On March 3, 2008, Carol Brouillet interviewed me on her radio show. On that day, oil prices hit a new record (immediately surpassed), at more than $103 per barrel, which made the subject more topical. Links to the show’s audio files are here (first hour, second hour); here is the page that introduces us (and this one). This page hosts those audio files, and it also presents excerpts from a rough outline that I prepared for the show. As an experiment, I also have published a sound file on my site, with the commercials removed. I do not want to turn my site into a high bandwidth one (it is a 15 megabyte file), but that show is a good introduction to my work, even though it barely dented the outlined topics. Carol’s show is the first time that I have publicly discussed my experiences and my website’s subject matter. Also, as a writer friend helpfully told me long ago, my writings were like my speech: too much trying to come out at once (which is also evident on Carol’s show). It has taken many years, along with professional editorial assistance and feedback from many friends, allies and assailants, to make my writings more readable. My public speaking may never attain the clarity that I have aspired to achieve in my writings. This essay attempts to do some justice to the subject matter that Carol and I discussed. I may eventually do more shows. The activist effort that resulted in my appearance on Carol’s show also led to Adam Trombly’s appearances on March 17 and 24, 2008 (a partial transcript of his first appearance is here and the sound files are here and here, with the summary page is here). Brian O’Leary may also do a show. Being a warm-up act for those guys is an honor. There are not many like them on earth today.
Any public discussion of this site’s subject material will necessarily be skimming the surface. The following narrative provides links to deeper explorations of the subjects that I publicly discuss.
Energy consumption has been the engine of all ecosystems, and hence all economic systems, for all time. From humanity’s hunter-gatherer stage to the domestication stage to the industrial stage to today, energy has always been the primary driver of economic activity. From the world’s richest to poorest nations, their economic production divided by energy consumption is nearly a constant.
Slavery first appeared in early civilization and disappeared in early industrialization, and energy was the primary reason. The average American lives off the backs of eighty energy slaves today, and those energy slaves are almost entirely responsible for our standard of living. Although exploiting the poor is a key ingredient in maintaining the West’s standard of living, there are no visible slaves. We therefore tend to ignore the energy issue in our daily lives, although it makes it all possible. The average American lives better than earth’s richest emperor of two hundred years ago.
Richard Heinberg related a good exercise in his The Party’s Over, where we just look around us and think about the ways in which energy is involved with providing almost everything that we touch or see.
The abundance paradigm that free energy could initiate would not harm or exploit earth’s environment. The so-called biofuel revolution that is being promoted in many corners these days is not the basis for an abundance paradigm, is extremely hostile to our fellow species (which can be summarized with “all non-human life can be sacrificed to meet humanity’s energy needs”), and has many downsides, several of which can be catastrophic. Here are some critiques of the biofuel revolution (1, 2, 3, 4). A recent estimate calculates that the biological production that provided the energy that fossil fuels release each year is about four hundred times as much energy as powers earth’s ecosystems in a year. To replace fossil fuels with biofuels would raise humanity’s consumption to more than half of earth’s biological production (and humanity’s current levels of consumption comprise the primary driver of earth’s current sixth mass-extinction episode). That proportion only relates to today’s energy consumption levels, where less than 20% of humanity currently benefits from the industrialized lifestyle. To bring humanity to the American energy-consumption level (and resultant standard of living), there is not enough room on earth’s surface to support it using biofuels. That is far from an environmentally friendly solution, and bears no resemblance to an abundance-based one.
While arguments can also be made for windmills, conventional solar power, and so forth, they are all weak solutions and, as Brian O’Leary has written, the answer to conventional energy alternatives is “none of the above.” New energy and free energy are closely related terms, and I often use them interchangeably.
Free energy technology exists today, but those controlling the world’s economic system actively prevent it from becoming publicly available. Free energy is orders of magnitude beyond the conventional alternative energy solutions, and can take the world economy into realms largely unimaginable today. What if, instead of eighty energy slaves, which only a tiny fraction of humanity enjoys today, every earthly human had a thousand energy slaves, or ten thousand, and their use harmed nobody and was environmentally harmless? It could begin looking like heaven on earth, and quickly.
