ADVOCATUS DIABOLI

[FM No Static At All]

Fred,
"Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
I see a wonderful time with talented people and all I really ask of you Fred is to hang in with us so that we can all sit down together! Linda

With all of the "parallels that I have drawn in my travels in life and the choices I have made (horses, physics) I have no intentions of riding off alone. I have felt a connection with many here, and do not plan on allowing such connections to be severed by a trivial misconstrued phrase.

As each of has own own talents, we also have our own "faults" (I hate that word!) which we have developed based on our experiences and teachers. But I have learned to look beyond such insignificant issues when the purpose is greater than the sum of its parts, and the greatness each brings to the table is most certainly of greater relevance than the pettiness of differences. I tend to focus more on our commonalities, and so I can deal with those other issues in a more rational way.

As you must have noticed by my passionate rebuttal to Mr. Hull's remarks, particularly regarding the science of your father and Tesla, I am passionate about what can be accomplished by following the paths such great ones have trodden through in the past. It is my intention to stay the course, and follow through with being part of a group that can do such wonderful things to change the world.

It will be an honor, a privilege, and pleasure to sit with you and many of these other remarkable souls together at that "banquet of consequences ."

[kevin.b]

Just a quick thing about positive and negative.
You need both, and they run together , it's the never ending serpent, biting it's own tail.
If you don't have both positive and negative, all you will have is No-thing.
There is too much information at the moment, too many thinking about doom and gloom, so it will be.
We attract whatever we are thinking of, in London at the moment they are talking non-stop about Knives , so there is a spiral of knife crimes, they would be better advised to shut up.
We don't realise our own power of thought, especially the combined thoughts of many all thinking the same , at the same time.
Kevin

[FM No Static At All]

Just a quick thing about positive and negative.
We attract whatever we are thinking of, in London at the moment they are talking non-stop about Knives , so there is a spiral of knife crimes, they would be better advised to shut up.
We don't realise our own power of thought, especially the combined thoughts of many all thinking the same , at the same time.
Kevin

Some call it the "Law of Attraction" I have contemplated this over many years and feel that that which we put out is that which is returned. "What ye sow, shall ye reap." And according to the Law of Attraction, it doesn't matter whether we think I want it or I don't want it. IT will happen because the universe will support our thoughts regarding IT. Or in a slightly humorous way, IT HAPPENS because we of IT in our thoughts.

In the book/video The Secret it says, "thoughts create things" which is not far from what the Bible says about God speaking the Word and so it was (created.) I trust that most of us are looking to make a "positive" difference in the world we live in, and I accept the dialectic nature of the universe in that we have the negative to balance the positive. All I am suggesting is that for us to be positive and to accept that negative is part of what is, whithout putting thought (energy) into the negative.

I know that you can sense the difference in the energy around you, and as you stated it is apparent that those putting energy into negative are creating more negative to manifest around them. By accepting that which is true, and moving into a positive flow of energy, we each and collectively become more positive in our creations as well.

C'est la vie!

[kevin.b]

AM2,
Chaos is been organised at the moment, don't buy the picture.
I would recommend listening to all six of these, a bit boring I admit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1CLR6D9u9s
Kevin

[Rose]

We don't realise our own power of thought, especially the combined thoughts of many all thinking the same , at the same

Two thumbs up for that! I have not forgotten that Mr. Twigsnapper said something like, "It's very important that we all get there together."

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

rose

[kevin.b]

We don't realise our own power of thought, especially the combined thoughts of many all thinking the same , at the same

Two thumgs up for that! I have not forgotten that Mr. Twigsnapper said something like, "It's very important that we all get there together."

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

rose

How can You get somewhere that never stops?
"thumgs" I'll have some of whatever you're having.

Kevin

[Rose]

How can You get somewhere that never stops?
"thumgs" I'll have some of whatever you're having.

Razzberries in your direction...It's this blamed merry-go round that's keeping me dizzy!

rose

[Griffin]

I thought it was all the winding around and spinning in the rabbit hole.

Griffin

[FM No Static At All]

It is said that truth is in the eyes of the beholder, but often that truth is hidden from our eyes. Case in point:

What Government Doesn't Want You to Know and Rewrote the Science

In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public. — James Hansen


March 19, 2006 - CBS

As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.

Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."

What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

Photo: James Hansen, head of NASA's top institute studying the climate

Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.

Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.

And Cicerone, who’s an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.

"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.

Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all — the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."

But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." It’s a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."

