portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

Over-unity Energy Found? Dr. Stephen Greer (from Disclosure Project)

mp3: radio interview: runtime 34:45
Over-unity Energy Found?  Dr. Stephen Greer (from Disclosure Project)
Over-unity Energy Found? Dr. Stephen Greer (from Disclosure Project)

On January 30th, Dr. Stephen Greer appeared on the George Noory radio show to take public the results of early tests of an over-unity energy system. Attached is a low bandwidth and slightly higher bandwidth version of the radio interview. It's edited to have just the interview content. Running time: 34:45.

Dr. Greer is most famous for his Disclosure Project work. This same interview is located on the Disclosure Project website in Microsoft Media Player format if you can't deal with mp3 files.

For more information on over-unity energy systems, see the Disclosure Project, or Greer's Space Energy Access Systems website. Also, Tom Bearden's website is worth looking at (Dr. Greer mentions Bearden in the interview).

Attached in this message you will find the low bandwidth version. In the next message, I will upload the high bandwidth version. Neither are high quality audio, but they're good enough...


Thanks 01.Feb.2003 15:34

Thaloma

Thanks for keeping everyone updated. It is much needed in respects to the latest bout of trolling regarding similar subjects. Now lets sit back and watch the flames shoot out from people who "forgot" to even listen to the file.

Over-unity Energy // Dr. Stephen Greer, Pt. 2 01.Feb.2003 15:46

99

Here's the higher bandwidth version mp3

for radio.indymedia.org people that might see this message as a stand-alone, click here

 http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=43080

for more info
Over-unity Energy // Dr. Stephen Greer, Pt. 2
Over-unity Energy // Dr. Stephen Greer, Pt. 2

Over-unity Energy // consolidated radio page 01.Feb.2003 16:03

99

LOWER BANDWIDTH VERSION

HIGHER BANDWIDTH VERSION


Lost Me With the Title 01.Feb.2003 16:51

Abra-ka-Dabra

"Over-unity Energy" implies that you can get something for nothing. This contradicts the laws of physics, as well as observation. Scientific theories can and have been proven wrong, but claiming that energy efficiency can be over 100% is about as credible as claiming that gravity is a hoax.

don't post without investigation 01.Feb.2003 17:08

99

You're welcome Thaloma :-)

To Abra-ka-Dabra: Listen to the program and then do research -- that is, if you're really interested in understanding where these people are coming from. Start out with the Tom Bearden website noted above. If you don't wish to examine the possibility that conventional understanding of physics is limited, so be it.

Lost me Again 01.Feb.2003 17:29

Abra-ka-Dabra

From Bearden's Site:

"The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG)
Has produced up to 100 times more power than was input. Overunity performance has been replicated by other researchers. US Patent awarded March 26, 2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues."

What is the patent number? Not worth my time to search because from what I know of the US Patent Office, they will not even REVIEW perpetual motion devices, of which this claimed generator is closely related.

take note--I'm not saying shit 01.Feb.2003 19:52

tinfoil

I have nothing bad to say about this. I admit that I haven't listened to the file, but I'm familiar with perpetual motion schemes, and some of the new stuff being worked on doesn't fit with any traditional hoaxes (overbalancing wheels, cold fusion, etc...). I'm not saying I'm sold, but I'll leave it to the physicists to sink this idea. all you conspiracy buffs needn't worry about this being bough up by the oil companies just like the design for the water powered engine and the 100mpg carburetor.

The key difference between this and UFOs is that with *science*, you can independently verify findings...rather than interview Cletus down in Booger Holler about what he "seen".

spare us tinfoil 01.Feb.2003 20:13

.

insinuating that people who have seen UFOs are all hillbillies is offensive as it is misleading. It's like saying "only fags get HIV". For someone who is supposedly more clear thinking and objective than most you sure do buy into alot of disinfo.

don't be so classist 01.Feb.2003 20:40

tinfoil

I never said anything about hillbillies. And besides, it wouldn't matter if a UFO was reported by a hillbilly, a corporate CEO or a catholic priest, I'd figure they were all kooks. It's not the witnesses that make the UFO story incredible, but vice-versa.

