All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2009 - Project Camelot
01:42:02
Zurich Conference: Dr Brian O'Leary's workshop, 12 July 2009
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, where do I begin?
At the beginning, yeah.
Thirty years ago this month, I was on the physics faculty at Princeton University as a planetary scientist, as a space scientist.
And I was minding my own business and being a good scientist and preparing my career to be Really at the top of my field and I had a remote viewing experience in a workshop.
It was a LifeSpring training.
I was able to tune into somebody I had never met before.
And I had no idea then whether...
Well, we'll hold the questions for about a few minutes and then we'll throw it open.
And I thought, gee, this is very strange.
I had no idea.
I was very naive.
Even then I was naive.
Even though I had been in the astronaut program, I still wasn't privy to any inside information.
So I was still very naive, just an idealistic young professor.
And I had this remote viewing experience and my colleagues at Princeton University didn't like paranormal experiences.
They were skeptics.
True skeptics.
Last night you heard references to the lapis pig.
Who is my alter ego, who is all for mainstream science, mainstream thinking.
He wanted to go to a bank here and visit some of the bankers.
He wanted to go to Basel And visit the Bank of International Settlements to see how the world is run.
And, of course, I'm from a very different population.
And I think most of you are, too.
Anyway, that experience 30 years ago really opened me up to all sorts of things.
And I didn't even know that there were programs that the CIA was doing on remote viewing.
So naive was I. I didn't think there was any such thing as black ops.
I thought all the CIA did was maybe collect some intelligence here and there, but there was nothing proactive.
And so, of course, this journey that began thirty years ago has never stopped.
And so being in the presence of you all and being at a conference such as this, I suddenly realized that perhaps I'm going back to my Princeton days and then I'm probably more grounded, more epistemologically scientific than perhaps some of the other presentations.
Not that there's anything invalid about them because I think that there was really some brilliant things and very important things presented by the others too.
But I tend to rely on the scientific method as my way of finding out about reality.
And even doing that, and my whole life was dedicated for the past thirty years really to looking at science outside the box of normal, materialistic, reductionistic, deterministic thinking.
That certainly there is a lot more to science than that.
Sometimes I like to think of science as, well, think of this whiteboard as being a box and let's say the time axis runs along here and the space axis runs along here And any conjecture or inquiry, even inquiry, into anything that may lie outside of this box is considered taboo in a court of scientific inquiry.
So, for example, this might metaphorically represent our inner space, such things as remote viewing, psychic experiences, psychokinetics, psychokinesis, and so forth.
are all not valid enquiry at a university setting unless you risk your career and then up here metaphorically would be our outer space and that would be UFO ET phenomena Anomalies on Mars or other planets, that's also considered taboo.
Or in the time axis, any conjecture that we survive death is not, it's taboo.
Near-death experiences Are not considered valid inquiry, even though I later was to have a near-death experience.
In an automobile accident, I went out of my body and experienced this wonderful light that I didn't want to come back from during the accident.
I'm glad you made it.
Thank you.
I'm glad to still be here, believe me.
You know, sometimes I speculate in my most recent book, The Energy Solution Revolution, that sometimes I feel...
I mean, this is really paranoid, but I'll say it.
We might as well admit some of our paranoias, is that either it's the Earth or me.
If I'm effective at trying to help save the planet, Then I'm dead.
They get me.
Or, if I survive, that means that I'm sufficiently harmless to be able to go on, carry on.
And in a sense, the world is like that.
So for the past 30 years, I've been doing, wherever possible, using the scientific method to inquire into these matters that lie outside the box of normal inquiry.
And the process, of course, what I learned, which many of you perhaps have also learned in your fields, is that in our inner space and outer space, or after death, or before birth, reincarnation, karma, all those concepts that lie outside the box, are not only open to our experience and to metaphysical teachings, but it's also open to scientific inquiry using scientific methods.
And so for a number of years there, I published a number of books that summarized some of these things.
The first one of this series of books, I've done about eleven books.
This one was called, Exploring Inner and Outer Space and the Second Coming of Science, where I talk about the box metaphor.
And so that's been going on and then meanwhile things seem to be accelerating, aren't they?
There seems to be a bifurcation of the world.
We have normal inquiry, business as usual, which includes the mainstream media, the mainstream scientific community, somehow an unwitting alliance with the Illuminati and all of the other forces that tend to resist change.
And so I've symbolically created my lapis pig, I think I'll get him out, to be basically the guardian of current truth or current perceived truth.
Well meanwhile all of these unfolding truths are really catching us quite a bit off balance.
So what I thought I'd do on the first part of this morning is to just throw it open for questions and discussion And then in the second half, I have a couple of presentations.
I probably have time to only give one of them.
And I think the one I'm going to choose, it's called Reinheriting the Earth.
I think that humanity is really messing up the planet badly.
And that we don't need to get mired in debates about global warming or this or that.
I think we all realize that the human condition on the planet and the destruction of nature is a crime of major proportions.
And that we have to do something about it, politically, socially, economically.
And the powers that be aren't doing anything about it.
And so it's going to be up to us.
And it's really a shame to me, to my way of thinking, that people that are supposed to be at the edge of knowledge, our academic scientists, are among those that are an unwitting alliance with the powers that be.
Because, in large part, they depend on their careers that way.
Now, I know a lot of you are in health and the healing sciences and the resistance to change there is just as much as it is in the physical sciences.
It's across the board.
Anything that lies outside of the mainstream, whether it's homeopathy or energy medicine, Or whether it's remote viewing, or whether it's the UFO ET phenomenon, or whether it's looking glasses, or working with time and space, manipulating it, or whether it's our consciousness.
These are all...
or whether it's free energy, which I'll be talking about this afternoon.
These are all things that lie outside the box that are just longing to be born in a science of the 21st century.
But we're kicking and screaming along the way.
And it's very easy to get stuck in side issues.
I think last night, in a way, there was some of that going on.
It's very controversial, the question of vaccines.
It's very easy to be misunderstood when issues like this come up.
And it's also very easy to get angry, and that I also consider to be a normal part of the transformational process of grieving an old paradigm as we begin to enter into the new.
And the other thing I wanted to mention is that the greatest fear we have, besides the fear of physical death of our bodies, is the fear of the unknown.
That sometimes we just say, well, better the devil we know than the devil we don't know.
And the devil that we know is not a very nice one.
It is causing us, it's holding us back from what we truly need to do as a culture.
And so we'll talk about some of those things too this morning.
And my PowerPoint presentation this morning will be more based on my previous book, Re-Inheriting the Earth, in which I discuss some of the mega or meta solutions to our mega global problems, such as free energy, such as the purification of water and energy.
Creating a truly sustainable future that goes way beyond such quote solutions as carbon cap and trading or Sequestration using gross means like forcing carbon dioxide into caves or putting chemtrails up to screen sunlight to offset the effects of anthropogenic global warming and so forth and so on.
These are all non-solutions or biofuels.
One SUV tank full of gas, SUV, sports utility vehicle, tank full of gas, of biofuel gas could feed one hungry person for one year.
This is clearly going on the wrong track.
And we have other tracks we can go on, but we have to be willing to understand what the possibilities are and to be able to come together in unity to implement those solutions.
So I think I gave my introductory spiel here, so why don't I just throw it out for discussion, questions, and we'll go from there.