Annoyed by the ambiguity, Hansen went public a year and a half ago, saying this about the Bush administration in a talk at the University of Iowa: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Since then, NASA has been keeping an eye on Hansen. NASA let Pelley sit down with him but only with a NASA representative taping the interview. Other interviews have been denied.

"I object to the fact that I’m not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen. "National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didn’t want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I don’t think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."

Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.

"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."

Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.

"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "There’s too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Photo: A page from one of many government-edited reports and emails.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes “may be undergoing change.” “Uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.” One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."

In a report, Piltz says Cooney added this line “… the uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making. …” References to human health are marked out. 60 Minutes obtained the drafts from the Government Accountability Project. This edit made it into the final report: the phrase “earth may be” undergoing change made it into the report to Congress. Piltz says there wasn’t room at the White House for those who disagreed, so he resigned.

"Even to raise issues internally is immediately career limiting," says Piltz. "That’s why you will find not too many people in the federal agencies who will speak freely about all the things they know, unless they’re retired or unless they’re ready to resign."

Jim Hansen isn't retiring or resigning because he believes earth is nearing a point of no return. He urged 60 Minutes to look north to the arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. When 60 Minutes visited Greenland this past August, we saw for ourselves the accelerating melt of the largest ice sheet in the north.

"Here in Greenland about 15 years ago the ice sheet extended to right about where I'm standing now, but today, its back there, between those two hills in the shaded area. Glaciologists call this a melt stream but, these days, its a more like a melt river," Pelley said, standing at the edge of Greenland's ice sheet.

The Bush administration doesn’t deny global warming or that man plays a role. The administration is spending billions of dollars on climate research. Hansen gives the White House credit for research but says what’s urgent now is action.

"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, we’ve got to be on a declining curve.

"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I don’t think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means we’re going to, that there’s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."

But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."

Hansen says his words were edited once during a presentation when a top official scolded him for using the word danger.

"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."

"You just used that word again that you’re not supposed to use — danger," Pelley remarks.

"Yeah. It’s a danger," Hansen says.

For months, 60 Minutes had been trying to talk with the president’s science advisor. 60 Minutes was finally told he would never be available. Phil Cooney, the editor at the Council on Environmental Quality didn’t return 60 Minutes' calls. In June, he left the White House and went to work for Exxon Mobil.

At what point does real science become merely a political tool? Knowing that there are connections and interdependencies amongst our actions and the effects they have on our planet, at what point to we say "Enough!" and take action as responsible humans? As a representative government we do have power to create change, but in the spin of media by those political leaders that represent the interests of industry over the public, we are told that it is otherwise.

Food is being diverted to produce biolfuels, while agricultural acres are being diverted for the same purpose. Where does it end?

[Linda Brown]

Good post Fred/ Sobering for sure.... but excellent.

If anyone wonders why some have this over riding sense of urgency maybe thats just one thread in the tapestry they see. And ten years seems to be the outer edge of the tolerance level.

It came to my attention the other day that its been scientifically proven that it takes seven trees to handle the CO2 emmisions for one human...... They don't say what kind of tree or how big it has to be ... which puts my imagination into a quandry. Do Joshua Trees even count? No, probably not. And the Mulberry Trees around my house that have finally reached down past the hardpan and now are into some moist earth .... I have, lets see ... ten of them on this couple of acres. So my husband and I are already four short of having enough to even break us even .....

A scientist recently came up with a new artificial leaf which oddly looks a little like one of Dads fans miniaturized and I thought... hey, thats cool but still we have the energy requirement... its a an electrical appliance ... that fancy leaf. Daddy preferred the little cactus perched on a stand. He called it the " Green Thumb". Works great. Blow smoke right at it and the smoke .... disappears. Cool to watch.... but still. you have to "Plug it in"

Maybe its just a dream but wouldn't it be wonderful to have a " machine" for every household that very quietly went about converting what it is able to draw from the "Sea of Energy" around us... into the electricity to power all of the things that we require in our modern lives? Like a sort of heat sink .... the energy just comes to it from another dimension .... Maybe even power those " artificial trees" to turn the balance in our favor, and finally get rid of the residue from all of the coal burning and gas burning energy producers. An electric universe indeed. But ... while we are drawing that energy .... wouldn't someone on the other side notice that his " system" had a power " leak?"

