WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Here is the total relationship that I have to the UFO/ET/FE connection, at least that I can publicly reveal for now. Some juicy stuff is left out, but it is mostly names and dates, and some of the names and dates I have purposely not known or recalled, to protect people.

My father worked for the U.S. Navy and NASA after college, and when we lived in Houston during my father's NASA days, I got to stay up to 9:00 PM for the first time, so that I could watch the original Star Trek, as our family kind of had a professional interest in it. Today, I own the DVDs of TNG and Deep Space Nine, which were the high points of the franchise, IMO.

I have written about my youthful fascination with the strange, and my eventual rejection of it, until I had my mystical awakening. None of my UFO/ET/FE stuff came from my father's employment experiences, or even those of my childhood friends and mentors, and I was really not into the ET stuff when young, but I began to hear of seeming close encounters by those close to me. It was never stuff like "I met aliens and they invited me into their craft," but I began hearing of experiences by those close to me. I was not quite sure what to make of them. I was never a UFO denialist, but I also was not an enthusiast. I just heard stuff and filed it away.

When I graduated from college and ended up in LA, although I became a relatively prominent member of the mystical community, I really do not recall hearing much about UFOs and ETs. When I met Dennis, neither of us had heard of FE, and even during my first stint with Dennis, I doubt that I heard much UFO/ET talk, if any. I really did not begin to build my personal library until my first stint with Dennis was over. As I quickly began building my library, in Ventura it was the mystical stuff first, and when I moved to Ohio, it quickly became media studies, history, alternative medicine, and so on.

Before I moved to Ohio, I attended nearly two years of channeling sessions, and Seth was one of the entities channeled. In one session the UFO situation came up, and he instructed the listeners to go to a certain spot in the California desert, on a certain night and a certain time, and just watch. One pal, who was a former Silva instructor, went along, and at that place and that time, a UFO sped past them, coming in low. I heard a few other similar stories from my circle, and filed them away.

In Ohio, I joined a new science organization, which led to my meeting Brian. By that time, I was steeped in UFO and ET lore to the extent that as I drove Brian past the front gates of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, we joked about loading a couple of busloads of conference attendees and driving to the gates and "innocently" asking for a tour of Hangar 18 and the Blue Room.

Brian was poking around into UFOs and FE in those days, but it was not long before Brian was made an "offer" by the USA's military to do classified UFO work for them, and Brian nearly died immediately after rejecting their "offer," but he did not tell me about it until 2001, when we were trying to interest California's governor in FE.

Dennis and I first heard about FE via Joe Newman in 1986, but Joe and Dennis were not into ETs. I doubt that it aligned well with their Christian outlook, and Dennis's companies attracted the right-wing/Christian/Patriot crowd more than any other. They were not into ETs/UFOs, either, other than it being some government conspiracy to remove our remaining civil rights (there is likely some truth to that suspicion), so I really did not hear about them much, if at all, through Dennis's organizations. I have straddled many communities, and those were a couple of them.

I think that the first operating FE gizmo that I heard about, from a witness, was Sparky Sweet's, which I heard about in 1990. By the time I met Brian the next year, I had likely heard plenty about Tesla, but I am not sure that I heard about him during my first stint with Dennis. Brian knew Sparky, he had just finished visiting Tom Bearden when I met him, and over the next several years, I began to get steeped in the UFO/ET/FE connection. During those years I also heard from one of my very close associates about his underground exotic technology show, but I doubt that ETs came up in the accounts I have heard of that show, and I doubt that I initially thought much about the ET connection. However, several years later, I heard some of Greer's Disclosure Project witnesses describing pretty much exactly what my friend described. For me, my friend's testimony is more important than hearing Greer's witnesses, but when they began describing almost exactly what my friend saw, and some of it seemed like Sparky's gizmo, those Disclosure Project witnesses got a lot more cred with me.