Anybody like to speak out?
Yeah.
One of you had your hand up.
For a remote viewing, which teacher do you have?
Was it Ingo Swann or Ed Dames?
Neither one.
I was my own teacher.
It was one of those exercises in the workshop that was designed to simply tune into somebody.
There was no particular person who trained me.
After that time, I met Ingo Swann, and I'm glad to say I never met Ed Dames, because you see, the people that work for the CIA, one time they tried to recruit me, and I wasn't interested, and they didn't like that.
But I just am so happy, in a sense.
I feel my heart goes out to the people that were former insiders and are still trying to walk that line.
So I trained myself.
It was an experience I had pretty spontaneously.
It was the last day of a workshop in which I was feeling no pain.
I felt very tuned into the universe.
I felt at one with the universe and then I was able to remotely view a person that I had never met before and have them very accurately described.
And that to me was a very revealing experience.
Anybody else?
No?
Yeah, my background is I've got a physics degree and a master's in acoustics and now I've got into energy healing and other stuff.
So I seem to be torn between the two worlds that you're talking about in a similar way.
And I've been doing all the research into free energy and clean water and other stuff, but nobody outside of this sort of scenario believes what we're talking about.
And it goes into what they were talking about yesterday and the day before with the 15%.
And I don't even feel like 15% are awake.
I feel like we're like a point of the percent.
Point one five.
Yeah, point one five or point two or something like that.
And they all think we're loonies.
I know.
You can give somebody Reiki or distant healing.
And they can feel it, and then they still don't wake up.
They don't ask any questions.
They seem to be asleep.
So the question is, how do you wake people up?
The question is, how do we wake people up?
And that's a hard thing, because of course, you know, I mean, one treatment is the two by four.
You just take a piece of wood and you go...
But that doesn't seem to work either.
I think I mentioned Max Planck one time said that science progresses between funerals.
But the problem here is that we don't have that luxury of time.
If we want to heal ourselves and heal the earth, we're going to have to move into it.
And so therefore, we have a job that's never happened before in human history.
And we heard yesterday from David Wilcock that things are accelerating.
I really believe that.
And I hope that we can mature in the raising of our own consciousness.
and the consciousnesses of others maybe it will take a major crisis worldwide and they seem to be impinging on us aren't they?
It could be an economic crisis that's happening it could be an environmental crisis it could be something heretofore unrecognized that has to do with the rise once again of fascism There are many,
many problems that we have right now, which I've been exploring and studying myself in great detail, and I'm quite concerned about our future, and yet awakening others seems to be such a difficult process.
I don't have a simple answer for that, except to say, let's stick together, let's have our own new colleagueship.
Be our support system as we grow.
And maybe that hundredth monkey is here.
Maybe he's right here in this room.
Maybe there will be an infectious, wrong word, viral, let's see, growing growth of some sort of new paradigm.
I know it's going to happen.
It just seems to be a question of timing.
My only worry is if you do it in groups and you're too closed in the groups, you will be seen from the outside as like a cult or something like that.
And they will, you know, the powers that be could end up just coming and torching us like they did in America that time, you know, and it's...
I know.
I know.
It's really a very difficult kind of thing, and I like to be optimistic, but I'm not sure if I am.
It's kind of like a Star Wars or David and Goliath scenario where it seems like all the power is in the hands of those in control.
And I think most of you would agree that this mythology is unfolding before our unbelieving eyes that there are control elements here in the world that don't want these things to happen.
And so we want to be able to at least negotiate To at least say, well, is there a way we can all make peace?
And last night, to me, was an indication that there are some people that are mighty angry.
I'll say it again this afternoon, but I had a bumper sticker, you know, bumper stickers in the U.S., we had bumper stickers.
It said, the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
Well, we don't want to escalate this battle so that we have another Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden, and then Nuremberg.
We'd like to instead have a peacemaking process where people can come to the table and discuss ways of cooperating.
Because I think the new agenda, I think that most of us will agree that the so-called Illuminati agenda, or let's say the U.S. military-industrial complex agenda, or the banksters agenda, maybe we'll take a field trip to Basel, wouldn't that be interesting?
Knock on the front door.
Knock on the front door, and the building that looks like a boot, and I'll bring the lapis pig, and he'll kind of mediate.
You know, it would be good to be able to talk to these people because their agenda, although it seems like they're in charge, and that's certainly...
They won't talk to you.
They will not talk to you.
They will not talk to you.
Well, eventually I think they will.
But not freely.
I mean, obviously there's a whole hierarchy there, and they're much more organized, but that's also the nature of fascism, isn't it?
And many of you may be old enough to remember the days of fascism and how it might be coming back.
And that's my main concern, really, is to...
Is to create a peaceful process of negotiating with compassion and love for everybody, but at the same time where the power mongers no longer can hold their sway and implement eugenics programs and other horrible things.
Yes?
We are free energy seminar now here, yeah?
And I would like to ask you, there is, I mean, many of people, even I talk now, that they are theoretical, you can, when it comes to theoretical stuff, you can find a lot of stuff anywhere, internet and...
But according to your opinion, which of the team or which of the person nowadays already I'm going to take this off because I'm hot.
Okay, okay, good.
I'll put this right here, maybe.
That's good, yeah.
And I'd like to be able to sit on the table.
Is that possible?
Yeah.
Good, good.
Great.
Well, a chair, I think, then you won't see me.
I seem to wake people up I'm not very keen about this 15, 85, 85 it's a question of open mind and personal experience That's my opening.
But can you tell me according to your opinion which people are closest or maybe already built and proved that this machine is stopping energy from Okay, we'll get into some of the principles of free energy.
The principles are okay, but really, really, I'm an engineer, and I would like to build and give it to people.
If somebody seems to earn money, like Ben yesterday said, that they are capitalists, that's not the way.
Because there are bunkers, I'm also involved in business, and I know how to manipulate in business people.
There's plenty of tricks.
If somebody seems to invent something, build it, and earn money, I'm sorry for you.
It's entering very dangerous territory.
It's the only way to build it and give it to people.
Give it away, yeah.
You know, go ahead.
Definitely in the current paradigm, I agree with you, but money is also being corrupted.
I mean, money was originally just a barter system Yeah, when you talk about money you are in Illuminati territory and they are massive.
So let's not talk about the money.
I agree.
Yeah, I hear you.
And here's the conundrum.
A conundrum is an English word that means a paradox in a way, that we're stuck in a way.
And I have addressed this question of free energy for a very long time and have come to the conclusion that in principle We can implement it and have a world of abundance.
But it must be responsibly managed, which forces the issue that we need to be socially, politically, economically responsible.
And that is a tall order given the fact that right now the way the system is structured, the greediest people and the people that want to instill fear are the ones that are the richest and in charge.
And it's a real conundrum.
It's a big problem.
But rather than focus on the problem, The way I like to think is, okay, let's have a look at these technologies and let's see what they can really do.
And then ask the question, well, why are they being suppressed?
Who's doing the suppressing?
And then...
Ask the question, well, can we create a vision for the future that's positive, that is contagious, and that is so irresistible that the negative forces just evaporate?
And I go back and forth on that one.
It's a difficult question.
I really have now myself moved from technical considerations to the more social and political ones, and my most recent book addresses only the social and political issues, because I've met many of the inventors.
I've been to their laboratories.
