From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Subject: Bearden's papers, et al.
Followup-To: et@et.com
Summary: personal opinions about Bearden
Keywords: Bearden, scalar EM, energetics, vacuum engineering
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:37:09 GMT


in Message-ID: <ASHERMAN.92Apr7093506@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
 asherman@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Aaron Sherman) writes:

>Ok, so the Puthoff papers seemed reasonable, and the first couple of
>Bearden claims were not too hard to swallow, as far as gut reactions
>go, but then:
>
>> 			   Progress Report
>> 			    T. E. Bearden
>> 			Updated Jan. 29, 1992
>> 
>> Phase I Operation Completed
>> 
>> In 1991 we ended Phase I, and began the opening round of Phase II of
>> our decades-long operation.  Phase I was to alert the free nations to
>> the dangers of Soviet scalar EM weapons, and the necessity of
>> countering them. That phase has been successfully completed.  There
>> are now three other nations - not hostile to the U.S. - that have
>> developed and deployed scalar EM weaponry. The Soviets/KGB are soundly
>> checked by these three nations, with regards to scalar EM weaponry.
>> 
>> Phase II Operation Begun
>> 
>> The goal of the phase II operation is to get cheap, clean energy from
>> the vacuum, obtain antigravity, and develop scalar EM healing of
>> notorious diseases such as cancer, leukemia, AIDS, etc.  In this phase
>> we are now
>> 
>
>HUH?!? Did I miss something here? He dropped from "gee, neat idea,
>whish I had the math to figure it all out" to "What the heck did this
>crackpot smoke for breakfast".
>
>If, in fact, I am missing some aspect of reason, here, please let me
>in on it.

It seems to me that Bearden has a very clear  plan for releasing information
and part of his plan seems to be  that he is only releasing bits and pieces
of information at each time. This causes the effect of confusion on my part
as well. It all sounds very interesting, and, can we have a little more info
and data Mr Bearden, please? The reasons behind releasing limited information
seems to be that: a) it's secret, and he doesn't want everybody out  there
(there are all sorts of bad applications this stuff could be put to) knowing
how to use it, b) he at several occasions mentions other "associates"  like
Sweet, that want to keep thier part of it secret. c) the stuff that has been
done so far is 'proprietary'.

>Also, what do people think of the other papers that Bearden has put
>out? Are his theories sound? Does the math come close to working
>(which is about as good as any theory gets these days)? What are the
>chances that his (Sweet's) generator exists? What are the chances that
>it works?
>
>Thanks, all.
>
>
>
>			-AJS
>
>PS: I do not get news very regularly at work (which is why I'm posting
>from GNU), so Email replies are more likely to reach me. If you post,
>I will probably, but not certainly, read it.

oooh, a request for opinions. Well, for the record, here are  some of mine.
I've been following the news group, and I've ordered several of Bearden's
books from Tesla Book Co. [po box 121873, Chula Vista, CA, 91912] My first
impression is that his papers  are VERY well referenced. I've tracked down
are read several of the papers he references. The basis for his theories
(like Maxwell's ORIGINAL equations, Whittaker's papers, PPCM's, Tesla's work,
etc) all seem sound. The math I'm still looking into.
The math is the one section in which Bearden is most vague. The referenced
papers are chock full of math, and will take some time to weed thru.  In
reference to Sweet's generator, well, I'll accept it when I see it. However
I doubt very much that anyone would be hyping such a device if it didn't
work. Furthermore, I've been finding LOTS of references to other such
"over-unity" devices. There seems to be several other researchers that
feel that "engineering  the vacuum" IS possible. Some even claim to be
able to do it. Others claim great results, but dont understand why.

On the other hand, Bearden's style of writing brings out the skeptic in me.
My gut level reation is that he is speculative (often wildly),
sensationalistic, and paranoid. Also, since much key information is withheld,
I am  naturally suspicous. If he  is right  (and  personally I feel there that
he is on the right track) then the above mentioned faults are forgivable.
Also, I get the feeling that Bearden is merely the "front man" for a group
of scientists.  It seems to me that he either  isn't privvy to all  of  the
secrets  of the group, or that he doesn't really understand it, or that
he just seems wacky since he can't reveal a lot of it,  or that his primary
audience has been a popular  one, as opposed to a scientific one; so that
he has intentionally been writing on a low level.

Basically, though, I feel that IF that stuff is for real, then I want to
know and understand as much of it as possible, and IF it is bogus, then
I'm certainly going to learn a heck of a lot disproving it. Either way,
I stand to gain a lot from this line of research. Any pointers, insights,
and hard information anyone out there can provide, please  do so! Thanx!

/*****************************************************************************/
/* Eric H. Taylor:  et@csn.org                   "Paradigm          "        */
/* Plan: To celebrate New Years Eve 12/31/99 on  "Rhymes with pigeon"        */
/*       Mars.                                   "All the time      " - ET :)*/
/*****************************************************************************/
-- 
/*****************************************************************************/
/* Eric H. Taylor:  et@csn.org                   "Paradigm          "        */
/* Plan: To celebrate New Years Eve 12/31/99 on  "Rhymes with pigeon"        */
/*       Mars.                                   "All the time      " - ET :)*/