 |
There are currently, 393 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done?
Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 @ 17:13:37 UTC by vlad
|
|
Dear readers,
I’m getting more or less angry/concerned mail from people under the false impression that I’ve already qualified Gr. Greer’s (SEAS) recently discovered device (apparently tapping the ZPE) as a scam. Nothing further from the truth! I apologize for this ambiguity in the new poll but please note that the question starts with an “IF…” (I made it in capitals now!:-). I’m not aware of any evidence to suggest that the device investigated was fraudulent in nature.
Some people said I should’ve included an option for “Don’t think it’s a scam”. My intention was to hear from those who BELIEVE it’s a scam and they think they know how it was done. I considered that we all could learn something from those who have the know-how on how to put/transmit that kind of power (apparently more than 500W) in such a relatively small and light device (which was also examined internally as stated by Dr. Greer in his interview). Unfortunately, as Ryan said, we don’t know for how long the team tested the device to calculate the amount of energy it delivered during that initial site test.
Of course the only methods that I know of that might do the trick were listed in the poll’s options. I also know from SEAS’ “Checklist for Testing O/U Devices” guide that they should have been very much aware of these procedures, that can be easily tested and eliminated as possible sources of energy. I was/am hoping that by clicking on “Other (please elaborate)” option we’ll learn other possible tricks…but it seems no "other" method was identified so far (there have been no explicit comments about that).
I’m almost convinced Dr. Greer and his team are not in the business of fooling the public to get money/publicity(?) out of it (as many skeptics say they are). But they’re not immune to scams either. This poll wants to give the chance to those supporting the scam hypothesis to explain us how this could have been done. If we don’t get any other smart methods (except those listed) I would strongly lean towards the "device is genuine" possibility. Please distribute this question to whatever people/forums, etc., you think might have an interesting explanation and post the answer here. Thank you.
Vlad
______________________
Moderator
ZPEnergy.com
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done?" | Login/Create an Account | 11 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done? (Score: 1)
by Tom on Sunday, April 06, 2003 @ 09:02:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Has anyone heard anything since the first announcement ? Have there been any interviews since Feb 4 ? You would think there would have been an update by now ! Tom.W |
Re: IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done? (Score: 1)
by Doug on Monday, April 07, 2003 @ 00:22:39 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | All I can tell you is that I know how busy they are, and from my understanding of the SEAS plans Dr Greer is adamant that THREE independent tests by highly qualified and respectable organizations are his minimum requirement before launching into the next phase - which involves disclosing it.
Possibly these tests have not started simultaneously, and also I do not know how long they plan to run such a device in order to "prove" it out. Probably it has to be tested AND replicated from scratch in each lab, which means some prototyping in each case. If one lab started late we could be waiting even though the team know it is real.
For sure I expect Dr Greer to be open about failure, and the silence is no bad thing at present. But it is frustrating!
I am 100% certain there is no scam from his side, as I know the man and quite a few of his cohorts. They are not after people's money. Dr Greer was well enough paid as a trauma surgeon to accumulate millions over his working life; he has in fact given up money to pursue this for all it's worth.
Cheers,
Doug |
]
replication (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Monday, April 07, 2003 @ 10:57:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | Before they send it out for a test, they plan to build their own and replicate it in their own labs. I am sure there would have been an announcement if this step had been met, since it would be real news. If we've not heard anything, it means that it's not replicated yet. Don't expect an announcement if it does not work. The 1999 announcement of an overunity motor was a trick on Greer, but he never announced that it was a trick. |
]
Re: replication (Score: 1)
by Doug on Monday, April 07, 2003 @ 21:52:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | OK, if it dies, it dies. But I do expect an announcement because as noted I know these people and I will hear about it. And I don't know of any reason why I would not pass on such news. That has no bearing on the idea that this could be a scam with Dr Greer's participation - there is no chance of that at all.
If there is some problem building and testing replicas, which as I'm sure you know is common in the "over unity" field(s), then they may spend quite a bit of time chasing after it before giving up.