Below are some of my credentials, which are mainly based on my experiences.
I was introduced to energy issue in the early 1970s. The world’s best engine for powering an automobile was invented by my first professional mentor.
Two paranormal experiences changed my life’s direction. The first changed it from chemistry to business studies in 1977, and the second from public accounting into arguably the most sustained effort yet made to bring alternative energy into the American marketplace, in 1986, in Seattle.
My odyssey began with the world market’s best heating system, and my partner was run out of Washington State and one of his employees died due to the suppression efforts, which radicalized him. My partner had a genius for industrializing processes and bringing innovative products to the mass market. Unfortunately, the energy interests already “owned” the markets that my partner operated in, and they were not going to welcome somebody who could have saved 80% of the consumer’s heating costs. In the Pacific Northwest, they had more like 25% savings in mind.
My partner ended up in Boston in late 1986, and my education began in earnest. In Boston, my partner got his first free energy idea and we received the first offer to buy us out, for $10 million. I then tied into money and talent in Ventura, California, my hometown, where we moved in June 1987.
The effort began succeeding in late 1987, and we then acquired technology that possibly could have produced free energy, which was when somebody lowered the boom on us.
During an armed raid in January 1988, law enforcement personnel stole our technical materials and seized our equipment.
My partner was made a billion dollar buyout offer in May 1988. When he refused it, his arrest with a million dollar bail occurred on June 1988 on fabricated charges. Ventura County is home of the Rodney King beating verdict and regularly makes the top ten lists of most corrupt law enforcement jurisdictions in America, and I discovered it firsthand.
After my journey’s lowest moment, after having my faced rubbed in how the system really works (they tried intimidating me on the witness stand, in a Stalinist show trial atmosphere), I mortgaged my life to give my partner a slim chance in Kangaroo Court. My quixotic gesture incredibly worked, and we sprung him from jail in 1989. My partner still spent two years behind bars and was almost murdered in prison. His case set legal precedents, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was radicalized, and while my former partner tried picking up the pieces and went back at it, and is still at it, I took a different path.
I then spent twelve years and twelve thousand hours performing the research, writing and editing that became my twelve-hundred-page website.
In 2003, Brian O’Leary asked me to help found the New Energy Movement. When Eugene Mallove was murdered (probably related to his new energy efforts), that was the beginning of the end of our involvement (Brian has stated that Mallove’s murder was when he decided that the U.S. was no longer safe for new energy activists, and he moved to South America).
Ever since 9/11, I have been in relative seclusion with little public interaction. This show is one of my efforts to reengage the public.
Skepticism toward my story is normal and understandable. Active skepticism is healthy. Regarding my tale, the facts are verifiable. Experiences are attainable.
Learning how the world really works is feasible, but seeking experiences is vital for learning. Experience is how knowing can be attained. Reading any website, including mine, will not bring knowledge to anybody. Evidence and analysis must always be leavened with experiences, to obtain useful knowledge. Gaining experience in the free energy field can be hazardous to one’s health, however, and I seek to help prevent people from learning the free energy lessons the hard way. There are not yet any happy endings for anybody in this pursuit.
Energy scarcity has always accompanied the human journey. The scarcity paradigm has been hardwired into human consciousness over the past ten thousand years, and for perhaps longer.
Scarcity-based ideologies currently dominate human thinking, and those ideologies include: nationalism, capitalism, communism, organized religion, scientism, rationalism, materialism and the more obvious racism, sexism, etc. Those ideologies usually appeal to the ego, as the adherents are often on the “winning team” or aspire to be. Shedding our scarcity-based indoctrination is not easy. I will probably always be working at it in myself.
Steven Greer aptly summarized the situation with:
“Most of the problems that we face in our world today, whether they be spiritual and religious or scientific, political and economic, are all because people are holding onto some perspective that has nothing to do with the truth but has to do with their own belief system and addiction to something that is outdated, and they can’t let go of it.”
