Tom Bearden and Oil?

[Aaron]

@zooty

Aaron, please do not take this the wrong way but i think you did overreact slightly. As a result, we have already lost a regular member of the forum. If you read the first few posts, no body actually "slammed" Bearden. This petty arguing is what another FE forum is well known for. It should not be happening here!

@Zooty,

Yes, reading all of GB's posts in context, being appalled at the link,
preaching his sermon about evil and thanking Inquorate for
"bringing it to my attention" - that says quite a bit about who is
involved at that link and stating that this goes way beyond Bearden
does NOT mean he is not talking about Bearden.

The issue isn't Tom Bearden supporting Big Oil or Big Oil supporting Bearden. The issue is both are supporting each other, and this relationship with Big Oil is found across the board with many other alternative energy researchers other than Bearden. Since they're supporting each other, in one way or another, then that should raise a huge red flag. Big Oil invests in green energy, such as wind and solar, to make it cheaper for them to extract the oil from the ground and increase their profit margins. They do this not to benefit the rest of humanity, but do this for their own self-benefit and gain. If Big Oil is supporting Tom Bearden and other alternative energy researchers, then the work of these alternative energy researchers is either being suppressed from the general public and being bought off, or their work is a fraud to misguide the general public.

GB

GB says that BIG oil is supporting Bearden and Bearden Supports BIG oil.
Craddock's company is a small independent company compared to BIG oil.
This claim of GB claims that ALL oil is therefore BIG oil - that is a farce.

Then he says IF, which he really isn't saying if, he already stated that
THEY support EACH OTHER - he is clearly stating that Tom Bearden's work
is "either being suppressed from the general public and has been bought
off" OR Tom Bearden's work "is a fraud to misguide the general public."
Those are the only two options of what GB is stating - it isn't implied,
it is very explicitly stated.

GB is DIRECTLY STATING in no uncertain terms in that paragraph that
1) Bearden is paid off, which is a serious insult to this man's character
or 2) if he isn't paid off, then he is a fraud.

Zooty, what part of that is not slamming Tom Bearden?

[Zooty]

@Zooty,

Yes, reading all of GB's posts in context, being appalled at the link,
preaching his sermon about evil and thanking Inquorate for
"bringing it to my attention" - that says quite a bit about who is
involved at that link and stating that this goes way beyond Bearden
does NOT mean he is not talking about Bearden.





GB says that BIG oil is supporting Bearden and Bearden Supports BIG oil.
Craddock's company is a small independent company compared to BIG oil.
This claim of GB claims that ALL oil is therefore BIG oil - that is a farce.

Then he says IF, which he really isn't saying if, he already stated that
THEY support EACH OTHER - he is clearly stating that Tom Bearden's work
is "either being suppressed from the general public and has been bought
off" OR Tom Bearden's work "is a fraud to misguide the general public."
Those are the only two options of what GB is stating - it isn't implied,
it is very explicitly stated.

GB is DIRECTLY STATING in no uncertain terms in that paragraph that
1) Bearden is paid off, which is a serious insult to this man's character
or 2) if he isn't paid off, then he is a fraud.

Zooty, what part of that is not slamming Tom Bearden?

The issue isn't Tom Bearden supporting Big Oil or Big Oil supporting Bearden. The issue is both are supporting each other

I don't see anything wrong with this comment. Bearden is after all supporting oil.

Since they're supporting each other, in one way or another, then that should raise a huge red flag.

This is a valid point. Are you saying this is not a possibility? I am not saying Bearden is a mole.

Big Oil invests in green energy, such as wind and solar, to make it cheaper for them to extract the oil from the ground and increase their profit margins. They do this not to benefit the rest of humanity, but do this for their own self-benefit and gain.

This is more than a possibility and many people wouldn't put it past them.

If Big Oil is supporting Tom Bearden and other alternative energy researchers, then the work of these alternative energy researchers is either being suppressed from the general public and being bought off, or their work is a fraud to misguide the general public.