I see that there are many concepts out there that have been proven experimentally, And many, many different approaches and technologies, any one or some of which could do the trick, could solve the problem.
The problem is, of course, the implementation of the technology It becomes a very, very big challenge.
Most people, being an engineer, I'm sure you appreciate that in any kind of research, development, evaluating, testing, and deploying, does require a sizable investment in many cases.
Maybe not as much as some people estimate, but it will take some effort.
And the ideal way of doing it, let's say if the U.S. Department of Energy or whatever country's Department of Energy had the resources and the will, they would go ahead and do this.
They would create a laboratory, people would come together and do it just like the Apollo program.
It would be peanuts for them.
It would be peanuts.
Oh, I know.
I know it gets suppressed.
I'm talking about the...
Okay.
I'm talking about the ideal.
I'm not talking about this.
It so far hasn't worked.
That scenario has not worked.
I agree.
And so then, giving it away is another scenario.
And I think that that, and we'll get to you in a moment here, I think that's a good one.
And I think the only thing that I'd want to be cautious about Is to make sure that this technology, like any other technology, is responsibly implemented.
We don't want Dick Cheney running this one.
You can see what's happening here is that we're dealing with an extremely powerful technology that has huge potential.
But also the potential for abuse.
And so it means that the part of me that's a peace activist gets very active.
And it's my hope and prayer that this technology, because I think it really is the only answer to our energy dilemma.
Any device can be turned to an arm.
That's correct.
Any, and even a combustion engine is used in time.
So I don't take this argument.
Simply give it to people.
We are not children here.
Yeah.
We had a couple of hands in the back.
We'll return to that question.
I don't know the details of these technologies and stuff like that, but the impression I got from reading about several ideas and things like that is that the people who invent that are still into the old ways and they want to patent it and they want to get Just releasing their knowledge and let other people take that knowledge and take it further.
And sometimes someone has a good idea but is stuck at some point and he doesn't know how to get over that point and some other guy may have an idea to get over that point.
And I think what's missing here is the sharing of the knowledge.
I'm coming from a software side and the open source movement is a very powerful thing and created things which also brought down corporations or at least their old ways and I think something like that is needed for this movement as well.
Very good point.
Open sourcing certainly is a very, very good model.
I agree.
Yes?
I fully agree as well, and also agree with this gentleman, but I think we have to create a platform, actually, to get these people together.
But that's what frustrates me, you know.
I'm also trying to be sure that...
People will connect each other.
They don't need platform.
They will connect each other.
We have forums, but there's not a big enough forum that includes everything, I think.
Yeah, but I think you have to create it, you know?
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
I mean, I try to find people all over the world, but, you know, they promise things, but they don't actually have to do it at heart, you know?
So I believe, actually, what he says.
You have to give it away.
I mean, for me, I work in the automotive industry, and I know people that work within rapid prototyping environments, and we can make things within days, literally.
And in Formula One, you can literally do stuff and test things within a week.
So Dan last night saying it's two years and him coming from a NASA background I think is quite frankly like BS yeah?
So I mean you know and I what I see as being a better way forward would be to create the CAD models in JT format that everybody can read and make something that is actually small enough so that everybody can make these on a global scale and have them sat on their desks at work with a little light bulb on the top that says This is a free energy device.
There's nothing in it.
It's continually spinning and it's sat on everybody's desk for the sake of £20 or £15 or whatever costs just to make it.
And then it opens their eyes of the other 80 or 90 or 99% that don't believe it.
Rather than seeing a YouTube clip that is badly produced and then going blah, blah, blah, shut down, close off, free energy.
I speak to people and they just say, ah...
Perpetual motion machine.
And you see them glaze over and they switch off.
And I'm like going, well I've seen these devices and they still don't believe you.
And you've known these people for 14 years.
And they're your friends.
And you're going, do you not believe me?
Yeah?
I know, I know.
You're going through the process I've been going through.
If we came up with just one device that was small, and you could always sell it as a toy in a shop, Or just go viral with it on the internet for free.
And then people in all of these rapid prototype shots make the bits separately.
And we could make it.
I think that here's the challenge, and what I've seen happen, this is just my experience, is that to get to the point of having a small prototype, that hasn't happened yet.
There are people that have tried to do that.
There's a company in Ireland called Stern.
Have you heard of them?
And now they've been basically shut down.
I was amazed.
I'm going to Dublin in two days, and I'm planning to visit them.
But they've never returned my emails.
Pardon?
Was there somebody that knows?
They were closed because they went to business field.
Which most of the people are naive, they understand marketing and financing, and then they are approaching people who will promise you everything, and in the end they'll put you down.
I see.
With medicines, when you go from upstairs, they break it down directly.
So you should find a way to come from downstairs and make it first that everybody knows.
And the moment that everybody knows it, they cannot suppress it.
I'm doing something with medicine like that against cancer.
And it's the same way.
I tried also to go to the answers and pharmaceuticals, the big ones.
And they say, oh, we're not interested, we're all busy with something like that.
I go to TV, everything.
What we do now, I go to China, and we try to do it from downstairs and all different private hospitals, and we heal people, so everybody starts to know it.
And when it's open in China and all over Asia, it can come to Europe and America, else we can forget it completely.
And it's also not about making money, it's also about doing the right thing, you know?
So I can see that in this group there's a real feeling of consensus and of just that we're unsettled and that we're looking for an answer.
I feel it's important to get a platform, to get a polite-minded people, not business people.
I personally would be happy to invest some money in my private money, you know.
But we don't need business people.
We need some people who have the same interests, the same passion, and actually want to release it for free.
Basically, this game of venture capitalism, you know, when you have a product, like a lot of these inventors, and you go out and try and get capital, I mean, the game of venture capitalists, which are like sharks or vultures, if the opportunity is too great, they will take a piece of it Let it run down, actually squeeze the people out and then take more of it and then take it themselves.
So dealing with venture capitalists, which is the normal means of getting a financial upstart if you don't have private equity, It's a very nasty game.
Not necessarily.
I know a decent venture capitalist, if we today come to a conclusion that we want to proceed, let's say we solve the whole thing in this two-hour session, which might be a potential, there are enough good people here, I still have his business card.
I spent a weekend with him.
That's why we don't make a social platform, you know.
There's a lot of suppressed things, you know.
People want to get rid of this.
If you have a social platform and you can put all these things together in one social platform, some business, you know, and then the money that's earned with it, you invest again for other things and then you can make a platform.
everybody will come to it because they want this technology to get to the people.
And then you have a platform they cannot just suppress like this because it gets very powerful.
And you can be linked to very normal people.
You can start this from the beginning.
I think, you know.
But anyway, you didn't answer my first question.
Which people we're supposed to focus on, which you, according to your opinion, are closest to some kind of device, at least 99% at the future?
It doesn't matter.
What do you recommend us, as technicians or engineers, to look at?
Well, again, my ideal vision would be for a number of technologies to be looked at from an engineering point of view.
I don't think we're far enough, by we I mean the whole movement, is far enough along where one particular invention will be the winner.
There are many, many different technologies.
One of them I think the one that will end up being the most elegant is solid-state zero-point devices.
These are devices that could theoretically eventually fit in the palm of your hand and generate, let's say, 10 kilowatts of energy.
And it would go under the hood of your car or go into your circuit breaker box.
