Subject: Scalar Weapons Update

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006

Roger,

Please look on my website, and see the picture of Roy Brewer briefing President Reagan for me. Roy was a long-time close personal friend of Reagan's, and had open access to the Reagan White House at any hour of the day or night.

As a result of that briefing, Reagan did order some programs into existence. Another program had already been in existence (but hidden from most of the decision makers) as a result of lots of presentations on the Bill Jenkins show in Los Angeles area.

The briefing improved a bit under Defense Secretary Cohen. Witness his statement confirming the weapons (including in the hands of "terrorists") in 1997 in Georgia at a large conference on WMD.

Congressman Weldon also received at least partial briefing, and so did others.

We are not totally defenseless anymore on all this.

The worst area we face is that of defense against "conversion" (insertion of an extra living human mind -- including a "clone" with certain behavioral changes implemented -- in targeted individuals, to switch between the personalities and thus alter the behavior of the individual. This can be (and is slowly being) used to decrease group order (GO) in selected elements of our society. In other words, it can be used to convert GO to NO-GO, either partially or -- ultimately -- rather resoundingly. See my book "Oblivion", available from my website.

We are defenseless on that, because our own scientists are still caught up in the notion of the "meat computer" (by one name or another) as what the nature of the human mind is. They couldn't be more wrong.

However, the Israelis are not lost in this area, and have apparently made good progress in defenses against it. I do not personally know the extent of that progress, but do know that it is significant.

So we do have some defenses, if we gather together our allies and count them in also.

I'm as depressed as you are, at the refusal of our own scientific community to correct the horrid old electrical engineering model, stuck together in the 1880s after Maxwell was already dead. Eminent scientists have pointed out its falsities (physics has come a long way since the 1880s!), to no avail -- even though scientists of the caliber of Nobelist Feynman, the great John Wheeler, Henry Margenau (an important foundations scientist), Bunge, etc. have pointed out the errors.

E.g., why are we still teaching in all our university EE departments that there exist force fields in space? That is a total lie, and known to be a lie (see Feynman's three volumes of sophomore physics, 1964). So why are we still teaching an old lie that depended on the assumption of the material ether permeating all space -- more than a century after that material ether was experimentally destroyed??? Why are we teaching EE to assume a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum? Those have been falsified for more than a half century. Why are we still teaching an arbitrarily symmetrized set of equations, which arbitrarily discarded (and still discard) all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems?

Read again my paper on the website, listing some of the major falsities in our standard electrical engineering. Those are not my work, but are gathered from what leading scientists have already pointed out.

Electrical engineers are not even taught the implications of the discovery and proof of broken symmetry of opposite charges -- which resulted in the Nobel Prize award to Lee and Yang in 1957. What university EE department points out that broken symmetry implies that something virtual has become observable -- in short, the broken symmetry of the source dipole, once it is established between the generator terminals, continuously absorbs virtual photon energy from its seething vacuum exchange, and coherently integrates it to observable photons because of its broken symmetry, and thus continually pours out (from the generator terminals) real, observable, usable photons and real EM energy flow.

Indeed, it pours out a billion to a trillion times more "energy flow" extracted from the vacuum, than the amount of mechanical energy we input to crank the shaft of the generator. Only a tiny bit (the Poynting component) of that giant energy flow is NORMALLY diverged into the circuit to potentialize the electrons and "power the circuit". The huge remainder -- the huge Heaviside component, which also was struck out of the textbooks by Lorentz and still is -- is the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component. And, contrary to standard statements that "it can have no physical significance", it does have gravitational implications and it also can indeed be forced to diverge a bit of itself into a self-resonant set of charges in a medium -- the proven "negative resonance absorption of the medium" (or NRAM) process in optical physics.

Why is that not understood, and why are we not funding our sharp young grad students to go in and alter our standard electrical power plant systems and functions, to take mostly (or all) their required heat energy input in the form of NRAM excess energy freely received from the ubiquitous but unaccounted giant Heaviside flow component?

The answer is quite simple: Our scientific community is not doing that, because (1) they do not wish to alter or change the status quo, and (2) the giant cartels in energy and pharmaceuticals do not wish that horrid old EE model to be corrected. So long as it remains as it is, we don't have any EEs who build asymmetrical EM systems taking their energy freely from the vacuum. And we have to go on burning coal, oil, gas, and consuming nuclear fuel rods.

The NRAM process has been known (courtesy of the Russians, not our own scientific brilliance) and experimentally proven since 1964. So why are we not applying it to boilers and other heating processes (to provide some free excess heat amplification) in our present electrical power systems? Every major technical university does experiments and experimental demonstrations of the NRAM process in optical physics every year. So is our scientific community just totally blind -- or is it "controlled" by controlling what its funding can be used or spent for????

Anyway, Moore and I tried to point the way for that one, in our PPA that is freely available on the website. We obtained the PPA in Oct. 2005, then posted it on our website and freely gave it away to the public domain -- to everyone. Anyone who wishes to raise the funding and develop the process -- and apply it to almost all our electrical power plants -- is quite free to do so.

But nothing regarding "energy from the vacuum" is ongoing in our present scientific community -- and it isn't going to be unless something like a Presidential Directive is issued.

So in the absence of proper scientific attention in these areas, there is no choice but to keep on pointing them out.

When the major texts in EE list the foundations assumptions in the EE model, then there are signs of hope.

When the same texts then discuss which of these 1880s and 1890s assumptions have since been falsified by physics, and point out the corrections needed, then there are encouraging signs of hope.

When the leadership of our scientific community actually sets up programs and funds them, to do the necessary corrections and eliminate the grave falsities from our electrical power engineering science, then there are REAL signs of hope. Then also there will -- within three years -- be a total solution to the world energy crisis. Forever, for every one.

And that's not even counting use of negative energy EM energy flow. Several nations have already highly weaponized the use of negative EM energy. But with a small negative energy generator powered by a flashlight battery, and using a series of resistors in the transmission line, that single little unit can cause free inflows of negative EM energy from the vacuum into each of those resistors. If the "gain" of one resistor is ten, then the overall gain of 10 resistors in series is 10 billion. So a single watt of negative energy input to the first resistor, can result in the output of 10,000 megawatts of negative energy on the far end. I think you can see that, by adding another resistor or so, that little unit together with what the environment freely inputs, could and would power New York City.

When you see our scientific community tackling things such as that, then you know that real progress on solving the energy crisis is ongoing.

And it is also true that much of the war and struggles internationally are also the result of struggles for financial gain, power, and control. If we remove two -- energy and medicine -- of the major aspects used for power and control over enormous numbers of the peoples of the earth, then we shall also be a lot safer, because many of the threats will have been removed or dramatically reduced.

Hence the continual pounding of the necessity to do these things and get on with it.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden

I have a question for Tom.

As the government as shown no interest in protecting us from Scalar weapons, what can we do as individuals to protect ourselves?

It is kind of depressing to be told all this stuff (about Tesla weapons and the lack of gov't response) and then given no answers as to what to do to help ourselves. I am sure a lot of other readers would like some solutions too.

Roger