This is NOT a direct statement. "If big oil...." he is not sure himself. It is just speculation which we are all guilty of from time to time.

[Aaron]

Tom Bearden

I don't see anything wrong with this comment. Bearden is after all supporting oil.


This is a valid point. Are you saying this is not a possibility? I am not saying Bearden is a mole.


This is more than a possibility and many people wouldn't put it past them.


This is NOT a direct statement. "If big oil...." he is not sure himself. It is just speculation which we are all guilty of from time to time.

Zooty, read it for what it is.

GB said Bearden and oil ARE supporting each other.

The IF at the bottom of the paragraph is not a speculation - in the context
of the entire paragraph, GB is misusing IF and should say SINCE to be
proper English in the full context where he already stated that they ARE
supporting each other.

Therefore, he is stating that because of this Bearden is paid off or is a
fraud in addition to stating the same thing for other alternative researchers
that are supported by "big oil". It is very simple logic. He already qualified
his statement at the top by stating they ARE supporting each other as
a fact - he stated it as a FACT, not as speculation.

How is Bearden supporting "big oil" any more than you are? You're there
typing on a computer with keys that probably have petroleum products in
them. The computer case probably does too

BIG OIL has nothing to do with this. If BIG OIL wants to fund someone,
they're not doing it through a small business - independent oil businesses
that can make millions ARE small businesses in the industry - the BIG OIL
are going to directly fund the research themselves and become the
assignee/applicant for any patents. Go search the patent databases,
Chevron, BP, etc... are NOT shy in the least bit about directly paying for
alternative energy research and owning the rights to them. They are NOT
going to allow

And if you look at the MEG patent assignee, it is a small company in
Huntsville that appears to be owned by all the inventors! If BIG OIL
funded this - do you or anyone else realize that the assignment would be
owned by the oil company and there is no way they would assign it over
to the inventors? And if you look at the original assignee, it is a company
in Canada that is a small business development company that helps assists
with capital development!

Yeah - big oil conspiracy here!

If you want to talk about suppression, where is Rabinovich's "MIT"
Plasmatron? It increase fuel mileage by 30% easily. Could be mass
produced for probably less than $50. MIT IS the assignee of those patents
so to me that is suspicious.

But to claim that Bearden is paid off or is a fraud - when it is a Canadian
business development company that was the assignee and looks like the
inventors are now the owners of the patent, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE
of what would happen if they were paid off or suppressed. If they were
bought off, the patent would now be assigned to an oil company but what
the evidence here really suggests is that the person that put up that
page and conveniently left off all the assignment info for the MEG
patent, which is one of the most blatantly obvious things to research
to see who is in control of the technology appears to me to be
a misinformation campaign going on with that website link to make people
think that Bearden is controlled by oil and is a fraud.

[Inquorate]

If i sold books and dvd's on obtaining free energy, advocated a certain technology that never saw the light of day, (yet, i understand it's under development?) and word came out that a mate of mine who paid my bills was a representative of the oil industry, albeit indirectly, i'd expect a certain amount of backlash from the free energy community. They're nothing if not a paranoid group, myself included, and not without good reason.

That's understandable.

Aaron, you say the link between Bearden and oil is spurious and circumstantial at best. Ok.

But this is a free thinking forum. Some people are great, some paranoid, some next to useless. This is a predictable response to information. I think everyone needs to calm down.

[Steve220]

Wow

Looks like everyone gets a zing today.
This is much better than OU, today any way.

[Aaron]

Tom Bearden

I have no problem with you posting that link but to me it is old news as
nobody has ever tried to keep that secret. Tom Bearden's work is focused
on his work - if Craddock wants to help give an avenue for Bearden to get
his work out, that is to be admired in my opinion.