There is usually a political-economic motivation behind those scarcity-based addictions. Humans tend to abandon the pursuit of truth, for those that even begin that journey, and settle for self-serving beliefs, particularly in a world of scarcity, because those beliefs usually help justify our political-economic-social status.
A comprehensive perspective is vital for seeing the big picture. R. Buckminster Fuller was one of the West’s first comprehensivists. I was introduced to his work after I finished my site in 2002. Fuller’s work should be rescued from its neglect. Fuller stated that economics is the dog and politics is the tail, and that political actors have always been stooges of the economic interests. Fuller stated that until the Industrial Revolution, only 1-in-1,000 lived to a ripe old age and 1-in-100,000 was an economic success, and that is the reason for the scarcity-hardwiring that afflicts humanity. The primary difference between communism and capitalism was who received the benefit of the scarce economic production: those who do the work, or those who organized the system for their benefit. Both systems and, in fact, all of today’s political-economic systems are based on economic scarcity. The law of supply and demand and the invisible hand of competition are greed and fear-based concepts, and will become meaningless in a world based on economic abundance. Fuller stated that humanity must change from a fixation on weaponry to livingry. If we did, then our problems would be laughably easy to solve. A one-world government is coming. Whether it will be based on love or fear is the pertinent issue.
Political-economic dynamics are why we do not have free energy, not a lack of technology.
All paradigms are based on assumptions. Overturning the assumptions is how paradigms change. An abundance paradigm, based on energy abundance, can eliminate the scarcity assumption that all of today’s ideologies operate from (economic, political, scientific, religious). Heaven on earth is feasible with free energy and the economically abundant, environmentally harmless global civilization that could result from it. There can be no want, no disease and no strife, if we want it. But time is short. We are on the brink of several potential catastrophes. With free energy, all of those threats can disappear almost overnight.
When dealing with free energy and many similar areas, walking the fine line between denial and paranoia is a key, and very few are currently capable of walking that line. There are many objections to free energy (“laws of physics,” “conspiracy theory,” “magic of capitalism,” “greatness of America,” and so on – and all are rooted in scarcity-based ideologies). The conspiratorial and structuralist views both have validity, but neither, by itself, sees the big picture. Conspiracism is the addiction to conspiracy theories to the exclusion of more comprehensive studies of global political-economic dynamics. Structuralism is the addiction to structural explanations to the exclusion of the more “conspiratorial” aspects of global political-economic dynamics. Peter Dale Scott and others have been integrating the two perspectives with “deep politics” and similar analyses. It can also be seen as conscious versus unconscious (it also generally aligns with their cosmology: the universe was designed or is an accident).
I have looked into the JFK assassination, the Apollo program’s moon landings, 9/11 and other “conspiracies,” and can generalize about what I discovered along the way. Those pulling the strings naturally hide/destroy/manipulate the evidence, and the mainstream media supports the official narrative, no matter how untenable it may be. On the conspiratorial side, it is a three-ring circus, with ungrounded people, flimsy “conspiracy theories,” disinformation agents at work, each investigator/theorist fixates on his/her pet theory and attacks the others, and so on. There are far too many armchair theorists out there, on both sides of the debate. Honest, grounded, active seekers of the truth are almost impossible to find. It is like Diogenes’ quest for the honest man.
If all the conspiracy theories are true, then what? What are we to do? Speaking as somebody whose life was ruined by those who clandestinely run the world, trying to expose or punish the Big Boys is a boy’s dream. Thinking that they can be beaten at their own game is a delusion, and all such reactions are victim-oriented responses, as is the denial that the Big Boys exist and are actively mischievous. A creator-oriented response is to acknowledge the Big Boys’ existence and role, and attempt to make them obsolete, which can help bring humanity into heaven-on-earth territory, and can even help redeem the Big Boys. The Big Boys can only play their games with the power that humanity has given them by playing the victim game. For the herd’s size, the global shepherd’s task is surprisingly easy. People living in scarcity are easy to manipulate; people living in abundance are not. The Big Boys intimately understand that dynamic, and keeping humanity mired in economic scarcity is how they keep their hands on the global levers of power. In history’s richest and most powerful nation, the vast majority lives only a few missed paychecks from being homeless. That is a far cry from living in abundance.