Rather than worry about that, as it really has no effect on any of us, I would like to think that Dr Greer having been burned before by speaking out too soon, has learned a very important lesson and is not about to repeat it.
All we can do is wait. Wouldn't it be better if inventors managed to replicate their OWN work first???!!!!!! One-off wonders are a bit of a problem.
Doug |
]
replication replication replication (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 @ 00:07:41 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Yes, it would be good if people took careful measurments, measured lots of times under a variety of conditions (high load, low load, warm, cold, ...). If it's a real OU device, we need to quantify the conditions under which it works. In the much more likely it's an error in your (fill in the blank) meter, it's good to learn and teach others not to make the same mistake. And never tear down a small moderately OU prototype to make room for a large machine.
About Greer. He's not developed a strong track record of owning up to past mistakes on claiming OU machines. He never disclosed the final resolution of his last OU machine, so why should I expect that he will disclose this one? Maybe the tone of the times has me predisposed to belive that everyone is brushing their mistakes under the rug, but Greer has done it once and I don't see why he wont do it again. If you work with him, you might ask him to consider that an open telling of his 1999 mistake would only show that he can learn from mistakes. Anyone who believes in a (stupid) one strike and you're out rule already is not listening to him. His reputation is in no way enhanced by his secrecy on this issue.
|
]
Re: Reputation and admission (Score: 1)
by Doug on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 21:57:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Actually, I heard him admit it was a stuff up on an Art Bell show some time ago. I don't know what other sort of thing he needs to do. Maybe it would be a bit negative to put it on the SEAS website, but then again.....
I happen to think that people who are on the inside of these attempts can become very insular and even paranoid. So it looks bad from the outside, but it is not always devious.
I stand by my assessment of Steven Greer, there is not a bad bone in his body - but that doesn't mean he is all sweetness and light. He has a powerful ego and does not suffer fools gladly, so I know there are people who are not happy with him. He demands that things are done his way, and openly admits this (somewhat of an aftereffect of running a hospital Trauma team, where it's a bit like the military).
I also stand by my comment that if it dies, that will not remain a long term secret!
Doug |
]
Reputation and admission (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 22:24:38 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | I hope you are right, and that SEAS will deal with any new attemps to scam them in a transparent way.
Your comment about running a trauma unit might be on target. Habits developed in such a job might translate badly to other tasks and might take a while to unlearn.
What's a stuff up? |
]
Re: Reputation and admission (Score: 1)
by Doug on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 22:39:31 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | What I meant by that was that Dr Greer made reference to the earlier premature announcement (he may have been prompted by Art) and what was said amounted to an admission of failure; a "stuff up" being a colloquial term used here (NZ) to mean things went badly wrong.
I do not know the details of that but I will ask and I am sure some of the Disclosure people will know and can fill me in (you already know about it I can tell, I should probably hear what they say to fill in some detail).
I too hope it was just embarrassment or similar, and that lessons were learned. That's what SEAS creation was all about, pulling together all the experience of how these things failed before, and trying to nail them all down. Attracting some powerful people onto "your side" is still a key point though - much to my disappointment.
Cheers,
Doug |
]
|
|
Re: IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done? (Score: 1)
by Doug on Monday, April 07, 2003 @ 00:40:54 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi Vlad,
I like your comment that you are "almost convinced" that Dr Greer is not into scams! Fair enough for people who are watching from a distance. However, I took the time (and my own expenses) to go and meet him, twice, when my curiosity got to me. He is as honest as the day is long, of that I have no doubt. He does not solicit money, in fact he has deliberately stopped earning a great living to focus on this because that's what he believes in doing.
I have certainly not seen the slightest sign that he is evasive, rather he is easy to access. I was amazed to just turn up and be viewing the first videos of the "Disclosure Project" and be treated with trust from the word go (we helped edit them during a week at Joshua Tree).