It isn't free thinking I have a problem with - God knows we all need more
of that in this world - but when someone DOES insult Tom Bearden, that
is like insulting a friend in my own home - I'm not going to tolerate that.
I don't know Bearden personally, but respect him highly and I've been friend's
with Bedini for a long time and Bearden is a good friend of his for many more
years 2-3 times longer - so he has done a lot to support Bedini's work.
Therefore, asking questions is one thing and is completely different that
insulting Bearden.

[thedude]

disappointing

I'm finding this entire thread very disappointing and full of interpretive BS on both sides.

Nothing or no one is beyond a doubt or non-reprehensable. I studied Bearden and was part of MEG builders yahoo group for more than 4 years. I never saw a working model, nor do i expect to. That is not to discredit Bearden. He was a motivating influence for me, simply through his willingness to openly reveal that there is a hidden science in existence. That alone was pivotal for me. I totally forget about time I wasted working on the MEG. Didn't matter. He was helpful.

Either way. All information is useful. Its absurd how many psi ops are ongoing through out the world. There might be one on these forums, who knows. I'm guessing that there is somewhere.

I'll tell you this much. Anyone who begins to tell me EXACTLY what the real story is about and why something else is completely wrong, is going to get real close examination from me. I have little faith here. I'm sorry to say. Its too bad that GB is gone. I'm sorry Aaron took so much exception to this scrutiny. Scrutiny is healthy, ESPECIALLY in todays climate. Knowledge is infinite and no one possesses the ability to see all the facets here. Not Inq, not GB and not Aaron. And i'll sure as F tell ya I don't!

I hope GB comes back. I think he had a sharp mind.

This thread is a deterrent from participating here and makes me sad.

[Neight]

I'm finding this entire thread very disappointing and full of interpretive BS on both sides.

Nothing or no one is beyond a doubt or non-reprehensable. I studied Bearden and was part of MEG builders yahoo group for more than 4 years. I never saw a working model, nor do i expect to. That is not to discredit Bearden. He was a motivating influence for me, simply through his willingness to openly reveal that there is a hidden science in existence. That alone was pivotal for me. I totally forget about time I wasted working on the MEG. Didn't matter. He was helpful.

Either way. All information is useful. Its absurd how many psi ops are ongoing through out the world. There might be one on these forums, who knows. I'm guessing that there is somewhere.

I'll tell you this much. Anyone who begins to tell me EXACTLY what the real story is about and why something else is completely wrong, is going to get real close examination from me. I have little faith here. I'm sorry to say. Its too bad that GB is gone. I'm sorry Aaron took so much exception to this scrutiny. Scrutiny is healthy, ESPECIALLY in todays climate. Knowledge is infinite and no one possesses the ability to see all the facets here. Not Inq, not GB and not Aaron. And i'll sure as F tell ya I don't!

I hope GB comes back. I think he had a sharp mind.

This thread is a deterrent from participating here and makes me sad.

couldn't agree more, well said!

the arguing is helping no one, and is only divisive. there is a point where it's perfectly acceptable to "agree to disagree" and press onward to further a cause. who pays Beardon's bills is not important if Beardon's work in any way helps us gain our freedom and achieve the ultimate goal here.

[dllabarre]

If you don't read the books you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't read the books?

I love that song!!!

[Aaron]

scrutiny vs insult

I'm sorry Aaron took so much exception to this scrutiny. Scrutiny is healthy, ESPECIALLY in todays climate.

Scrutiny is good. But I fail to see how stating Bearden IS either 1 - paid off
or is 2 - a fraud can be considered scrutiny.

scru·ti·ny  /ˈskrutni/ Show Spelled[skroot-n-ee]
–noun, plural -nies. 1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.

2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.

3. a close and searching look.

None of those definitions define insult:
in·sult   /v. ɪnˈsʌlt; n. ˈɪnsʌlt/ Show Spelled[v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt]
–verb (used with object) 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.

2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.

3. Archaic . to attack; assault.



What GB did was insult Bearden - he did not scrutinize him - the
difference is night and day.