Can you give us some names?
Okay, sure.
There are some devices.
I'll talk about some of them this afternoon.
One of them was invented by Floyd Sweet, Sparky Sweet, S-W-E-E-T, which I talk about in one of my books, Miracle in the Void.
I visited him.
He had a specially conditioned magnet, and the sense I get is that the magnet is conditioned by Stimulating the electrons inside the magnet that oscillate with the hypothesized zero point field.
Zero point means that the potential energy exists even at temperatures of absolute zero.
It's an energy that's in the vacuum of space.
It's abundant and it can be tapped under some conditions.
And the conditions appear to be forced into existence by some of the tenets of quantum physics that, in other words, the vacuum of space or any point in time space is seething with a potential energy field.
Which can actually literally produce electrons out of, quote, nothing.
Which is really the ether.
The nothing is something.
It's a potential energy field.
Technology from Nikola Tesla?
Tesla was one of the people that played around with this.
And he's actually, well, obviously the most famous and best known.
But there are many experimenters who since then have looked at these technologies.
And I think that the...
The solid state technology will end up being the winner.
But like any progression, just like an information technology, and you're right, open sourcing is a wonderful way to move the technology along so we can have these nice little laptops.
It's the only way.
It's the only way.
Yeah, I think you're right.
And we need to be responsible about implementing it so that people don't turn this into a weapon.
In your interview with Wade Fraser, you were mentioning, or the two of you, one of you mentioned that there was, whenever this energy field is tapped, the powers that be have got sensors that know and pinpoint exactly when it is tapped because they've got the ability to see this.
So unless you do go viral and it happens everywhere, and it's not in one lab somewhere, then it's impossible, isn't it?
That's correct.
It would need to go viral, it seems, in today's world because the unfortunate truth is that when people get close to developing something, they're threatened or their families are threatened or they're assassinated.
It's a horrible truth.
It's one that we need to face, look at right in the eye and see that these things are happening and that there are some courageous individuals who are no longer with us.
They located the Illuminati also, you know, they know who is the Illuminati now for Big Proud also, and that was decades before it was different.
So I think also there are some groups who located these people, you know, if they're not going to be straight, you know, they're going to be punished with the It's my opinion and I think that's one of the changes.
They know what's going on and they don't know what to do and I'm sure about it 100% that they know for a very big part who's involved with it and what's going on and before it was different.
So they can, you know, look to the people who try to do change but there are also some people who are really tired of this Illuminati And they decided also to go after them.
They're not going to do, I think, I don't say it's a good thing, but they know who is behind it.
So, and they have also family and everything, and I think they know this.
So, this is for everybody, a chance maybe to push this through.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, we might have...
Yeah, they're fed up with what's happening, yeah.
The suppression, yeah.
And they understand they're abused also, most of them, in the dark.
a lot of them are just abused like we are.
Or even controlled by a controller, looking at the monitor, what's going on, and then if a critic comes in and if he is questioned, he goes in defense, into manipulating and all such things.
I've experienced this for five months.
I've, let's say, I have organized a workshop for a Pleiadian walk-in.
His name is Adrian, or Archon, and I saw how he got handled, how he got controlled.
I never met the controllers, so not even with It's an out-of-body experience.
But I saw the results, I saw the tricks, the switching of evenin, you know.
So therefore, and a lot of that, what I've experienced the last 10 years ago, I saw here again.
And the problem is that We could not handle, some of us could not handle feeling being lied to, being manipulated, being belittled, and you know such things.
This feeling then, especially from the one guy who experienced in another life that he was shot to death by vaccination, so it brought up a little bit emotion.
But we have to say, He was emotional in the first place.
He did not check that there is a big wish in all of us to know more about the huge vaccination scandal which might cost millions of lives on purpose.
And he switched the topic just to go to vaccination is healthy or is good for So not right, just that.
So the switching this, manipulating, then playing the poor guy, then playing the guy, oh, do you know any Illuminati who has spent money to the poor like I have?
And all such things, it was so obvious for me that then, who really is a great, great soul, a human being, that he is controlled.
Privately, when he goes, if he's not controlled by the controller, if he's not on stage, you will see an old man...
I don't think we should...
Sorry, this is my point of view.
What are you suggesting to get out of the manipulation?
So this is my point of view.
And I don't have the proof for it.
I just tell you what I've experienced and what I've seen.
And it is to you to regret, but to take it as a possibility.
And let me finish with something that comes from my heart.
If I would have three wishes for them, it's not my business, but if I would have to say three wishes.
The first wish would be for his intellect to find out that he's controlled.
And to find out who is it?
Who is it controlling?
Who is the force?
I know the force is a military background and mainly dark agenda.
So the second wish for him would be for his inner child to meet this controller and kick his ass.
And the third wish for him would be that the real Dan is returning to the body.
So this is a wish for the body.
It's returning and taking care of the body before it Thank you.
Yes.
I have a question, because I'm somebody with your background.
Could you give us maybe some anecdote when you were first confronted with new technology in your work, especially at the NASA, what were, for example, the most amazing surprises you encountered in your work?
And maybe there is some very interesting experience that you had that I'd like to hear.
Okay, well the question is, my experiences at NASA, and I have to say that, you know, I guess I'm different from the others, maybe Dave Wilcock is too, in the sense that I never got any surprises when I was at NASA because I didn't stay in the astronaut program very long.
I was appointed to go to Mars when it was still in their program plan, and then when the U.S. got involved in Vietnam instead, and that was the sense I got, well, it was very clear.
President Lyndon B. Johnson said, we're going to cancel the later Apollo flights, we're going to cancel the Mars missions.
Fight in Vietnam.
And then instead go to Vietnam.
So then I went to Cornell University and taught, became a professor there for many years alongside Carl Sagan.
And I became a planetary...
Well, I actually had been a planetary scientist.
I was...
And did a lot of good research, was involved in some of the Mariner missions and the Viking mission.
And it was a very exciting time to do mainstream science.
And it was my metaphysical self emerged 30 years ago when I started having some unusual experiences.
And then I left the university entirely.
And became who I became, which was somebody struggling with a career in public speaking and authoring to get my children through college.
And that's something I think we all confront, isn't it?
That we have a choice to make sometimes.
When we step outside of the box, then we have those experiences.
But when I was at NASA, I was not presented with any esoteric technologies.
Scout's honor.
I didn't...
You know, it's pretty easy to understand the Apollo Saturn V, and we were going to go to Mars with even a more humongous chemical rocket.
But there was nothing esoteric about what I was learning about spacecraft systems.
It just seemed to be an extrapolation of technology at that time.
That's why, in a sense, my mind is getting blown by some of the Camelot interviews.
I then go back to my shelter called Epistemology Where I respect the scientific method and I put more weight on those things which I can verify for myself.
And to talk with my new colleagues, like yourselves, and see where you're getting your evidence, whether it's in the alternative health field or whether it's free energy or whatever area you're pursuing, to go to your laboratories, check out the evidence, and give it a good look.
I wish I did have inside information, which I could give out, but I don't.
But in a way, that's good.
I feel like I'm off the hook.
On the other hand, there was one very serious attempt to recruit me, which I refused, and that was...
Well, I don't want to get into details because these people are still alive and they're very prominent.
It was before 1996.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
What I think is that we are missing a starting point for free energy.