My research since 1990 demonstrated to me that mainstream history is a lie (I worked in Columbus, I was born and live in Washington, I attended Junípero Serra elementary school – those three genocidists were held up to me as national heroes). The news is a lie. Capitalism sanctifies greed. We turn vices into virtues (national pride being one example of that phenomenon). The U.S. has always been a plutocracy, and there is no Golden Age of the American past; in fact, the opposite is largely true.
There are many myths of science. The greatest physicists were mystics and did not subscribe to the rationalist-materialist paradigm that has dominated the West for centuries, as epitomized by Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and the “skeptics.” The greatest science is the science of consciousness, and today’s “white” science has barely begun that exploration. Instead, it has erected a mechanistic model of the universe that the greatest physicists did not believe, but the hacks enforce it with their positions within the scientific establishment. The rationalist-materialist paradigm is a form of religion. Flashes of insight (AKA the Creative Moment) were responsible for the big breakthroughs in physics, not reason. That was true with Einstein, Tesla, Heisenberg, my mentor, etc. I had a more mundane flash about how to get every truck driver home every night.
There is no such thing as pure science; there are no “laws of physics,” only theories. The real world of scientific and technological progress is far different from how the textbooks present it, examples being Edison’s light bulb, the Wright brothers, Antoine Béchamp, Louis Pasteur and the germ theory, pleomorphic microbiology (Royal Rife, Gaston Naessens - their microscopes and optical theory), the cancer racket, the heart disease racket, fluoridation, the Second law of Thermodynamics and Wilhelm Reich and Eugene Mallove. Scientific literacy is important, but scientific dogma is crippling.
Less than one percent of the scientifically trained can think past their textbooks, which is common in all disciplines. Max Planck astutely summarized it with:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Einstein’s theories had impinged on John Rockefeller’s or another robber baron’s
empire, the world might still have not heard of relativity. Tesla’s
fate is an example of inventiveness in the energy field that threatened to
impact the robber baron empires. Tesla’s journey is an early example of free
Almost all of the free energy activists that I respect are mystics.
There is a free energy/extraterrestrial connection. Steven Greer has briefed all manner of public official on the ET issue, mounted a secret congressional briefing in 1997 with Apollo 14’s Ed Mitchell, and has lined up more than four hundred witnesses to testify, mostly military (including Gordon Cooper), and almost died after the 1997 briefing of induced cancer, while his assistant and a congressman did not survive. Former CIA director William Colby was murdered mere days after he tried transferring some of the ET-related above-top-secret technology to Greer’s group. Sitting American presidents are out of the loop regarding that situation. To the people who really run the world, sitting American presidents are far, far down the global food chain. Free energy and the ET/UFO situation are conjoined. The Big Boys have paid ten thousand people an average of ten million dollars apiece for their silence. Tom Bearden knows how they play the game, using their carrots and sticks.
Free energy technology is very real. Sparky Sweet had the goods, as did Adam Trombly, for two examples known to my close associates. A friend who does not even believe in ETs witnessed an underground exotic technology show.
I went to see UFOs myself in 2005, and was not disappointed. I witnessed it with military and aerospace personnel, who then went on the Art Bell show in 2006 to discuss our sighting. I have returned twice, and have always received a show.
I have yet to receive any attention from the radical left or any political group on the free energy issue, or from any earthly group of significance, and I have seen others try for many years, all futilely. Those groups have included the radical left, anarchists, the liberal left, the Peak Oil crowd, the Neo-Malthusians, environmentalists, New Agers, the Free Software Movement, religious groups, scientific organizations, the United Nations and every progressive organization that I have heard of. The right-wingers are almost always mired in conspiracism, flag-waving nationalism, etc. Almost everybody hacks at branches and ignores the root, as we become hooked on our particular brand of scarcity-based ideology. Abundance is unimaginable to us, while we see the world through our scarcity-conditioned eyes.