By that time, I was also collaborating with Brian. Ed Mitchell is no nut, and he co-chaired those Congressional hearings in 1997. Brian was also deeply involved in the Disclosure Project, and his close encounters with the military over his UFO interest I am sure was part of his reason for participating. When those Disclosure Project members came down with strange forms of advanced cancer right after those hearings, I was sadly not too surprised. Not only did it take the wind out of Greer's sails for years, what I heard from people who knew him was that he was never the same after that, and I think that he has likely been subjected to some pretty extreme and diabolical methods to greatly reduce his effectiveness. I consider him a casualty of the "war," and am highly sympathetic to anybody who suffers like that, especially when they are playing that game at those levels.

Even though some respected Disclosure Project witnesses have stated that NASA has been part of the ET/UFO cover-up, Ed Mitchell thinks that it is more the military's role, but I also think that Godzilla is really in charge of the cover-up, as he knows that if FE and antigravity technology made it into the public's hands, it is game over for his global domination games. That is really the motivation behind the UFO/ET cover-up today, IMO.

In 2003, I first heard of the UFO activity at Mount Adams, and a pal at Boeing asked me if I was interested in going. I was interested in seeing a UFO if I did not have to sit on a mountain for a year in the hopes of seeing one, but it seemed that at James's ranch the odds were good, so in 2005, I went. I was not disappointed. When that UFO went off like that, and none of us doubted that it was responding to James, I vividly remember watching it for those five seconds, and after it dimmed back down, I thought to myself, "I just spent a long weekend driving several hundred miles to see something for five seconds. Was it worth it?" I decided that it was. I did not doubt that there was something to the UFO/ET phenomenon, but seeing it like that was a significant moment for me. One of my Boeing pals was never the same. It completely blew him away.

I took a bunch of us there the next year, but had the highly frustrating experience in that James and I were the only people who saw the good display, and I even brought somebody from out of state, as I also did the next year. That 2006 experience seemed to be one where I was effectively told, "You want to share your experience with others, but some are just for you." I have mixed feelings about that, but learned to accept it.

James also worked with a man named Max, who invented an FE gizmo that was similar to Sparky's in that ice formed on it as it cranked out free energy, and Max was subjected to the same cloak-and-dagger suppression that Sparky was, although Max survived it, unlike Sparky.

It is no surprise to me that Greer would go from a UFO/ET guy to an FE guy. Those situations are joined at the hip. I could report a few other odds and ends, such as the Jackie Gleason connection with ETs and our FE efforts, but what I have listed are the most important ones, I think. If I can think of any others, I might write about them.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

As a still practicing evangelical I must tell you that no one will listen to me on Avalon so no worries about little ole me stirring anything up..

and since things seem to be slow on your blog i might as well tell you what i really think...

the alt media is for me right now a bunch of bunk and i am sick of it...

but as you say the internet is where your choir would come from and so I look at the internet as a medium of exchange much like what many call money...as it were...

value to me comes from relevance....

can we really trust corporations as they are presently configured to guide such momentous decisions that humanity must make?

and so maybe the internet is some kind of free energy...

it is free and it is unlimited and so one must set his own limits for such a technology....

and so i see little action here so i thought that i might post.


and so i think that information which is relevant is a most valuable currency in my opinion...

what do i know...

thanx

Nine

[Ewan]

Wade, I was just reading http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wean and in respect of Jewish gangsters here is an article from 1920 by Winston Churchill. (Illustrated Sunday Herald. February 8, 1920, page 5)

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

The Internet is an unprecedented communication medium that I am using while I can, to see if I can get that choir going. It really is an extraordinary opportunity. When I get my forum going, there should be little in it that any nation would want to censor, but I could be wrong. I want to turn it into the most thoughtful conversation on the Internet. We will see how it goes.

No, we can't trust corporations or any other institutions to do the right thing. None of them really have the common good in mind, but are all about buttering their own bread. Again, personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity, and it applies to all of Earth's institutions. There are no "good guy" organizations out there, not "good enough" to help make FE happen.

