I assume but that means nothing.
>> Is it a general feeling that you have or is there one particular example
>> that can define your position? Can anyone provide an example of a valid
>> free energy claim? All the hope in the world here John, throw me a bone.
>> Regards, Bill.
>> At 20:45 1/04/99 +1200, you wrote:
>> >I have not been witness to a great number of things that I believe, Most
>> >in our world we take as fact without actually seeing them in real life, I
>> >seen video's and there are plenty of totally trust worthy claims, So if
>> you do
>> >not want to believe that's fine but the evidence is that it has already
>> >proven, I meant to send it to the whole list not just you, It is the
>> >that I dislike it was not directed at you.
>> >My aim is not just to know free energy is real which I already do but
>> >and understand it.
>> >If your video camera can record NTSC then fine but the problem is
>> >turned into NTSC from PAL, To work we want this to be as direct as
>> >John Berry