Nanoo, nanoo.

exactly 01.Feb.2003 21:47

.

Thats just what I thought you would say. I dont know what's worse, the ignorance or the arrogance.


I really hope that everyon sees you for the fraud that you are.


"On Pseudo-Skepticism"
by Marcello Truzzi
Founding co-chairman of CSICOP

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis -- saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact -- he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary -- for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma, or that someone in a psi experiment was cued via an abnormal ability to hear a high pitch others with normal ears would fail to notice. In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.

On the other hand, proponents of an anomaly claim who recognize the above fallacy may go too far in the other direction. Some argue, like Lombroso when he defended the mediumship of Palladino, that the presence of wigs does not deny the existence of real hair. All of us must remember science can tell us what is empirically unlikely but not what is empirically impossible. Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim. Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.

Marcello Truzzi is a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University. This article is reprinted, at the author's suggestion, from the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987. In his view this criticism of pseudo-skepticism claiming the authority of science, but actually impeding science, is as relevant as ever.

get a new schtick 01.Feb.2003 22:24

tinfoil

your posts are getting really boring. everyone has seen "On Pseudo-Skepticism" because you've posted it like TEN TIMES ALREADY! Same with the can of spam and the weird little troll doll. you're a broken record.

Come back when you have something fresh...(yawn).

Besides, you're just mad that I didn't have any problem with free energy and still think UFOs are bunk.

and another thing... 01.Feb.2003 22:54

tinfoil

Using the logic in "On Pseudo-Skepticism" I would have to *prove* that "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was fake or accept the whole International Jewish Conspiracy theory.

Sorry Cletus, I'm not going to waste my time debunking anti-semites or UFO "buffs". I take it on *faith* that the holocaust happened, because there is no way I can have real first hand knowledge (not having been alive at the time) and accept the commonly held view that it did. Same with your little flyin' saucers. I never saw one, and I haven't seen convincing evidence to the contrary.

here's a "protocols" link which is just as legitimate as any "UFO proof" you've presented:

 http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

It's you who need a new shtick, tinfoil 02.Feb.2003 01:59

aGENT oRANGE

Your statements are either intentionally misleading or you really, really don't get it. Are you telling me that you read that entire article "On Pseudo-Skepticisim" and somehow got that it implied that one must automatically ACCEPT things that are not proved?! I mean, can you read?

"I never saw one, and I haven't seen convincing evidence to the contrary. "

" I admit that I haven't listened to the file, but I'm familiar with perpetual motion schemes, and some of the new stuff being worked on doesn't fit with any traditional hoaxes (overbalancing wheels, cold fusion, etc...). "

How can you be familiar with anything you don't read about? Is it possible that something in your vast familiarity (which I don't doubt is authoritative and unquestionable) with cutting-edge, esoteric energy technology just might have escaped your gaze?

"The key difference between this and UFOs is that with *science*, you can independently verify findings..."

Tell me tinfoil, how does one independently verify an earthquake?..you know, something that people who've experienced one will tell you quite certainly did in fact occur but if you asked them to "reproduce" it they would look at you like a lunatic...

You act like those who have seen anomolous things must be able to play the whole thing back to you on video tape (no..that could be fabricated) or show you in a picture (a picture? what, don't you have Photoshop?!) or...produce radar data from several different highly secure, necessarily accurate radar receiving stations that have confirmed highly anomolous said radar data with ACTUAL VISUAL CONTACT BY THE PILOT AT THE SAME TIME.

oh, wait, that information is right here:
 http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/Jal1628.html
you know, the information you didn't read, like the audio file you didn't listen to.

"I'm not going to waste my time debunking anti-semites or UFO 'buffs'."