The most virtuous political-economic-social movements that I have yet seen still focus on enlarging the tiny slice of humanity’s scarce economic pie that the poor receive, instead of trying to make that pie a hundred times larger, so nobody needs to struggle for their slice. The wise implementation of free energy can accomplish that. Most of what passes for economics today does not focus on production or consumption, but on the exchange aspect – AKA who owns what. In a world of scarcity, that becomes the focus; in a world of abundance, the exchange aspect will become virtually meaningless. Mike Albert’s Parecon embodies the radical left’s challenge to today’s economic order, and the book does not even mention energy.
I have yet to be involved in a sustained, honest, intelligent and informed public discussion of these issues, and have never even heard of such a discussion. On the Internet, I am almost invariably ignored, attacked, trolled, banned, and so forth. It is mind-boggling to me that humanity has yet to mount a fruitful discussion of these critically important issues.
The Big Boys do not want heaven-on-earth, because they would not be in charge. Ruling in hell versus being a regular member in heaven is the choice they have made. However, their ranks are divided. But the Big Boys are a minor aspect of humanity’s situation, and cannot be beaten at their game. They can only be made obsolete, and the means become the ends. The most important lesson that I learned during my free energy journey is that personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity, and finding a sufficient pool of it that can focus on the energy issue (with our scarcity-based ideologies laid aside) is the key to bringing free energy to humanity. I believe that it does not take many awakened and informed people to catalyze the change to a global abundance paradigm, and free energy is perhaps the critical leverage point.
My question for many years has been this: must humanity achieve enlightenment and true sentience before it can enjoy the benefits of free energy and an abundance paradigm, or can its daily reality help catalyze it? It is a conundrum for which I have never encountered a definitive answer. I think those issues are conjoined. I am trying the sentience/enlightenment route, after having my life ruined on the business/technology route, but I am also trying to integrate them. Going the business/technology route, without understanding the game and the score, is the path of disaster and a shortened life expectancy. When people begin becoming familiar with suppressed energy technology, the “productive” responses that progress beyond denial (AKA armchair “skepticism”) are almost always along these lines:
Build a free energy device and market it;
Build a free energy device and form a mass movement around it;
Build a free energy device and use it in rural areas, where people think they can live beyond the Big Boys’ reach;
Build a free energy device and wait for the Big Boys to buy them out (the “lottery winner” approach, which is perilous).
None of those approaches has worked yet, to any significant degree. The legitimate technology is taken out of circulation rather quickly, by the carrot or stick, leaving the chaff behind to be continually rehashed by the unproductive. All such approaches suffer from misconceptions/delusions that must be overcome if those pursing free energy hope to achieve anything resembling success. For instance, building free energy devices is harder than it first appears. Almost all of the free energy prototypes that I know of have at least one exotic component that is not easily made in an inventor’s workshop.
There are downsides to free energy (weaponized, irresponsible use), but they are not valid reasons for the innumerable knee-jerk rejections of free energy that I have encountered over the years. As Greer has stated when encountering such objections, the worst elements of humanity already possess this technology.
Our destiny lies in our hands, not theirs, and sufficient divine (selfless) intention is the key. Coercion and violence will not work, particularly in this pursuit. Enlightenment and true sentience is sufficient. Love always has been and always will be the answer.
Can we make new energy thinkable? That is a question that only we can answer.