-----------------

The MEG personally never interested me - I have heard of multiple people
successfully replicating it but I can't confirm that. Naudin had quite a few
pages on it where he showed close to 5 times the output in watts from
"his" own version of the MEG and a conclusion:

Conclusion (on 12-06-00) :
My MEG replication seems to be really close to the original device presented in the Bearden's MEG paper and I think that I have been able to replicate and measure the same signals at the Input/Output of the device. I have not used the original electronic and core diagrams from the Bearden's teamwork (because I don't have them..), so may be there are some important differences between the setups. The purpose of this project seems to be achieved : the replication of the MEG signals measured at its output is in line with the original papers and the inventors claims.
Now, the BEST verification to do is to convert the "apparent" power measured in useable power such as : light, heat, mechanical energy (in motors).... and also, of course, to close the loop... This has not yet been done today.

[Zooty]

Scrutiny is good. But I fail to see how stating Bearden IS either 1 - paid off
or is 2 - a fraud can be considered scrutiny.

scru·ti·ny  /ˈskrutni/ Show Spelled[skroot-n-ee]
–noun, plural -nies. 1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.

2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.

3. a close and searching look.

None of those definitions define insult:
in·sult   /v. ɪnˈsʌlt; n. ˈɪnsʌlt/ Show Spelled[v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt]
–verb (used with object) 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.

2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.

3. Archaic . to attack; assault.



What GB did was insult Bearden - he did not scrutinize him - the
difference is night and day.

-----------------

The MEG personally never interested me - I have heard of multiple people
successfully replicating it but I can't confirm that. Naudin had quite a few
pages on it where he showed close to 5 times the output in watts from
"his" own version of the MEG and a conclusion:

Conclusion (on 12-06-00) :
My MEG replication seems to be really close to the original device presented in the Bearden's MEG paper and I think that I have been able to replicate and measure the same signals at the Input/Output of the device. I have not used the original electronic and core diagrams from the Bearden's teamwork (because I don't have them..), so may be there are some important differences between the setups. The purpose of this project seems to be achieved : the replication of the MEG signals measured at its output is in line with the original papers and the inventors claims.
Now, the BEST verification to do is to convert the "apparent" power measured in useable power such as : light, heat, mechanical energy (in motors).... and also, of course, to close the loop... This has not yet been done today.

Aaron, you seem like a very angry person considering you do not know Bearden or many of the people on this forum personally. Do you realize how condescending your last post was? You look like the guy that always has to be right no matter what. Dude, you don't even know these people personally. Is it really worth the effort? You know you respect Bearden and everything he has done for you in some form or other, so what if others don't see him that way. People will think what they want. No need to attack them for it.

Doing stuff like this:

The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal,[1] is used conversationally to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudian psychoanalysis.

is not going to solve anything.

[Aaron]

@Zooty

Aaron, you seem like a very angry person considering you do not know Bearden or many of the people on this forum personally. Do you realize how condescending your last post was? You look like the guy that always has to be right no matter what. Dude, you don't even know these people personally. Is it really worth the effort? You know you respect Bearden and everything he has done for you in some form or other, so what if others don't see him that way. People will think what they want. No need to attack them for it.

Zooty, you're response is typical of someone that lacks any kind of
intellectual honesty. You go from defending GB that he didn't insult
Bearden when it is written very explicitly by GB that he IS insulting
Bearden. When that is clearly and logically pointed out to you showing
that you didn't comprehend it correctly to begin with, you want to
start insulting me too. You can leave as well if you like because if
you can't deal with the facts and want to not deal with the fact
that you can't even comprehend when someone is posting an insult or
not, then you shouldn't be responding to any of it unless you can indeed
comprehend what you are reading.

You seem to have a problem dealing with reality.

My distinction between scrutiny and insult is ACCURATE, I showed
The Dude that there is a difference and what it was and that GB
INSULTED Bearden and had NOTHING to do with scrutiny.

What is it with you and some others that seem to be unable to focus
clearly on any particular point that I make and
drift from one point to another? This has been my issue from the
beginning and it repeatedly gets twisted and contorted.