I think free energy is already in our systems, in our electric systems, but we don't understand.
I'm doing a lot of work privately with potential.
And if you have a battery which has a potential, if you put a load on it, you will see a load working.
But is it really the electricity that comes from the battery?
Yes, yes.
You need a starting point to get to the bottom.
You're referring of course to the work of Tom Bearden and others that state very clearly that electrical engineering as a field started off in the first place on the wrong foot.
That Maxwell's equations contain a scalar term which has hidden within it the potential of the zero-point energy field.
And that scalar term being carelessly dropped off by Gibbs and Heaviside and other scientists have made the whole field of electricity and magnetism a very limited A scientific paradigm.
And now people are beginning to discover and understand that.
And one of the interesting things about this is that there is a component of consciousness where the operator, just like in experiments in particle physics, the observer interacts with the experiment to do unpredictable things with the device they're trying to experiment with.
And so...
Can we go to more details about what we are talking about?
That's because of free energy.
Of course, the last two days there was a lot of talking about social environment.
Let's go to the subject.
This is one of several technologies, by the way.
What we're talking about here is the energy in the vacuum, the potential energy field.
that can be stimulated through either the vibration of electrons in the presence of that field and that vibration can either become from a solid-state device or a crystal or a specially conditioned magnet or it could come from Magnets or electromagnets on a wheel that is spun up to a certain threshold,
revolutions per minute, which then produces energy out of the vacuum.
And that usually happens, you know, for a wheel about this size at about 2500 RPM. But it doesn't always happen.
The magnets have to be placed in just the right way.
The actual experimental configuration The ideal experimental configuration is unknown, although individual experimenters have been playing around with that to get varying results.
And that's why I say the ideal thing would be not only to open source the technology, but to also bring people together To bring engineers and scientists together, two heads and three heads are always better than one, to troubleshoot this and try to get it right.
You know, Edison tried thousands of times before he did the electric light bulb.
Of course, Tesla was more of a genius.
And we do have Teslas around now, but they're mostly underground.
They too have come up with various devices that show that it really does exist, that these concepts can be proven.
But to be able to get to a practical device that can, let's say, produce 10 kilowatts of power is another question entirely, and that takes, in my estimation, it takes a lot of engineering.
According to your opinion, which guys are closest?
In Europe.
I don't expect that you are going to show us the energy device.
Which one, according to you, are closest?
Well, it's very hard for me to evaluate because, you know, it's sort of like right now people are trying to look, people are doing concepts.
Sometimes they have a breakthrough, sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they exaggerate their breakthrough, sometimes they don't.
And so, at this point, it's a very frustrating place to be at.
It's what a venture capitalist to talk about lapis pigs.
In fact, I'll draw something on the board.
My foot went to sleep, though, so it might...
It's a good situation for changing my cassette.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm going to draw something on the board here.
It's almost like we need to create a website just called Unsuppressed or something like that.
Then they have the health aspect, the energy, and just people communicate everything they've got.
Because I mean, I did a lot of research for a few people.
And I know there's Gerson, there's Brife.
Yeah, but the trouble with the Greer aspect is that they've got the old mentality and they're still trying to make money from it.
Yes.
I'm drawing a graph here which kind of shows the problem in a way.
Back in 1993 and 1994, I was one of the directors of an organization called the International Association for New Science.
And we started what was called the Institute for New Energy.
And we had two conferences.
I'll show some slides of that this afternoon.
In Estes Park, Colorado, they were think tanks for the purpose of free energy inventors to get together and organize.
And to also, this person that was sponsoring the conference was a software almost billionaire.
He was worth several hundred million.
And he was going to fund it.
And we all were very expectant.
In the second year that we had this think-tank retreat and public symposium, he was about to announce the formation of a research group or corporation, if you will, to use a lapis-pig phrase.
And the way he illustrated it was he surprised everybody by saying, well I'm not going to support anything because my marketing people advised me that we're not dipping into the river of optimized profits and therefore I'm not going to throw good money after Blundering around in research,
and I'm sure this happens all the time now, where in a research and development effort, you see, I have a feeling that regarding the new energy technologies, we're about here.
In other words, there's a lot of research going on, a lot of research devices.
You've got cash on one side, and the T... This is money, this is time, and this is profit.
Money measured in terms of profit.
So dipping into the river of optimized profits means that you're now on the steepest part of the slope.
And that, of course, is one of the rules of venture capitalism.
You don't enter...
Until you get here.
And then everybody wants to enter.
Then the sharks come in.
But with free energy, it's down here somewhere.
So nobody is really supporting it.
Now, I've written letters to all kinds of people.
Al Gore, Richard Branson, a number of people.
And I've never gotten replies.
And you know, sometimes I have to wonder why.
Is there some sort of conscious or unconscious prohibition?
It's obviously politically very incorrect to even bring up the subject.
It's politically incorrect to bring it up, even among environmentalists or people that would otherwise maybe be intelligent and feel that we're entering a real problem with the overuse of burning of hydrocarbons, people like James Hansen, Michael Clare.
There are others, a number of people that have pointed out that going to war for oil and Peak Oil, Richard Heinberg is another one.
There are many, many people out there that are very knowledgeable and have large exposure to the public who just don't buy this.
And whether they think that it's because it's not possible and it violates their belief system, Or whether it's they're being told that if they want to continue getting grants, they'd better be quiet.
And I mean, I've heard those scenarios too.
I've been admonished to tow a very, very narrow line during my mainstream academic days when I was working with NASA. It's just not done to step outside the box.
So you see the conundrum here is that the venture capitalists know that we're here.
And they just don't want to throw money after research that might dead end.
And that's part of the answer to your technical question is that there are many, many technologies that are being explored.
And the so-called zero-point technologies or electromagnetic technologies are just one.
Another is special manipulations of the water molecule.
Brown's Gas or HHO, which in the presence of catalysts where you can run a car on water, for example.
Or there are some special advanced hydrogen technologies where, and I'll talk about this this afternoon, but where hydrogen, for example, plasma tubes, Can be catalyzed in the presence of potassium, strontium, which apparently reconfigure the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
Some of that is the work of Randall Mills, Black Light Power.
And that appears to then produce, for example, a hundred times more energy than comes from the burning of ordinary hydrogen.
Which means, in a sense, that's over-unity also.
By over-unity, I mean that you get more energy out than in, as measured by traditional means.
More focus on this subject, yeah.
Well, we'll talk about it, yeah.
And then there's cold fusion.
There's a lot of confusion about cold fusion.
It was discovered almost accidentally in 1989 by two University of Utah chemists, Martin Fleshman and Stanley Pones.
They would put a palladium cathode into a solution of heavy water and then send an electrical current through it and lo and behold they found that nuclear reactions appeared to be taking place.
The hydrogen atoms combined with hydrogen atoms forming helium and the release of thermal energy but with no radioactivity.
Now, this was a big mystery and the attempts to replicate this by some MIT nuclear physicists That knew nothing about electrochemistry.
These are nuclear physicists that tried to replicate the experiment.
And along comes the chief science writer at MIT, his name is Eugene Malov, who was pretty much given the job to debunk cold fusion.
And so he examined the evidence, he went and interviewed the nuclear physicists that claimed not to have replicated it.
And he found that the nuclear physicists were committing fraud, that they actually had replicated it, but they manipulated the data.
