FREE ENERGY DENIAL

FREE ENERGY DENIAL
Andrew Hennessey
This article is about the history, development, and methods of Free Energy denial.
Free Energy denial is the claim that the Free Energy Applications and the Free Energy Suppression of Humanity during the 19th, 20th and 21st Century —usually referred to as the Free Energy Conspiracy of the New World Order—did not occur at all, or in the manner or to the extent as historically and contemporarily recognized.
Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the Nation State Governments had a policy of deliberately excluding patents for productive free energy machinery; such that over six billion Humans [Homosapien sp.] were to be systematically killed or culled in a state of depletion according to United Nations documentation on `useless eaters' etc by the Reptilians and their allies, the Greys; and that Free Energy Applications were globally suppressed by both covert and overt means in various designated geographic zones using various social and military tools of suppression, such as; harassment, grievous assault and murder of inventors, falsified peer review, social and economic exclusion e.g. job and contract loss, media ridicule, adherence to known false and erroneous scientific models, etc.
Further there is a long standing denial of the alien colonial program and its assimilation and replacement of the Human population e.g. [Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins] which appears to give the motive for thwarting infinite supplies of energy, food and wealth to the human population. This seems to correlate with the published Human Depopulation Agenda of the UN.
Free Energy deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Free Energy deniers from misleading and false scientific revisionists, who use established and the currently unworkable scientific models [e.g. Einstein] and methodologies.
Most Free Energy denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Free Energy is a hoax arising out of a deliberate human and fraudulent commercial conspiracy, or psychological disease to advance the interest of human entrepreneurs and egoists at the expense of other people. For this reason, Free Energy denial is generally considered to be an antihuman conspiracy theory as successful denial of free energy denies the opportunity for a physical salvation of mankind. The methodologies of Free Energy deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive scientific evidence, industrial peer reviewed publications and applications to the contrary. [e.g. Faraday, 1890AD, Tesla 1910AD, Townsend Brown 1938AD, De Palma, 1992AD etc]
Terminology
Persons engaged in Free Energy denial prefer to refer to their work as scientific, logically centered or rationally-centered or stable institutionalism, or having rigorous scientific methodologies and object to being referred to as "deniers". In particular, Free Energy denial begins with the premise that the Free Energy as it is understood by mainstream science did not and does not occur. Evidence that conflicts with that premise is routinely minimized, misrepresented, or ignored, or attacked and slated.
False scientific revisionism is the re-examination of accepted scientific failure, updating it with newly discovered facets of a traditional scientific paradox, creating unworkable models or more dysfunctional information and irrational processes [e.g. Scientific and Medical Network, professor Hagar]
It is an alleged academic approach that holds that a given part of science, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should be reviewed and revised by a new paradigm called Magical Realism [e.g. Umberto Eco] It would keep remixing and regurgitating and even renaming the old paradoxes. [e.g. Hume’s Induction/Kolmogorov in AI]. False Scientific revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted part of mainstream media and the hedonistic middle classes of the western New Age. It is being applied to the study of the Free Energy as new facts emerge to destroy its credibility and the scientific and public understanding of it:
Legitimate scientific revisionism is the re-examination of accepted science, updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, more refined and workable models or more functional information and processes [e.g. Karl Popper, 1962, Conjectures and refutations.] It is an academic approach that holds that a given part of science, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should be reviewed and revised. It would immediately discard a refuted model or paradigm if utilised rationally or apolitically. Scientific revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted part of mainstream scientific and social studies. It can be applied to the study of the Free Energy as new facts emerge to change the historical understanding of it:
"With the main features of the Free Energy conspiracy clearly visible to all but the wilfully blind, scientists and philosophers of science have turned their attention to aspects of the history of the technology and its development for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. These are not minor matters by any means, but turn on such issues as the nation state’s or multinational oil corporation’s role in the event, inventors responses to persecution, and reactions by entrepreneurs and other social sources of industrial funding both inside and outside Reptilian and Grey-controlled geographic Zones."
Free Energy denial is sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term Le négationnisme, introduced by Henry Rousso. Negationists attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. According to Jacques Derrida:
"Generally speaking, 'revisionism' in history is the attempt to critique established dogmas, a critique that can in no way be included in with the type of negationism that attempts to deny the reality of acknowledged facts."
According to Koenraad Elst:
"Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Repto-Grey Free Energy Applications on the Humans in the 21st Century, also known as the New World Order or Free Energy Conspiracy. Negationism is mostly identified with the effort of re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Free Energy is omitted."
Examination of claims
Criticism of Free Energy denial
The key claims of Free Energy deniers are:
· The Nation State Scientific Establishments had no official peer reviewed science that supported the claims of the inventors.
· Nation State Governments did not use diverse covert and overt assets to murder or socially or economically destroy free energy inventors and their sponsors.
· The claims by inventors of high energy returns and outputs were a gross exaggeration, and the actual number is an uneconomical order of magnitude lower.
Other claims include the following:
· Stories of the Alien Free Energy Applications were a myth initially created by the Psychologically and Spiritually Diseased/anarchic Humans to demonize Aliens and Governments. Maladjusted Humans spread this myth as part of a grander plot intended to enable the creation of anti-corporation and anti-globalist cells on Earth, and now to garner continuing support for the state of anti-Corporation anarchy.
· Documentary evidence of the Free Energy, from photographs to the Video Diary of Dr John Hutchison, is fabricated.
· Surviving documents, reports and equipment are filled with errors and inconsistencies, and are thus unreliable.