[Farmhand]

-----------------

The MEG personally never interested me - I have heard of multiple people
successfully replicating it but I can't confirm that. Naudin had quite a few
pages on it where he showed close to 5 times the output in watts from
"his" own version of the MEG and a conclusion:

Conclusion (on 12-06-00) :
My MEG replication seems to be really close to the original device presented in the Bearden's MEG paper and I think that I have been able to replicate and measure the same signals at the Input/Output of the device. I have not used the original electronic and core diagrams from the Bearden's teamwork (because I don't have them..), so may be there are some important differences between the setups. The purpose of this project seems to be achieved : the replication of the MEG signals measured at its output is in line with the original papers and the inventors claims.
Now, the BEST verification to do is to convert the "apparent" power measured in useable power such as : light, heat, mechanical energy (in motors).... and also, of course, to close the loop... This has not yet been done today.

What's the deal with this J.L.Naudin ? He seems to replicate a lot of things and claims OU on the MEG. If he has seen 5 times OU he should be able to prove it properly.

He seems suspect to me

What is the point to what he does ?

Does he prove anything ?

Anyway back to Tom, It doesn't matter what he is.

We can see by Naudin that people have no wish to actually prove OU. They just want to show others it is possible.

Yeah right.

We need to experiment and discover these things ourselves. No one will come to you're house to build you a MEG or any other device.

I seen in a borderlands science video where Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard say Peter has a 108 % OU generator. But it is the working efficiency they are calculating not the actual total efficiency. However they still give it and OU figure of 108%. Hmmm.

Anyway if any I repeat any of these guys were going to prove OU they would have already done it already. Everything is implied.

And quite frankly I think it would be easier without all the cult like devotion to some individuals.

I say thank you when I get something for free. And I don't complain when pieces of the puzzle are left out.

But I do get upset when I see so many people trying so hard to make a difference in this world, when there are some who discover the works of the greats and copy or build devices similar to the originals but slightly different. Then they don't say where they get the idea. They hide the source of the idea and the basic information.

Totaly reprehensible and dishonest. By hiding the source of thier inspiration or idea, to keep it to themselves and claim anothers work for themselves without giving credit to the original inventors is holding everybody back for personal ego and money.

Another thing that annoys me (but I can deal with it) is when people use Tesla's name to sell stuff but do not show what give's them the right to do so.

If something is a Tesla so and so then show us the tech and give us the Known Tesla documentation or drawing to show how you're device Qualifies as Tesla Tech, if it is Tesla Tech it cannot be patented so WHY NOT !

Is it to hide it and keep it to themslves ? I think so.

If Tesla's name is mentioned in relation to a device a relevent tesla drawing or explaination should also be presented.

CHeers

[Steve220]

Wow!

Well it looks like we are not all going to be sitting around a camp fire tonight singing KUM BA YAH

[Zooty]

Zooty, you're response is typical of someone that lacks any kind of
intellectual honesty. You go from defending GB that he didn't insult
Bearden when it is written very explicitly by GB that he IS insulting
Bearden. When that is clearly and logically pointed out to you showing
that you didn't comprehend it correctly to begin with, you want to
start insulting me too. You can leave as well if you like because if
you can't deal with the facts and want to not deal with the fact
that you can't even comprehend when someone is posting an insult or
not, then you shouldn't be responding to any of it unless you can indeed
comprehend what you are reading.

You seem to have a problem dealing with reality.

My distinction between scrutiny and insult is ACCURATE, I showed
The Dude that there is a difference and what it was and that GB
INSULTED Bearden and had NOTHING to do with scrutiny.

What is it with you and some others that seem to be unable to focus
clearly on any particular point that I make and
drift from one point to another? This has been my issue from the
beginning and it repeatedly gets twisted and contorted.

Aaron I give up, you win. As for leaving this forum, you'll have to ban me, i'm not going anywhere.