And so this caused a huge scandal in which both the US Department of Energy and MIT nuclear physicists, who depended on the Department of Energy for their funding, were fraudulently debunking or ridiculing the original results.
And then the mainstream media chimed in, and for the last 20 years, the whole cold fusion controversy, the standard view of it is that this was not real.
Didn't the Nazis already have this technology in the 1930s, 40s?
When?
Didn't the Nazis, didn't they have this technology already like in the 40s, you know, early 40s?
There is some talk about that, and of course they were working with heavy water, and heavy water is easier to work with this kind of technology as possible.
That whole experiment doesn't seem to be very complex.
Why didn't anybody else try to reproduce?
Oh, many people have repeated it.
And in fact, there's a whole professional...
You see, Gene Malov, I didn't give the end of the story.
Gene Malov, then as a result of his experience and his writings, obviously he and MIT separated.
And MIT then went on and naysayed the existence of cold fusion.
Well, Malov...
Basically led a whole international citizens and scientists organization and he started the magazine Infinite Energy which for a number of years while he was still alive was an extremely good magazine.
His editorials were brilliant in which he talked about the suppression Of cold fusion and the progress that was made.
And as a result, almost of his single-handed efforts, it grew to organizations of scientists that would meet once a year.
It was called the International Conference on Cold Fusion.
They still happen.
They're all over the world.
And many technologies have emerged from this.
It's not only palladium cathodes and heavy water solutions.
It's things like sonoluminescence.
And there are a number of other concepts where they would take a vat of Saline solution and in the presence of catalysts, be able to produce this nuclear reaction at room temperature.
And this has happened now many, many times, many different laboratories.
And I'd say right now, the kinds of people that are working on this are top grade scientists.
They're people that...
Hokkaido University in Japan, the French Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Naval Weapons Research Lab, the U.S. Naval Research Lab, University of Illinois.
There are cold fusion researchers everywhere.
Even MIT has one, Peter Hegelstein.
And so these are scattered researchers all over the place that are doing really good science.
And are publishing mostly fundamental papers in science.
It's unfortunate but true, and it's been true throughout the history of science, that any radical new idea like this takes a long time to develop, longer than it really would have to be, unless there is some will or collective will to develop it.
So, for example, in the history of aviation, this is a wonderful example.
The Wright brothers in the US, in their maiden flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December of 1903, the reporter that covered the flight from their hometown newspaper, Dayton, Ohio, was fired from his position because his editor didn't believe that it was possible.
And so, Scientific American, which is sort of like the last word in judging what's real and what isn't, ran an editorial almost two years later saying that aviation can't be because it wasn't reported.
But meanwhile, thousands of people saw them fly.
And just like right now, thousands of people have seen proofs of concept in various people's laboratories of the efficacy of free energy.
So we're caught in a conundrum.
We're right now really stuck.
Theodore Roosevelt, who was president several years after the first Wright Brothers flight, when we were starting to get into World War I, all of a sudden said, hmm, these things can drop bombs.
Hmm, that's interesting.
And that really, the military application is basically what drove the technology.
And I'm sure that in the black budget and black operations there's a lot going on in this technology but the technology is not as simple as you might first think you think you might just say well it's simple you just have a tabletop device and it works but the researchers have reported that this requires a lot of engineering and it also seems to be susceptible to the consciousness of the experimenter so we're inevitably brought
back to this New science of the 21st century which says that, well, consciousness is the ground of all being.
It's really the force that overcomes all the other forces of nature.
But like NATO, they have the anti-gravity, you know, the triangle UFO, you know, it's from them, you know, it's from here.
They have this all, you know, with all access, they're using this all.
They took this all from Tesla, same like they took from Rife, Dr.
Rife.
They used this also.
They suppressed men and they took all this information and all technology just to suppress us and use it against us.
It all makes sense.
We just don't have access to it.
It's all there, actually.
What's your opinion, Brian, on China in this equation and what they're doing?
Because I hear that China are involved in...
The government in different technologies or investing in different start-ups and because they're, from our perspective anyway, quite insulated.
They seem to be talking about we can't put infrastructure out to a majority of the population and why could all this old technology infrastructure when we can actually use some of these methods to get energy to more far-reaching places?
Well, I don't have an inner track.
I do know that China is working on these things, just like Japan has been.
I, in fact, took two trips to Japan myself.
One of them was with John Hutchison, the Canadian inventor who developed a solid-state device that ran a propeller, which he was able to demonstrate.
A device that responded to his own consciousness.
A lot of people think that he might even be the reincarnated Tesla, just like maybe David Wilcox is the reincarnated Edgar Cayce.
Anyway...
Well, he's still around.
He's still alive.
His devices have been confiscated a number of times.
And so he's had a pretty rocky road, and it's obvious that a lot of this is the collaboration of the U.S. military and the Canadian government.
Did the public have any plans or any circuits?
Well, the problem is, you see, he's a tinkerer type.
What we're dealing with is a separation of cultures.
One culture is the culture of the inventors.
They're having a heck of a time because they're being suppressed through one means or another.
And then you have the engineers that want to jump in and develop this thing.
But, and then the investors who are greedy, and these cultures are very, very different, and there just has been no sense of organization, so...
I'm talking about plans.
Do you think there is any way somehow to find some wind circuit or any technical information?
Because I saw, I got a lot of information about him, but he was just presenting, I believe what he's doing, it's absolutely proven what he's done, but let's give us now Yeah.
3D CAD models is what we need, and then we can get these things made.
Well, here's...
Can I just interrupt?
Sure.
I was so interested that I missed that we were supposed to have a pause.
We were supposed to have a 10, 15-minute break.
Oh, good.
It's already...
Excuse me.
It's already 11.20, and we're finishing at 12.
That's 15.
We should ask for it.
Let's look at it.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
Let me tell you what's going on with me personally right now.
I'm going to have to speak this afternoon.
I don't know why I was scheduled this way, but I was.
And I'm not a young whippersnapper anymore.
I don't have David Wilcox energy.
I used to.
I used to give talks like his.
But now I'm kind of, I'm getting old.
So I think maybe we should go on until a quarter to twelve or ten of twelve.
And then I'll make a clean escape so I can rest between now and this afternoon.
Thank you.
So I just say if anybody needs to use the bathroom, just quietly exit it.
But we'll go on for about another 25 minutes, half hour.
But you see, you have to understand that there is this gap.
There are the tinkers.
So it's your responsibility, not mine, really.
You're an engineer.
It's to go visit the inventors and ask them for the blueprint.
You know, take action.
I'll tell you the action I took when I... I must admit I stumbled into this.
My background...
First of all, of course, I had my paranormal experiences, which I then...
I decided to write some books and do research and visit some of the cutting-edge researchers.
For a number of years and then I wrote books, a photojournalistic job basically, but from the point of view of a scientist about how the scientific method could be brought to bear to show that these concepts outside the box are very real.
And then about 15 years ago I got into free energy and the reason why I did is that I wanted to save the planet, just like I think we all do.
We all want to have clean energy, don't we, here on this planet?
And so I went to the laboratories of these people.
I went to Japan.
I went to India.
I went to all around Europe.
I went all around North America.
I went to New Zealand and reported on some of the work they were doing and saw their demonstrations, which demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt that these concepts were very real.
Then I did a theoretical exploration of it.
