View Single Post
Old 07-20-2009, 12:00 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
hi Joit. Love the comments. What scares me is not the academics - because at least they sincerely believe in their science - with good reason. Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used. Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry? No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity. Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced. One post we've got on record is of Ramset's answer to a challenging observation by one of their contributors. He actually wrote to the effect that 'owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty'. TK is on record as openly saying that I am a mendacious prevaricator. Apparently all aspects of our test are some sort of public con, apparently aimed at I don't know what? Surely my stated intention not to capitalise on the device must bring my motives to question. Clearly, if I am perpetuating a con - then it's not for purposes of defrauding the public. Why would I go to such lengths to expose a small little effect, possibly the smallest of any OU claim ever offered up for consideration? What is it that deserves their heavy handed attempts at wit or sarcasm, done with the orchestrated approval of other 'so called' scientists sharing that thread. TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement. Never do they give us their names. Never do they disclose their identities. Never are we in a position to find out their actual motives.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?

It's all very puzzling. All I want is an answer to the question posed in my paper - ideally from academics who can validate the result or not and comment accordingly. If they won't hear me then maybe they'll listen to you guys? It's quite important really. But its only a small question. In the light of the attack, however, I'm realising how significant it is. Certainly it seems to be sufficiently significant for them to do everything in their power to destroy my reputation and my work - both. Why is it that important? I can only propose it's because we're near the truth and this, for some reason, needs to be discredited. And again. Why?