A Note to My Critics, Again
During Carol’s show, the second-hour’s caller broached a subject in my original outline: my story’s credibility. The caller questioned my credibility because there were not enough names, dates and documents in my story for his liking. I state in my writings, several times (1, 2, 3, 4), why I do not name many names. It is unethical to publish somebody’s name unless they consent to it, particularly when dealing with my site’s subject matter. That is especially true for the innocent who want to recover in anonymous peace from their ordeals and do not desire contact from the public. I do not name names to protect the innocent, the guilty, the naïve, and the idly curious. I could name Mr. Deputy or Bill the BPA Hit Man on my site, and even publish contact information for them. However, that would be like inviting people to go pet the rabbit in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. People who approach dark path initiates like Mr. Deputy and Bill the BPA Hit Man, to question them about their roles in Dennis Lee’s adventures, are putting themselves in jeopardy in ways they may not imagine. I also do not need the dark path folks coming after me because I am shining the spotlight on them. This work is difficult enough as it is, without that kind of unnecessary attention.
Steven Greer, in his latest book, did the same thing that I do. He left many names out of his story but, like me, he also named some names of those with public roles in the events. Somebody posted to the Internet his guesses of the names that Greer left out. If people do that regarding my writings, not only is it ethically questionable, they may become legally culpable regarding the innocent, and may receive unwanted attention from the guilty. Shining a spotlight on the dark path folks is dangerous business and does little, if any, good, as far as I have seen. Knowing those names is of little or no use in understanding how the world really works or for launching a free energy effort.
In addition, several times when I have omitted names when relating events, they were famous names, but until such people publicly speak about those events that they participated in, I will not mention their names in relationship to those events while they are alive. I have even been constrained by surviving family members from mentioning the names of the deceased, because the survivors fear the Big Boys’ retribution and unwanted public attention. That comes with the territory. Those whose research efforts are confined to Googling up names within seconds of skimming my work are not my target audience. Dabblers cannot fruitfully study the free energy milieu, and I advise them to pursue more suitable subject matter. As with all learning experiences, you get out what you put in.
This site refers to many primary documents (for instance, see the footnotes to the My Adventures essay and Dennis’ story), where people can go digging for names, documents, patents and the like, if they are so inclined. However, with only one exception so far, nobody who challenged my credibility has ever done any of the homework needed to validate or invalidate my story. The effort needed to verify most of the important names, dates, places and documents cited in my story amounts to about one mundane day of research. The only critic that did some homework was Mr. Skeptic, and his published writings on the subject are criminally libelous.
I recently wrote about the marked degeneration in Internet discourse over the years, which has accelerated since 9/11. A similar phenomenon has occurred regarding doing one’s homework. In 1996, when I published my first website, no scholar was referring to the Internet as a reliable information source. Scholarly material was sparse on the Internet in 1996. The information-superhighway hype was soon replaced by a gold rush mentality that culminated in the dot-bomb of 2000-2002. I worked for a dot.com in 1999, and have worked for one for the past several years. Since 1996, the Internet has become more substantial, although information sources such as Wikipedia have deep, structural problems, some of which I encountered first-hand. Few sources cited in my writings are Internet-based. Most were obtained in the standard scholarly way: visiting libraries, digging into archives, locating primary documents, hunting for out-of-print books in antiquarian bookstores, interviewing people, etc. These days, “research” amongst my critics amounts to surfing the Internet for ten minutes and then citing (even lauding) Mr. Skeptic’s disinformation website as a worthy rebuttal to my work. Those kinds of glued-to-the-armchair efforts are worthless. Learning how the world works will not be accomplished by surfing the Internet. Information must be leavened by experience, if attaining valid perspectives is desired.
Ironically, the caller who challenged my story told one himself on the suppression of innovative energy technology, which I relate at this footnote.
I am human with my foibles. Dennis and all other free energy activists are human too. If people want to criticize us, that is their right. If they want to make credible criticisms, however, they have set themselves a strenuous task. The best third-party criticism that I have yet seen regarding Dennis’ journey led me to contribute to the critic’s effort. I do not entirely agree with that critique, nor do I consider it deeply informed about Dennis’ journey, but it was the best I have yet seen and I respected that critic’s perspective. I have seen more than a hundred criticisms of Dennis’ efforts, including nationally aired TV shows. They have all, with the exception of that lone credible effort, been riddled with logical fallacies, dishonesty, inadequate or misleading documentation, and so forth. Credible criticisms are welcome, but I have yet to see a defensible one that impugned Dennis’ integrity, the viability of the technologies we pursued, the validity of the material on my site, or the credibility of the efforts made by Steven Greer, Brian O’Leary, Adam Trombly, Sparky Sweet and those of other free energy activists/inventors that I respect.