And I am sure that someone somewhere someday (on OUR side of this strange curtain)will be to the point where they need to see if their plans work. They flip the switch. What happens then? I would bet that whether there is appreciable generation of energy or not .... someone somewhere is going to know that unit was turned on. What will happen then? Do we get welcomed into this new knowledge with all the good stuff ... or do we run into " individuals" who rightly say .... huh ... you are still a little ahead of your time. Sit on this material for a few years ... until its safe to share.

And if it hasn't happened to a modern day researcher... I wonder if it happened to Dad very early in his research when he first saw the possibilities of this thing. Is that what earned him a ticket on the Caroline? Linda

[FM No Static At All]

It came to my attention the other day that its been scientifically proven that it takes seven trees to handle the CO2 emmisions for one human...... They don't say what kind of tree or how big it has to be ... which puts my imagination into a quandry. Do Joshua Trees even count? No, probably not. And the Mulberry Trees around my house that have finally reached down past the hardpan and now are into some moist earth .... I have, lets see ... ten of them on this couple of acres. So my husband and I are already four short of having enough to even break us even .....

And that is the quandary isn't it? We are in a hypnotic trance that states that we use more energy to produce the "clean" varity, so there is no net gain. To that I say (something we are both quite familiar with) HORSE MANURE!

A scientist recently came up with a new artificial leaf which oddly looks a little like one of Dads fans miniaturized and I thought... hey, thats cool but still we have the energy requirement... its a an electrical appliance ... that fancy leaf. Daddy preferred the little cactus perched on a stand. He called it the " Green Thumb". Works great. Blow smoke right at it and the smoke .... disappears. Cool to watch.... but still. you have to "Plug it in"

A few solar panels on the roof, a small wind turbine, and silicone salt batteries to store the energy when neither sun nor wind is adequate will solve that need to plugin without burning something.

Maybe its just a dream but wouldn't it be wonderful to have a " machine" for every household that very quietly went about converting what it is able to draw from the "Sea of Energy" around us... into the electricity to power all of the things that we require in our modern lives? Like a sort of heat sink .... the energy just comes to it from another dimension .... Maybe even power those " artificial trees" to turn the balance in our favor, and finally get rid of the residue from all of the coal burning and gas burning energy producers. An electric universe indeed. But ... while we are drawing that energy .... wouldn't someone on the other side notice that his " system" had a power " leak?"

Perhaps that is the shift in the paradigm that I keep bring up. We live with an energy context that says we have to do work to get power. The full extent of your father's gravitator motor can provide that energy without giving anything up to the "laws of entropy." And As moray and Tesla have demonstrated, although most physicists of taoday and those of their times refuse to see it, the energy is truly all around us, we only need to find the "switch" that turns it on.

And I am sure that someone somewhere someday (on OUR side of this strange curtain)will be to the point where they need to see if their plans work. They flip the switch. What happens then? I would bet that whether there is appreciable generation of energy or not .... someone somewhere is going to know that unit was turned on. What will happen then? Do we get welcomed into this new knowledge with all the good stuff ... or do we run into " individuals" who rightly say .... huh ... you are still a little ahead of your time. Sit on this material for a few years ... until its safe to share.

Yes, there will be massive resistance to it. Like that which was alleged by Ralph Ring in regards to Otis T. Carr's "anti-gravity space craft" The "men in black" told him that he was a threat to the economic stability of the United States, and therefore he was to cease and desist all work and all plans and equipment were confiscated in the name of "national security".

And if it hasn't happened to a modern day researcher... I wonder if it happened to Dad very early in his research when he first saw the possibilities of this thing. Is that what earned him a ticket on the Caroline? Linda

Possibly, but that is only if the "other guys" don't get their first. There is a lot of money in oil and in the power industry as it was created by J. P. Morgan and Thomas A. Edison. While some regard Tesla's work a myth, and refuse to accept the wireless transmission of electricity, there have been experiments at MIT that proved the concept, although they still were generating that electric in a "conventional" manner. The news media has reported on "fuel from water" to power vehicles, but a commercial application has yet to be developed, instead it is as Mr Hull tells it, a technology of garage inventors. In fact, there is a web site called Hydrogen Garage, that sells plans and parts, and others who sell books and videos, but the only one that I saw selling a complete kit is being sought after for fraud.

I have a friend and co-worker that installed a hydrogen device on his old Datsun pickup and although it a rather "crude" design, he gets about 10 extra miles per gallon. I am planning on installing one on my Ford Ranger, and like my friend, start out with it supplementing the gas. As I can afford to invest in it further, I plan on adding the necessary hardware to pump hydrogen into the fuel system directly. If that proves successful, then I can easily put a kit together to sell to others. And yes Mr. MiIkado, I will make a few bucks on each one I sell, I am not going to build them and give them away for free. I have to eat and pay for my living expenses, so until such a time as I am financial independent I will have to "earn" a living.