Hi Anakie:

Churchill's policies aided Hitler's Jewish Holocaust, but I did not realize until that article that Churchill might also have helped Hitler develop his anti-Semitic attitudes. The same year that Churchill wrote that article, Henry Ford began his "International Jew" articles, which Hitler said taught him everything that he "knew" about Jews. That same site that hosted that Churchill article hosted this one on Churchill's anti-Semitic attitudes. Reading the words of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and the like should sober any Americans who thought that the USA had clean hands in the Holocaust. We didn't. The entire West had a hand in the Holocaust, and Hitler modeled his plans for Eastern Europe after the English/American experience.

As an American, the attitude toward Muslims today seems very similar to how Jews were seen back in the 1920s, as "terrorists," docile sheep, and the like. As long as they allow the West to exploit them, they are "good" Muslims, but any who resist the West's depredations or fail to bend over when asked are "bad" Muslims. We have such a long way to go.

Hitler would have thought that Godzilla was Jewish, but he would have been wrong. Gary similarly mixed up Jewish gangsters with the Jewish people and fell for a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda (as in they worship the devil). It was "interesting" that Churchill saw Zionist Jews as the "good" Jews, and today in "conspiratorial" circles, Zionist Jews are the "bad" Jews.

As I have written, FE will mean the end of the world as we know it, and nations, race, ethnicity, cities, and the like will disappear. It can’t come too soon.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

FYI Anakie:

Avalon etiquette discourages posting entire articles from other sites. A link to them suffices. Posting entire articles chews up bandwidth.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Before I go hiking, it is anecdote time again, and it will be related to the scientific method and scientific literacy. I have mentioned that I had to give up TV during my first semester of college and never went back, as I shed the last of the major bad habits that my mother gave me. That first semester of college was a brutal awakening in other ways. I was a chemistry prodigy from my first class in high school, and college chemistry was another level of the game. Science classes such as chemistry and biology were given in two parts - a lecture and a lab - and on my first day of college chemistry lab, the professor was literally admitted to a mental institution and a substitute took over, who was a retired chemistry professor who substitute taught and ended up teaching us for nearly the entire semester. While I got that rude awakening in my calculus class and had other difficult transitions to college life, I aced chemistry, in both the lecture and lab.

A week or two before the 18-week semester was over, that professor who spent nearly the entire semester in the mental institution came back and ran the lab for the last week or two. I forget exactly how many lab write-ups we had to do that semester, but it was at least a dozen. I got all A's in my write-ups with the substitute professor, and that permanent professor graded my last lab write-up. I performed the experiment and got the right answer, but when I got the write-up back, the professor noted that I did not perform the experiment twice, as the instructions called for, and he gave me a D. Not only that, based on my one lab write-up, he lowered me from an A to a C for the semester grade. Welcome to college. I really felt screwed and even thought of protesting to the college administration, but quietly took my medicine. The professor was crazy and the grade was unjustified, but in retrospect, I can kind of appreciate what he was trying to do. I got the right answer, but did not follow the instructions of replicating my results. He was trying to school me in the scientific method.

The next semester, I got the hang of it and was back to straight A's. But I had yet to have my existential crisis, which happened in chemistry lab the next year, when I decided that life in a chemistry lab did not seem like what I wanted to do with my life. That voice first spoke to me a couple of months later. But before that voice spoke to me, my existential crisis colored how I saw all of my math and science classes, including my biology class that I was taking that semester. Again, in retrospect, I can tell what the professor was trying to do, but it was shock therapy. In my first year of chemistry class, the lab write-ups were performed on standardized forms. In my biology class, they weren't. The professor also assigned the class to begin reading scientific papers in Nature and Science, which are the house organs of mainstream science. When we did our first lab write-ups, the professor gave nearly everybody in the class an F. Again, it was a kind of shock therapy. My life's first all-nighters were spent typing up lab write-ups for that biology class. Because I dropped most of my classes, when that voice came through and I decided to study business, that biology class now became general education for me, and for the last half of the semester, I only took the tests in the lecture and lab and purposely did not do any lab write-ups, getting zero credit for them, But if I got A's on the all the tests and Fs for all the lab write-ups, I could get a C in the class, so that is what I did. As I recall, that chemistry lab and that biology lab were the only Cs that I got in college, other than a worthless management class that I took in my last year of college, where once again the professor required all-nighter write-ups for his largely worthless class.