 I am writing this footnote on April 11, 2008, more than a month after I was on Carol’s show. A few minutes ago, I finished listening to that show for the first time, and now realize that the caller did not even read any of my website before he “took exception” to what I had to say. He knew nothing of my site, so did not challenge my story’s credibility because it was not documented well enough for his liking, although that is a standard criticism. The caller only knew what he heard on the radio. For him to then tell Wallace Minto’s suppression story after he took exception to mine is odd, but also reflects the corners that people can paint themselves into. The caller knew that Minto’s technology was suppressed. On the global energy scene, Minto’s technology was a minor nuisance at best. Minto is one of more than 10,000 people who had their “disruptive” technology suppressed in one way or another, and the Big Boys may well not have even been involved in suppressing Minto’s technology. Capitalism is hostile to disruptive technologies and the corporate world unwittingly does a great deal of Big Boys’ suppression work for them. Lone inventors and small, capitalistic groups are the easiest free energy aspirants to derail, and usually are destroyed by their “allies” or their own character weaknesses before the Big Boys even need to lift a finger, while the public is oblivious to the dramas. People with the goods get suppressed very quickly.
The caller claimed to have looked into free energy technology, which I will accept
is true. There is a ton of chaff amongst the free
energy field’s wheat, and the Big Boys are vigilant and have far more resources
to winnow the wheat than any lone investigator can. Either the caller only encountered
free energy chaff or he ran into people who stumbled into the many pitfalls that await the inexperienced and unwary.
Or some of the “mystery”
he encountered was suppression and he did not comprehend what he was seeing.
 The caller discussed Wallace Minto’s story, because his grandfather helped fund Minto’s efforts. I knew of Minto’s story, partly because the technology that Minto pursued was strikingly similar to what we tried in marrying Dennis’ heat pump to Mr. Mentor’s heat engine. Here are links on Minto’s engine. Minto’s engine and what Dennis attempted are identical in certain respects, and they have been compared publicly. Minto, like innumerable other inventors, approached the automobile industry for funding and development, which is perhaps the most naïve and common approach there is, typical of inventors and the scientifically trained. If an inventor is lucky, he will be bought out and the technology shelved. Minto received $25 million for the exclusive rights to his technology, a Japanese car company built a prototype, and it was then shelved. If the inventor is not so lucky, his life will be destroyed and he might be murdered. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of stories like Minto’s. The automobile companies have possessed technology vastly superior to what is on today’s market for at least sixty years, and have fended off inventors for as long. The automobile companies either stonewalled the inventors, bought them out, helped them fall on their swords or, if all else failed, they got violent. If the technology provided a minor benefit and did not upset the racketeering paradigm, the automobile companies often stole it. The automobile industry’s corruption is global in scale. There is no earthly location free of that corruption, and the auto companies work hand-in-hand with the oil companies. Sparky Sweet approached the automobile and energy institutions, and even mailed working prototypes of his free energy device to the energy institutions, which was when his troubles really began.
Minto’s tale also highlights a key aspect of my learning experience. The Big Boys may not have been involved with suppressing Minto’s technology. The Japanese auto company easily saw the writing on the wall if an engine like Minto’s ever came to market. Planned obsolescence and the other racketeering aspects of capitalism are not confined to U.S. corporations. As Steven Greer has stated, the Big Boys are Godzilla, but my experience is that while Godzilla is the undisputed king of the global jungle, it is also filled with T-Rexes, velociraptors and other predators. After challenging my credibility, the caller then promoted biofuels, which is one of the worst “solutions” yet proposed regarding the industrialized world’s energy issues, which I will examine in depth in my upcoming essay on energy, ecosystems and economics (I plan to publish it in 2009).
Next Section: My Project Camelot Interview (109K)