Electric vehicles is THE solution, however until we can provide electric derived from ambient electric or build an alternative solar/wind wireless infrastructure, or at the very least a hybrid design that uses electric full time and only uses a fuel motor to generate power when no other sources are available, we are stuck in the quagmire still.

[Mikado14]

Perhaps that is the shift in the paradigm that I keep bring up. We live with an energy context that says we have to do work to get power. The full extent of your father's gravitator motor can provide that energy without giving anything up to the "laws of entropy."

I would like to know the full extant of Dr. Brown's gravitator motor. And when you say "full extent", I take that to mean you understand exactly how it works and if that is the case, why aren't you building that instead working with the hydrogen?

If that proves successful, then I can easily put a kit together to sell to others. And yes Mr. MiIkado, I will make a few bucks on each one I sell, I am not going to build them and give them away for free. I have to eat and pay for my living expenses, so until such a time as I am financial independent I will have to "earn" a living.

Aaaahh, and it smoothes out de cockles on me brow ta hear dat. If you do, I myself would be interested or perhaps others that I know. Keep us posted.


PS: uh, it is Mikado, not Milkado and yes, I don't have any milk...<g>

[htmagic]

Tesla often said that the earth was like a capacitor. One plate was the earth ground and the other plate was the ionsphere. Between the two is a great deal of voltage and there is power, albeit in low quantities as we know it now.

If one had a balloon or kite and an insulated wire, the higher the wire, the greater the voltage. Many a ham operator can tell you where they touched an ungrounded tower and it knocked them on their butt. So why are we not taking advantage of this? Because apparently, it is like rubbing the feet across the carpet and touching a doorknob. It is high voltage but low current. Now if I had 100,000 volts at 10 milliamps, I could convert that to 100 volts at 10 amps. This is a respectable value. Volts time amps = Power = 100 volts * 10 amps = 1000 watts or 1 kilowatt (kW). About 7 - 10 kW per day is what a an average American home uses with electric appliances.

Now Moray used radioactive elements to help ionize a stream (a plasma if you will) and create an electron cascade. This is what I believe the "over unity" of these devices really are. They are just pulling in spurious static charges much like the Ark of the Covenant was reported to do.

I'd like to see something different than the current energy solution...

MagicBill
P.S. Mikado - Got milk?
Er, I guess not!

[Mikado14]

Many a ham operator can tell you where they touched an ungrounded tower and it knocked them on their butt. So why are we not taking advantage of this? :

Do you really want to go down this path or would you rather just drop this example?

Mikado

[htmagic]

Many a ham operator can tell you where they touched an ungrounded tower and it knocked them on their butt. So why are we not taking advantage of this? :

Do you really want to go down this path or would you rather just drop this example?

Mikado

Well, static electricity is useless and a nuisance to individuals of this "modern technology". It blows integrated circuits (ICs), and is generally a nuisance. But is it? The Ark of the Covenant appeared to collect charges from the environment around it, including "static" charges. And it apparently had a lot of power.

Some people scoff at "earth batteries" but they have been used in the days of telegraph and many time the operators removed the batteries and the telegraph system worked better! Now there were miles of telegraph lines and static and other charges on this long wire receiver built up so where operators didn't need to use a battery at times.

So, Mikado, do you have a better idea? Do you know what makes up an electron and how to tap into the very "wheelwork of nature" that Tesla described? Tesla described that some particles/rays moved faster than the speed of light. Are you saying Tesla was wrong?

Mikado, I know you know some principles of electricity as you asked how many got dosed by the magnifying Tesla coil that Mark Bean showed. So, dosed by what, X-rays, non-ionizing radiation? Yes, I'm sure the FCC would have fits on his coil as the ham operators running a BBS did for mine. (They never found me, I moved out of the area for them!)

Tesla and Brown. Brown followed Tesla but really was in different fields than what Tesla was involved in. Tesla was mostly electrical (power) generation/production with some mechanical projects as well. Thomas Townsend Brown was mostly involved in electrodynamics, electrostatics, and electrogravitics projects. The petrovoltaics seem to be a different area but maybe it wasn't as he used rocks as capacitors/batteries in his experiments.

Ideas?

MagicBill