The nature of many of the things discussed and indeed seen at these gatherings is strange enough to put many people off. From my perspective they helped dispel any doubts (I cannot fathom any means by which Dr Greer could have pre-arranged for some self-luminous object to come hurtling out of the sky at enormous speed, rapidly changing direction, shine a light ONTO our group and then seemingly zap up into space while almost 50 people watched, many with night scopes and binoculars trained on it).
Make of that what you will, but I'd trust the man with my life and I don't send him money other than for buying a few copies of the books and videos to show others. I have also started to encounter much more main-stream examples of deliberate technology supression than ever before (examples in Eureka magazine recently), so it all makes sense I'm afraid. Pity, some days I'd rather the world was not so complex and nasty.
Doug
Disclosure Project Rep, NZ |
Re: IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done? (Score: 1)
by Zypher on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 11:56:02 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Doug,
You say that while at one of these two gatherings with Greer, that you saw a UFO?
Was it claimed to be of extraterrestial origin, or a reproduction vehicle?
Regardless, with all those people using night scopes and binnoculars, did anyone have a video camera running to capture this event?
Is there any proof of this?
Let me tell you that yes, I'm skeptical - But I'm also not a "non-believer". Forgive me, but I must see these things (in some form or fashion) before I'll form an opinion.
What are the chances that one will see such an event while at one of these meetings with Greer?
-Ryan |
]
Re: IF Dr. Greer's recently discovered device is a scam, how was it done? (Score: 1)
by Doug on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 @ 22:31:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well, here goes (in public for the first time!).
I have been to two field events with CSETI. I have also while there, met lots of people who have been to many others, and made my own decisions on whether they were reliable. Good examples include - Pilots! From these guys, I am certain I was getting solid data (about their own sightings and on previous field trips).
The one I referred to was pretty much a done deal - nobody thinks it was an "ARV". It was though at an altitude that puts it a few miles away; flight patern was definitely NOT an aircraft or helicopter. As for video? There were several night view cameras there, but no-one was fast enough to point one as this episode was in and over in about 10 seconds (until out of eyesight - a further 5 seconds for it to get up and out of binocular view, complicated by the fact that it may well have been deliberately dimming down. It definitely shone a bright light in our direction at the bottom of it's sweep).
I have seen attempts to film these events - what results is usually pretty disappointing - a faint flashing light for example. So I very much doubt that you would gain from seeing film of it.
As far as your chances of seeing something significant - I'd say about 30%. That requires a lot of personal committment and fees of $500 a pop (ie: three trips to get a high chance, at ~500 each time plus living expenses), but I must say here that it isn't all about raking in dough - the whole concept of CSETI needs some money to run - nobody is getting rich. Who do you think pays for military witnesses to come to DC or wherever to give testimony (flights and hotels I mean, they are NOT paid).
What happens at these things is about more than "seeing a UFO", as I have mentioned in other posts weird stuff that I cannot easily describe also happens and to me is just as significant (and pretty much rules out the stuff being down to human activity, unless the conspirscy theorists are correct and "we" have amazing technology in use by clandestine groups - and in either case, the technology is REAL). We are dealing with the mysterious.....I would not put my hand up and say that it's all down to alien visitors.
But there IS something serious going on- and when 15 people have the same experience of seeing a small PURPLE light following an F-16 for a few miles above the Crestone range, then darting off; and of having several F-16's (ID'ed by ex mil guys in the group, not me) fly over us (50 people) minutes after something happened....you'd be a pretty hard nosed skeptic to ignore all of this. Their timing was impeccable if it was "coincidental training", on more than one night. On the other hand there can be a bit of crystal gazing which does put many straight people off. Dr Greer is "at home" with anything - he doesn't cme over as a sandal weraing new ager, he is a Doctor - but nothing surprises him. He doesn't get excited with anything I saw, because he has seen it up close and personal.
If you want any gory detail, send me a private message and I'll pass on my email address if it isn't already open.
Doug |
]
|
|
|
|
