a vast, unexplored area, deeply connected with both precursor
engineering, Whittaker internal structuring of a field or potential, and
“engines” in general. Frank and I had neither the time nor the ability
to pursue it – and
at the time, we also did not
have the necessary understanding and knowledge.
Professor Bill Tiller, former head of the materials
science department of
working with us
at the time. Bill was the one
who recognized the effect; he had had to “grow” one of his special
detectors for several years
at Stanford! He called it
“building the archetype”, using a concept borrowed from Jungian
psychology. In other words, not only events but thoughts and emotions –
and intents -- influence one’s surroundings. Of course it is the nature
of that word “influence” that
I tend to just consider spacetime, and so both the
mental dynamics (on the time axis) and physical dynamics (in 3-space)
are gathered together. Any
change on the time axis has
at least virtual projections
in 3-space, and any change in 3-space obviously has change on the time
axis as well.
One rapidly collides with
Aristotelian logic and the
unsolved problems of philosophy! The nature
of “change” has never been solved, and probably cannot be solved within
Aristotelian logic. One of the old philosophers (I think it was
Heraclitus) spoke of the puzzle this way: “For a thing to change, it
must change into something else, something different. But how can a
thing also be something different?” No philosopher ever solved the
problem (actually, nor any other fundamental problem in philosophy, such
as nature of time, nature
of being, nature of one, nature
of zero, and on and on). The philosophers’ response to this sort of
enigma was to form “schools of thought”, each usually with a very smooth
“statement” of their position
on the question.
Such things were what
drove me originally to examine and question Aristotelian logic. To solve
the issue, I added the perception principle, since “observation”
or “perception” is just implicitly assumed in each of Aristotle’s laws.
In short, then one has the situation
that there is no such thing
as an “absolute A”, but only a “perceived A”. And perception is an operation
of some sort, because it is
at least dynamic along the
Well, then the question became sorta “relativistic”.
This mean that “perceived A”
at time one could be
at time two, if the operation
of perception itself changed. Thus dark red and black are “different
colors” to the perceiver capable of distinguishing color, but the “same
thing” to a color-blind perceiver.
So it was the absolute A and the absolute not-A that
suddenly were not absolute
at all, but conditionally
dependent on the observer’s characteristics.
So one could have a negation
of, e.g., the third law that
(A is not identical to not-A). Instead, one could have A(1) is not
identical to A(2), and is indeed identical to not-A(2) –- but only as
“determined” by the perceiver in time (3).
So the negations
of all three Aristotelian laws were also perfectly possible, depending
on the state of the
perceiver. We wound up expressing it by four laws and an applications
rule, but finally realized that
the applications rule is also
a law. So it wound up being a 5-law logic.
Then much later we came back
at the problem of
conditioning the environment when one does repetitive experiments. I later
conceptualize the “engine” and the process for creating
precursor engines, which in precursor theory (before interaction with matter
to make force field engines) allowed the pure nominal potential or pure
nominal background field of the environment to have engines – and to
gradually have changes created
and amplified in those hidden engines.
Hence one can express the precursor ability to
change the precursor “engine” constituents, hence gradually change the
fundamental precursor engine itself, over a period of time, by
repetitive similar or like experiments. So suddenly we had a lexicon and
process for implementing Tiller’s “growing the archetype” in one location,
gradually over a period of time. Note that
the precursor (force-free) engines interacting with charged matter
is what creates
the normal “force engines” of the environment anyway. So one can and
does gradually change one’s physical environment, with intense
repetition of the same experiments etc. over time.
When one then “moves” the experimental site
hundreds of miles away, then that
arduously created precursor
engine in the original environment slowly “decays” or dilutes by the
interactions of all sorts of processes having “normal” engines.
So – too late
to help that particular
overunity device – we realized that,
if one does develop a “grown” system by long application
of experiment, then one should keep the experiment going
at the original site, and
at distant “outrigger” stations
around it one should set up the same experiments and keep running them.
Thus one can “spread” the new precursor engine wider into the
environment. By repeating the
outrigger extension, eventually one can spread the engine around the
entire earth –- and suddenly one has now changed the entire earth’s
local precursor engine environment. From then on, the machine will work
anywhere on earth, anytime it’s turned on.
was sort of what the ultimate
result turned out to be. Oddly, the decades-long Soviet radiation
of the U.S. Embassy, to induce various specific diseases and health
disorders, resulting in the deaths
Ambassadors, showed that the
Soviets knew this from their new superweapons science of energetics. In
fact, the diseases and disorders were only induced in personnel in
FIELD-FREE areas of the Embassy. But a field-free area is just an area
where the POTENTIALS ARE CONSTANT AND UNCHANGING. To me, this meant that
when they changed a precursor engine (changed the Whittaker structuring
of the standing steady potentials, then those areas with personnel
continually immersed in that
potential, with that hidden
precursor engine interacting, gradually had altered force engines emerge
in their bodies. These physical force engines then directly affected
them (DNA, cells, etc.) to generate
the disease or disorder condition consistent with the persisting new
And yes, it has enormous significance, both for
weapons and for healing etc., if we but developed our own science beyond
the old physical force-engine approach to the precursor engine approach.
the gist of it. It also became a part of Soviet “energetics” and was so
noted by the exceptional theorists and experimentalists working in that
program for decades. Meanwhile, the radiation
of the U.S. Embassy, using precursor engines to selectively alter the
average environment of persons in field free zones, continued to probe
and stimulate the U.S., and
our puerile responses (adding Faraday shields to the Embassy windows,
declaring the area a hostile area and paying bonus to serving personnel,
etc.) showed that we knew
absolutely nothing about energetics, hence had no defenses against it.
The conditioning of weak environmental engines also was what
was responsible for the Gulf War
Disease/Syndrome developed by many of our soldiers in the first Gulf
War. Again, our entire scientific community still has not the foggiest
notion how it was done, or that
it was even man-made. Instead, our folks continue to try to apply our
very archaic notions of what
causes diseases and disorders, and so we continue to completely miss
Hope this helps shed some light on the area.
And yes, our scientific community should wake up
from its long sleep since the 1880s, eliminate
the false assumption of force in massless space, and get on with
development of precursor engine science.
Sent: Sunday, February 12,
2006 10:51 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: question on OU
devices exhibiting spatial
Hi! Hope you and Doris are doing well.
Have been so swamped with various things
my own questions sort of drop off the radar screen, but this one
refuses to die!
Frank Golden's device exhibited spatial
localization ... overunity
operation ceased when it
was taken to a new place. Your hypothesis is that
it conditioned spacetime.
pretty much a loose end left hanging, that
could be further explored to probe the nature
of the system! There are a couple of Ph.D. theses here for someone
with the time and interest!
Do other overunity devices also exhibit
If not, why not -- in what
significant way do they differ?
If they do, has anybody ever tried to
systematically measure or
characterize the nature and
extent of the localization?
How big is the area conditioned? What
shape is it? What is the
magnitude of the effect? Does it decay temporally? Is it polarized?
Do other O/U devices operate
differently within that
region? Do other O/U devices operate
differently when in proximity to an operating
Golden device? What other
physical properties of that
locale are measurably different than other places?
It seems to me that
a little exploration along
these lines might help greatly
in fitting the observations
to the mathematical
model. If there is a change in the background energy of spacetime
locale, how is the energy change best modelled -- torsion? Is it just
a topological change for the fabric of spacetime itself, or is there
some physical medium associated?
Is this the sort of thing that
Dave Clements with his modelling ability would find worthwhile