John,

Don't believe everything everyone tells you; it depends on the reaction

perspective.

Hal is a very good scientist, and he is using known physics that is

rigorous.  Known physics does not have overunity electrical power systems

anywhere in it.  So known "good physics"  poses no threat or upset at all to

the status quo, since it has nothing at all working that is of any size to

suggest practical EM power systems can be quickly developed (in a few years

instead of many decades).  The Casimir effect and the Lamb Shift pose no

electrical power system threat whatsoever, and neither do the fluctuations

of the active QM vacuum.  Hal doesn't meet resistance because he does not

have a potentially threatening working-model overunity model system.

Neither does he meet with continual assassination attempts for the same

reason.  Neither is he involved in the intense "gaming" that provides most

of the suppression.

I also do not  meet resistance from "conventional QM vacuum fluctuations

theory only" presentations to casual technical groups, just mild skepticism

and , "Well, we know, yes, the vacuum is active, our physicists already know

that and they tell us that, and maybe someone will be able to even extract

some energy from it by 3000.  That's interesting, old chap, of course, but

nothing to really get excited about, now is it?  Meanwhile, we have some oil

wells to drill and some pipelines to lay, and we really must get on with

building some more coal-fired power plants and some refineries."

Cheers,

Tom

-----Original Message-----

From:   Correspondent

Sent:     Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:59 AM

To:       Tom Bearden

Subject:          Industry interest

Tom:

Re: from your Cheniere.org Selected Correspondence from 22 April,

"We are continuing to try to get the necessary funding to get on with it.

Biggest problem (at least in the U.S.) is this: It is considered as

"disruptive technology". Seems few agencies and few investment groups with

substantial commitment to the normal power industry stuff, are interested in

anything that will "disrupt" the normal way of doing things! That includes

the investment community, the scientific community, most of the government

community, etc. ........ ,

but I really did not realize the extent and depth of this outright phobia

against "disruptive technology". Now we do. It's really something when a

major investment group will spend about $150k for independent technical

assessments and due diligence, and then back away because it is disruptive!"

I've been troubled by this news ever since I heard it from you.

Do you know that this directly contradicts what I heard from Hal Puthoff,

saying, (to paraphrase) " Industry would welcome new energy sources as an

aid to expanding business. I have not encountered any resistance or

negativity when presenting new energy topics before  industry groups."

What's up here?

John