My final question, tinfoil, is why have you spent the last three days posting comments about a story that you claim to have no personal interest in if your time is so valuable? If your goal is simply to sophomorically harrass those you disagree with ad infintium then please be forward enough to state it here and now so we can commence ignoring you.

Really, you are either in this debate, or you are a troll. Which means, familiarize yourself with the material we are specifically talking about or no one is going to take you seriously and you shouldn't expect people to react kindly to you flippant, ill-conceived remarks.

and the free energy you're not against... 02.Feb.2003 02:45

aGENT oRANGE

is brought to you by Disclosure Project. Yep. UFO people, who incidently got into the long history (since Tesla and on) of free-energy systems as a result of their extensive, decade long investigation into not only the UFO phenomenon, but the black project sub-state, quasi-private apparatus that attempts to control the subject.

See tinfoil, that's what happens when you don't do your homework. You end up in bed with an alien.

Disclosure Project 02.Feb.2003 15:36

tinfoil

Just because the free energy folks happen to also be UFO "buffs" doesn't mean they're crackpots necessarily. If they have information which seems like it might be of a legimate scientific nature, I'm more than happy to listen. I'm no bigot. You for an exmple probably have valuable information about Dungeons & Dragons and masturbation techniques despite being a UFO lover. It is folly to dismiss someone totally, and neglect to recognize their possible contributions.

Gotta run now, I have a romantic liasion scheduled with a real person. Toodle-loo.

Tinfoil = fake 02.Feb.2003 15:57

.

I know I posted that link to the psuedo-skepticism ad nausem. It wasn't for you. I know talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, only worse. it was for the passers by so they could see what kind of a fraud you are. :D

You say I am a broken record? well I say you are a hypocrite for all the repeated lame hillbilly jokes and nanoo nanoo's. At least there was a method to my madness.


And just so we can set the record straight I am not mad because of what you believe or don't believe -I don't give a fuck. I don't badger my friends about the subject and I don't wave banners welcoming the "space brothers" at the bus mall. I am mad because you are dead set against intelligent discussion, you refuse to educate yourself on a subject you refute and You proclaimed to be something you are not: skeptical and objective.

and you contradict yourself.

Take a look:

"it wouldn't matter if a UFO was reported by a hillbilly, a corporate CEO or a catholic priest, I'd figure they were all kooks. It's not the witnesses that make the UFO story incredible, but vice-versa. "

then you say

"Just because the free energy folks happen to also be UFO "buffs" doesn't mean they're crackpots necessarily."


A prediction: Once realizing that the author of the above quotes has stuck his foot in his mouth he is "forget" about this discussion and neglect to make further comments.

yawn...that sounds like a dare...yawn 02.Feb.2003 21:11

tinfoil

I'd have been more than happy to let this discussion drop a long time ago. I usually extricate myself from interactions with the Krishnas at Pioneer Courthouse Square and other kooks quickly, but you just won't quit.

I've said before that I have no axe to grind with UFO "buffs" and have no opinion one way or the other, you on the other hand are a zealot. I can't resist the opportunity to really tweak you since you're so thinskinned, that's my own fault. Maybe if I didn't enjoy rattling the goofballs so much the world would be a better place. Who knows?

One thing I can say, though, is that you'd catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. Maybe if you present your "evidence" in a more relaxed, less fanatical manner, you'd find converts. The way it stands now, you're just embarassing yourself.

May the force be with you.


P.S. You haven't denied playing D&D or being a chronic and expert masturbator. I was just kidding, but you really should clarify.

armchairs 03.Feb.2003 00:01

.

your self righteous posturing are transparent. But agree that we are both probably more civil in person. (so much for solidarity)

And yes I am zealous in eliminating passive belief for active investigation and questioning of all things especially ones that may withhold elements of great importance. But when It comes to dogmatic zeal, you are the gold star winner.

I don't expect anyone to believe or disbelieve in anything but If they are going to call people crazy, ridicule and debunk they had better know what they are talking about or have some sort of evidence that supports their claims and I would never expect anyone to prove anything in the negative.