At long last I produced and uploaded a welcome message for my video channel on YouTube. This has been on my list of things to do for some time, although I couldn’t think of any reason to ask people to watch. Yet, almost 2 million people have watched something I’ve produced and I’m getting multiple subscriptions daily. At the bare minimum, I am grateful.
The introduction video is only 3 minutes long. Actually, 3:33, which for some reason feels good, particularly since I wasn’t thinking about “aligning” the time length. I shot it last week on another “quick” trip to California that began in Port Hueneme at the start of the week, and ended in Escondido, where I witnessed some mind-boggling and amazing displays of energy.
What you see in the images above and below are sparks of plasma energy that discharged continuously from two stainless steel electrodes placed into a beaker of seawater to which a DC current was applied. One electrode (+) was placed in the water, and the second one (-) was gradually introduced to the water’s surface. The water started out as clear, and from the moment the second electrode was placed near the water’s surface, an arcing phenomena began, and continued even after the electrode was inserted further under the surface.
Another amazing aspect of this was that the water itself was quite hot, as you might expect in the area nearest to the electrode.
However, roughly two inches below, at the bottom of the beaker, the temperature was dramatically cooler. Warm to the touch, but not so hot that continuous contact wasn’t sustainable, or even uncomfortable.
Mainstream science would tell you that we’ve not yet achieved what I’m describing here. This subject was first raised publicly in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in the now infamous “cold fusion” phenomenon. The two researchers, funding their activities with their own money, learned a thing or two about direct energy, its dynamics and ubiquity, and told the world, foregoing the “peer reviewed” journal publication route that would have quelled any serious interest in their process by telling would-be researchers whether it was okay to even think about the subject, and then, what to think about it.
While science continues to “research” cold fusion 20+ years after discrediting Pons and Fleischemann’s through what I’ll call professional opinionism, it now professes to be diligently pursuing the subject. Here’s a story broadcast on 60 Minutes in 2009.
Some writers suggest that Pons and Fleischmann made “mistakes” in how they went about announcing their discovery in a press conference, which was actually insisted on by the University of Utah. However, the purpose of the press conference was to make their discovery public so that it (cold fusion) and they (Pons and Fleischmann) could be discredited publicly.
Studies commissioned by the Department of Energy and published by Cal Tech and MIT, pretty much let the scientific world know that independent study of this subject was off limits, if you want to retain your credibility, stature, tenure, or research funding, in “the scientific community.”
Truth was not, is not important, nor is the ultimate benefit to humanity. Keeping things as they are — i.e., knowledge and present conventions — was deemed to be more important than any residual benefit to humanity that cold fusion may have represented. Otherwise there would have been a sustained euphoria over the announcement, and exploration to truly understand where this new knowledge could take us. That understanding isn’t evident among the scientific community to this day.
Fleischmann has since passed on. The problem is that the assumptions that current scientific research on cold fusion is based on, are still off; designed or intended, as it were, to keep real solutions at bay. After listening to a cold fusion symposium held at MIT in 2014, professors are still describing, in dry, sominex-like terms, their slow and fleeting success at achieving an “excess heat” event, which is one sign that cold fusion is happening.
Interestingly, prior to giving a lecture in January 2014 on Cold Fusion, Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT issues the following warning, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that one’s career will be destroyed if this subject is pursued:
So orthodox science has succeeded in stepping in, slowing down, “perilizing” (I know it’s not a word, but it should be), and misdirecting the subject of cold fusion. MIT, which was one of the chief “foul criers,” is now “leading” the conversation. It appears that the majority of the cold fusion researchers are working within the narrow constraints allowed by MIT and other “first tier” organizations.
Fortunately, there are others who allow other influences to guide them. The man who shared these amazing results with me is David Puchta, of Proton Spin Technologies. This meeting involved a progressive realization of (1) who I was speaking to, (2) what he knew and could demonstrate, and (3) the significance to humankind.
Here’s a presentation that will help you see for yourself:
We could say that the realization is still unfolding, but during the time of our visit, which extended over three days, we could definitely see and feel “excess heat!” It wasn’t “excess,” however, it was abundant. The use of the modifier “excess” is a way of suggesting that what is produced is in violation of some perceived law of physics, as though the law itself is valid and correct. This is why we have observed so many scientists (and doctors) who see a phenomenon happening right in front of their eyes, and dismiss it by saying it’s impossible (like the “distinguished” scientist who still “had doubts” in the 60 Minutes story).
For all the billion$ and trillion$ that have been thrown in to cold fusion after orthodox science took over the leadership of the quest to force research scientists into following “approved” research methods, the cold fusion that I watched and recorded was done in a machine shop on a workbench with a few thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
The greatest value was in the human knowledge, earnestly obtained and willingly shared, then in the components that are used. Missing from orthodox science’s equation, and one reason that they’re still “getting close,” but not hitting the proverbial “nail on the head,” is that they are not incorporating life or bioenergy. The big secret is that life itself is energetic. To put it more succinctly, life is the cause and source of that word science doesn’t want uttered, “over-unity,” and water is the both the conduit and facilitator.
SPONSORED LINK: Love Proclamations, not just for the holidays and special occasions, but for everyday! Give one to another. Give one to yourself!
Life exists in forms that we can perceive with our five senses and measure with our mechanical instruments, and in forms that are not perceivable that way. There is no “over unity,” just as there is no “excess heat”. There is connection to, or disconnection from Source energy, which means connection to, and harmonization with life. Orthodox science is based primarily on an obstructive or antagonistic relationship with Source Energy, from which the entire universe of material worlds, systems, and life forms, come.
The next true leap in the evolution of human consciousness, and hence, human life, is when we decide to embrace and harmonize with Source Energy.
I’ll leave it at that for now, but it was amazing to be in the presence of the phenomenon myself. Indeed, we may have recorded an historic event.
————-
After returning home I managed to produce and upload a new episode of Talk For Food last week. My guest is Peter Lindemann, Ph.D., author, researcher, and a member of the “Energy Gang from Spokane.” We discussed “free energy,” which I am now inclined to refer to as direct energy.
Energy is everything and everywhere. There is nothing that is not energy. It is always available, except that we have established gatekeepers, intercessors, middlemen and access or control points that stand in the way of its delivery unless and until you pay. It has become so ingrained in our methodologies, as to be unquestioned. Yet, energy depletion or restricted access is not required by Nature. In fact, it’s not Nature’s nature. Conventional science and corporate and governmental gerrymandering has led the public to believe that energy must be subject to “metering” and its delivery interrupted if we don’t pay the piper’s fees.