· Scientific and academic confessions of scientific or economic conspiracy were extracted and reconstructed through frivolous and vexatious discourse.
· The Nation State/Corporation and Repto-Grey treatment of Free Energy inventors was no different from what market forces did to their competitors in various global and historic economies.
Free Energy denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry. The prevailing—indeed, the virtually unanimous—consensus of rational scholars e.g. Dr Paul La Violette, Professor Searle, is that the evidence given by free energy application inventors, e.g. Lyle Latham is overwhelming; that this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Free Energy suppression occurred; and that it occurred as these sources say it occurred.
Among the evidence produced are the technical demonstrations of the Hutchison Effect and the Tesla equipment that shows the existence of the alternate free energy scientific paradigm and reality, as well as the testimony of those freed from military contract when the industrial procedures and experiments were ended. The Free Energy persecution was a massive undertaking that lasted for over 100 years and was implemented globally, with its own command-and-control infrastructure, and a collaborating Nation State bureaucracy that probably has a large trail of documentation and official witnesses and other whistleblowers.
According to researchers there is a "convergence of (diverse) evidence" that proves that a Free Energy Inventor persecution and their Free Energy Applications happened. This evidence includes: witness testimony, artefacts, photographs and film, secret underground bases and listed black projects alluding to non-human technologies and personnel, ex-military whistleblower witness accounts, untimely deaths of some whistleblowers involved in non-human projects. etc
Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Free Energy deniers centres on the methods used to present arguments that the Free Energy allegedly never happened as commonly accepted. Numerous accounts have been given by Free Energy deniers (including pseudo-scientific evidence presented in credible sounding internet UFO cults) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research [e.g. Frank Ferguson] has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Free Energy denial have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this alleged evidence when or if compared with the empirical truths can be seen to have been altered or manufactured.
According to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, in our society of image and spectacle, extermination on paper ( e.g. the UN Agenda 21 and Georgia Guidstones etc) leads to extermination in reality..
Criticism of methods used by Free Energy deniers
Free Energy denial claims have been challenged as being based upon flawed research, biased statements, and deliberately falsified evidence..
"They'll cite a historical text: 'Einstein’s maths totally explain the Universe.' Then you go to the Library of Congress and look up Einstein, page X, and what you find he really said about distant particle objects managing to resonate with one another without any of the aether he denied to conduct the waves was, 'Spooky ! .' They get away with this because they know goddamn well most people don't have time to rush off to the Library of Congress or check the calculus. But people read that and say to themselves, 'Who would lie about such a thing when it's so easy to prove them wrong? They must be telling the truth.'"
Unreasonable burden of proof
Free Energy denial is widely viewed as unreasonable because it fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, rules that are recognized as basic to rational inquiry.
To support a proposition or allegation, a claimant must offer evidence. The merits of this evidence, and the conclusion it can support, will depend on its nature; for example, hearsay would not normally be considered good evidence, but an expert eyewitness account of a technical demonstration would be. A second-hand story would not, but an official, expert, dated and signed document or digitally signed and stamped digital media testifying to the alleged incident would be. After evidence has been adduced, the claimant's case is then considered to have been made, and the evidence can be evaluated. The claimant's burden of proof has been carried. If an interlocutor would then like to call the claimant's evidence into question, that interlocutor will have to make a claim of his own — for example, that this or that piece of evidence is a forgery. The burden of proof then shifts to the interlocutor, and the standard of proof will be commensurate with the surety with which the original claim was established. The claimant's evidence has, prima facie, whatever force it has in virtue of its merit as evidence. The interlocutor cannot simply continue demanding more proof to answer any conceivable skeptical conjecture or hypothetical possibility he can invent to challenge the claimant; this raises the claimant's burden of proof to an unreasonable level.
In the case of the Free Energy inventors and experts, their digital and other records and science and technology may collectively be considered the claimants. The prevailing consensus among the informed is that their evidence is overwhelming, and that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Free Energy events occurred, and that it occurred as they say it occurred. It is unreasonable to ask the claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real" any more than they already have, unless there is some particular demonstrably credible reason for thinking that it is suspect. If Free Energy deniers would like to cast doubt on this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to them, and they will have a very high standard to meet. They would have to prove, at least with a balance of probabilities, that the greater part of the entire body of evidence attesting to Free Energy Suppression has been fabricated, misrepresented, or misconstrued by thousands of critical evaluators. Until they can do that, they have not satisfied the rules for the treatment of evidence recognized to be integral to reason. In the meantime, Free Energy denial and suppression will continue to be recognized as an unreasonable position.
Other Free Energy Applications denials
Other suppression of Free Energy as an emergent paradigm have met similar attempts to deny and minimize, most notably the Faraday and his monopolar generator in 1890AD and the Atomic Vortex Theory of Lord Kelvin in 1901AD, and also the notable suppression of theories of Aether in the early 20th Century and then the suppression of the Laws of Chaos, turbulence and Emergence as they became scientifically charted at the Santa Fe Institute in the early 1990’s by e.g. Dr Stuart Kaufmann, Chris Langton, Gel-Mann and in England by Brian Goodwin, and latterly by NASA as some satellites pick up free energy boosts in planetary magnetospheres.
The Denial that always follows a Free Energy conference is among the surest indicators of further socio-economic conspiracies amongst an interplanetary and interstellar elite. The perpetrators of Free Energy suppressions roll out the jokers and comedians, trash the sponsors, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the social norm."
Andrew Hennessey
http://www.Xenopolitics.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Transhumanism and the Galaxy

The Falkirk Triangle

The New Star Party vision 30 years ago - still cutting edge ?