But not being an engineer, I didn't ask for blueprints.
But what I did was I took an initiative.
I said, well, if this is real, and if this could really help save the planet, let's go ahead and do this.
But what I... And that's about as far as I've taken it.
Sorry, I swear it's straightforward.
That's the reason I came here to also meet the people, but eventually to help me to find a way...
Well, I think that one way you could find to do that is to visit the people.
There are people around in Europe.
One person that was going to co-teach this with me, his name is Josef Gruber.
G-R-U-B-E-R, Gruber.
G-R-U-B-E-R. Josef Gruber.
And I think he's in Berlin.
And he's kind of the informal leader of the German New Energy Movement.
And G-R-U-B-E-R. I think so, yeah.
It's U-E, I think so.
Yeah.
Yosef Gurubak.
So look him up.
But, you know, I think a lot of these things...
I can't do everything for you.
I can't give you a blueprint, because that's not my role.
Right now, in recent years, I've more looked at the social-political aspects of this.
At first, I looked at it from the point of view of a scientist to just verify for myself that the concepts are very real.
And I also then learned a lot about the suppression For example, the story of Eugene Malov is very sad.
He was brutally murdered in 2004.
And a number of people just...
I know very well.
I'm very well informed when it comes to this.
So your job is to go out and get the blueprints.
You get them.
Do you want to be involved in the project?
I don't believe in project and dealing with business marketing.
Give it to people.
Give it to people.
I think if you do it on a small enough level, then you can get over this.
If we were to make it as a toy of this size, the tooling would be so cheap that you could get it made on a viral level and just sell it to cover the costs of the tools.
And there would be enough people that would be able to do that.
I mean, if I've got CAD models and JT files, I've got the ability to make rapids, and I'm sure there's probably five or ten people in this room that know people who are engineers who can do the same things.
There are different ways you can give this to people, especially in African countries.
There is only one way to give to people.
The only way to do it is to put it on the internet.
Who wants the best with the people and they develop it and you can be...
Can I give a suggestion, please?
There is a...
Downstairs, there's a place where you can write in and you want to meet and create something together and write in here to listen to this man.
And the time is running out.
We came here to listen to this man.
If you want to do something together, I think this is great.
There's a place to meet downstairs afterwards.
Thank you.
Yeah, basically I came, but I'm not going to give this presentation this morning.
The discussion itself is, which I think is good.
I said, well, maybe I'll give the presentation, maybe I won't.
But, I mean, my passion really is for solving the energy crisis.
I've spent many, many years of my life.
I was an energy advisor to Morris Udall, who was an environmental candidate and congressman.
In the U.S. in 1975 when he was running for president.
And at that time, my perception of an energy solution revolution was solar and wind.
And it was only a gradual process after that, a process of personal discovery, of going to the laboratories of many of these people that I slowly awaken to the possibility that the solution to our energy crisis could in fact be very radical.
Very different.
And in fact so radical that it would be unprecedented in world history.
And so that really began to interest me.
First from an experimental point of view, then a theoretical point of view.
I read some of the leading theoretical papers that satisfied me that this energy field does exist.
And then, more recently, I've gone into the social, political, and economic implications of these technologies.
And I see that it would be humanity's next major step in its not only technological maturity, but social maturity.
Because we have to be responsible about how to implement this.
And certainly, I know most everybody in this room is opposed to the capitalistic model that some people seek to become the Bill Gates of new energy.
I mean, yeah, well, I suppose that's possible.
Sometimes I almost don't care how something is done.
I just prefer that it be done if it's responsibly done.
On the other hand, yes, by its very nature, energy should be free, but it also needs to be regulated, like any other technology.
And this is where government comes in.
And I know a lot of people hate government, a lot of people hate corporations, such as they are.
It's like we need whole new social structures.
And so, in a sense, this is more a social engineering question And a question of psychology, a question of how do individuals both resist and or can they support new ideas?
How can we make this transition?
Because the transition is going to be a big one.
I mean, you talk about this alarming possibility of announcing ET Intelligence or 2012 and all that stuff.
Well, that's sort of like the sensationalistic side of a coin which involves more personal and human responsibility for our condition and for our future.
And that's where I come in now.
I'm not as interested in the blueprints specifically.
That's your job.
And if you want to organize around that and start a nucleus of people, be my guest.
I'd be more than happy for that kind of thing to happen.
Roman, you had a comment or question.
Yeah.
It's amazing for me to see how you developed, to learn how you developed from this straightforward scientist to this new approach and then from that to the social topic.
And what Bill said yesterday, stroke a chord in me, It's an ethical problem, and for me it explains the conflict last night.
The people have zero trust towards corporations and governments, and it was not a matter of a scientific discussion with Dan last night.
It was a matter that the people have no trust.
So much misuse has been done, and what was revealed, if it's true that the Israel government is enforcing vaccinations onto the people, it's a form of violence.
Yes, fascism, yes.
And this is why I agree with you.
This is the point, and this is also what keeps the minds shut.
Yes.
Yeah, there's so much fear.
Yeah, fear and greed seem to stand in the way every time.
And so, in a way, I really do chime in with those that say, well, let's just give it away.
But if we give it away, we also need to be socially responsible about it, which is a very different model from fascism.
It's a model, it's a new kind of democracy that...
Yeah, it's definitely Well, that is, of course, the downside is that perhaps people are not prepared.
But these are the kinds of issues that really need to be discussed among people.
How do we do it?
I know I, for one, I have an open heart about this possibility that energy is a God-given thing, just like food or water or clothing or sheltering.
And, in fact, the U.S. Department of Energy...
invited proposals from qualified individuals and organizations to submit a new energy concept So I decided to go ahead and do that as an individual.
I'm not affiliated except that I run a retreat and conference center in Ecuador, which is kind of unorthodox, but that's what I do.
And so, in this concept paper, I decided to do a social science job of this and propose, first of all, pulling public attitudes toward, well, what if we had a world of breakthrough free energy?
What kind of world do you see?
How can we make these transitions?
These are the important questions that need to be discussed.
The most problem of this is, I think, the people become free.
No government likes free people.
They like to control it.
The power plants, nuclear plants, owners, they lose power to control the government.
The military has no money for more war.
That's right.
Well, it's obvious, isn't it, that existing social-political structures don't want to handle this.
So we need to reinvent those structures.
Not many people lose their job if they make money out of their head.
Hey, here's a blueprint for freedom.
No, it's not quite true, because you still have to pay for the production.
Sure, but they say it costs $100, each one can pay it, also the people in the third world.
Well, anyway, and I'm going to take your questions in just a moment, but what I decided to do with this proposal was they said, well, how much money do you need to do this?
And one of the aspects of it would be to poll the public I mean, let's get to the point of let's discuss and debate what kind of social, political, economic structure do we need to facilitate this development and how do we make the transition?
And can we assemble a group of elders and other people that have been on the planet for a while That have a certain degree of wisdom and equanimity in looking at these questions and to advise the U.S. Department of Energy.
So I know it's a pig in a poke, to use the phrase.
It's a long shot.
But guess how much money I asked to do the study?
One dollar.
Because by its very nature, it should be free.
And so...
Did you get the funding for that?
Pardon?
Oh, I don't know yet.
I've just put in the proposal.
I think they've now...
For one dollar.
For one dollar, yeah.
I think a real problem is, there are also social aspects, but a real problem for the people who are ruling us, that they can't, when these devices will be in the light, will be functioning, you can't put meter on this.
That means you can't measure, you can't send invoice.
And you can't control the urban planning either.
You can't control the urban planning.
I say to this, all manipulation, I don't mean you, sorry sir, I don't mean you.
It's all manipulation of the people who are ruling us, we can't somehow give people to these devices because they first have to find out how they will be able to charge people not by buying
people can afford a few hundred dollars or pounds or maybe a thousand to buy but then they will not receive any invoices and we will already know that at least 50% of our personal expenses they will put free energy taxes that's it we are running 100 years technology yeah well again you see when is forced - Thank you.
One is forced to ask the deeper questions of, well, what kind of social political system could facilitate this?
Unfortunately, so far, humankind has not come up with one.
There are various people that have come up with ideals.
Marx is one example or some sort of social democratic green structure but in practice these systems don't seem to really work so the real question now is what kind of social political economic system would make this thing work because I think we're going to need this.
I think we're going, in order for us to have a sustainable future, we're going to need radical new energy technologies.
And I'll be talking about that this afternoon.
Yes?
How can we have clean energy if we have 30 mines?
And I know what I'm talking about.
I used to work for General Electric and Nuclear Power.
Ah, yes.
Before I got out about 30 years ago.
That's the point.
That's the point.
You gave it to us, in other words.
You mentioned social responsibility and such things.
But basically, how can we have clean energy if our minds are dirty?
And we cannot change humanity.
We only can try to maybe get ourselves a little bit changed.
Very well said.
Very well said.
Yes.
General Electric, that's interesting because one time, I think about two years ago, I read an op-ed, opposite editorial page in the Washington Post, an article saying, we must have the courage to develop new energy.
And I said, gee, these people are very enlightened, and to get into the Washington Post, no less.
I sure can't get my views in there anymore now that I'm not mainstream.
And so I started reading it and these people that composed it, and I didn't see the authors yet, said the three conditions must be met.
First of all, it's the intelligent mind of invention.
And I said, sure, that's a good one.
The second condition is, we must make a profit, snort.
And I said, I don't like that one.
And then the third one is the American will.
He was referring to America.
And he thought, the senior author of this piece, thought that we didn't have the will.
And I thought, wait a minute.
Of course we have the will.
It's just that you don't have the will.
But you want to make a profit.
Well, it happened to be signed Jeffrey Emelt, who is the CEO of General Electric.
And so I vehemently disagreed with it and posted a rebuttal.
I couldn't get it into the Washington Post.
I tried a letter to the editor.
They didn't publish it.
Even with my former astronaut credential, they still didn't publish it.
But I did post it on my website, and it's in my new book.
But I basically began to realize that yes, if you look at this from the CEO of General Electric's point of view, you're heavily vested in nuclear power plants, gas turbine plants, And all sorts of energy technologies that involve investments and profits of billions and billions of dollars or marks or francs or whatever you want to call, euros.
And so this was a media spin of a CEO saying the profit is necessary.
So my question of him was, well, let's say We have a chance to save the planet by General Electric's manufacturing, let's say, 10 billion, 10 kilowatt, handheld, solid-state, free-energy devices.
And you made a profit of, let's say, $100 for each device.
Would you do this?
And then I did the calculation and I found, well, he probably wouldn't because the stockholders wouldn't like that because they make more money from nuclear power plants and gas turbine plants.
And that's sort of your answer, is that item number two really needs, the question is, how much profit is enough?
And this media spin just masked the underlying problem, which is, well, okay, if you want to profit, how much is enough?
So you're in the human software realm again.
Yes.
No matter what.
It's not a technical issue.
But I think that, yes, it needs to be technically coordinated.
And there are websites like newenergycongress.org, pureenergysystems.com.
There are a number of others.
I refer to them in some of my books on my own website.
Which is brianoleary.com or brianoleary.info.
I'll write this on the board.
But the point is that it always comes back to human software.
Everything.
It's not a question of do these technologies exist?
Which ones are more credible?
I'm going to leave that up to the engineers and to also question some of the tenets of electrical engineering from the very beginning.
But to ask, well, what kind of social economic system could facilitate this?
And what kind of regulatory mechanism do we need?
We certainly have some models.
We know that the international banking system needs regulation.
I'll do brianoleary.info or com, either one.
That's my website.
Also, I invite you to come and join us in Ecuador sometime if you're looking for a retreat.
We have a number of conferences taking place, but we also have a bed and breakfast service.
And it's less hot than it is in this room.
More comfortable, more relaxing.
We're planning to kick around these ideas to develop new software for humans to be able to come to grips with problems like this, to be able to democratically discuss and debate, well, what kind of social, political, economic system can we have?
And this afternoon I'll be getting into that quite a bit more.
Yes?
I'd just like to follow up on the question, how can you awake people?
I find, like everyone else probably, you can't address them directly, but just not open to them.
I find meditation for world peace and openness, you can actually address it consciously.
I find that works beautifully.
I have a lot of friends, they don't believe me, then I do my meditations and suddenly they ring me up, "How can I have dinner with you?" I would love to know about more about that.
I find it a very effective way.
Yes.
in the morning, everyone can do it.
And like David Wilcox said, 7,000 people meditating can reduce the world, you know, by 8%.
That's right.
That's right.
And that is going...
I think that's the answer.
I think you've hit on the nub of the whole thing.
Is that the software renewal that we need is relatively small numbers of us coming with combined positive intention can work miracles in the world.
It's easy to make a shift.
If you say it's easy, then it's easy.
Right.
Anybody else?
We have about four more minutes.
I like to be Swiss in my precision and timing.
I've never been anywhere where clock towers actually work.
I don't think there are any in North America or South America that work.
They work everywhere here.
I just wanted to say that we shouldn't get caught up too much into putting the blame on whatever name you want to give them because it all comes down from a spiritual point of view that the world reflects what we have inside of us.
They are just a part of our collective dark side that's reflected back to us.
The point is that once we get over that, that we heal our dark side and we face our dark side within us, then that will also heal the world and will also remove the power from those people.
So we don't have to fight against them and put all the blame on them and they're suppressing it.
From my point of view, the thing is that we ourselves feel like we cannot have it so far.
I mean, back in Atlantis we had it and everybody knows what happened back then.
Yes.
Maybe subconsciously we're afraid to go there again until we're ready.
This afternoon I'm going to touch on some of that because given what happened last night, there are different voices.
There are the voices that represent a sense of anger.
And that's okay.
It's okay for people to be angry.
My bumper sticker.
Truth is set you free, but first it will piss you off.
But there's also a softer, more gentle approach.
And sometimes it's hard to hear from people that might advocate that.
Maybe people that don't speak out as much.
But people that truly feel that if we put too much energy on the negativity in opposing it, then that's what we get.
Right.
And so while we need to acknowledge and understand what the truth is, we also need to, within ourselves, reconcile that truth with a new truth that we can ourselves create with combined positive intention.
And it's a deeply healing process.
It's one that I very, very much would love to see happen while I'm still on this planet.
I hope it's going to happen, and it's really up to us.
We are both the biggest suppressors, or the cooperators with the suppressors, or the transformers, and it's the latter that I would love to see.
▲
Export Selection