After college graduation, I gained a little more respect for those harsh task masters who tried to prepare us for the real world, but there were other ways to do it. Of course, I became an accountant and did not read scientific papers for many years afterward. I am sure that I read some as I studied for making the 2002 version of my site, but it was not until I began studying for my big essay that I began to regularly read scientific papers again.

In my big essay, I cite many scientific papers (see the notes), and I do it for two reasons. One is because they are relevant to the essay, and the other is to get my readers familiar with the scientific method. For what I am trying to do, some scientific literacy is required for choir membership, and not just for the content of what the current findings of scientific practice are, but so that my readers begin to understand the scientific process. There is a reason for the scientific process, which is so that results can be reproduced by other scientists, so that the hypotheses and findings are clearly presented, and so that they can be productively discussed by other scientists. It is a process for discovering the truth of how the universe works. I write plenty that the content and process of mainstream science has limitations, and that the best scientists openly acknowledged it, but unless my readers understand the content and process of mainstream science as it stands today, they will not have any basis for accepting or rejecting any of it. It becomes unknown territory for them. I have purposely cited scientific papers that are not really hard to understand. Nature and Science, for instance, requires its papers to go light on the jargon and technicalities so that a wide spectrum of readers can understand them, and mainly scientists of diverse specializations.

What I am constantly finding on the fringes is that fringe authors play to scientifically illiterate audiences, and the quality of their work is often far below what professional scientists would produce. I do not mean that scientists do not write for the lay public, because they do, but fringe works such as Cremo's do not even aspire to the style or substance of professional science. Cremo's work is like stringing together a bunch of newspaper clippings, and people who are not familiar with the work of professional scientists in the slightest lap that stuff up. I have encountered this many times with my big essay, when readers inform me that they think that science is a bunch of lies, so Bible stories, campfire tales, fringe works that support them and the like are what their worldview is founded on, and they wholly reject anything that smells of real science in favor of stories that have captured their fancy or reinforced their worldview. IMO, that is the path of delusion, and it has no place in what I am doing. I have informed readers who have taken that stance (and who want to join my choir) that they have to leave it at the door for what I am doing, and the fact that they have yoked their perspective to works such as Cremo's tells me that they very likely do not have what I am looking for, as they are not discerning, either because they refuse to be or are incapable of it. Whatever the case is, they likely cannot be part of what I am doing.

Science is ideally a process of discovery, and those I am looking for are at least familiar with the process and its public findings, even though they know that it does not tell nearly the whole story.

Best,

Wade

[Ewan]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
FYI Anakie:

Avalon etiquette discourages posting entire articles from other sites. A link to them suffices. Posting entire articles chews up bandwidth.

Best,

Wade

Removed, thanks for the tip.

[Ewan]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)

Hi Anakie:

Churchill's policies aided Hitler's Jewish Holocaust, but I did not realize until that article that Churchill might also have helped Hitler develop his anti-Semitic attitudes. The same year that Churchill wrote that article, Henry Ford began his "International Jew" articles, which Hitler said taught him everything that he "knew" about Jews. That same site that hosted that Churchill article hosted this one on Churchill's anti-Semitic attitudes. Reading the words of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and the like should sober any Americans who thought that the USA had clean hands in the Holocaust. We didn't. The entire West had a hand in the Holocaust, and Hitler modeled his plans for Eastern Europe after the English/American experience.

As an American, the attitude toward Muslims today seems very similar to how Jews were seen back in the 1920s, as "terrorists," docile sheep, and the like. As long as they allow the West to exploit them, they are "good" Muslims, but any who resist the West's depredations or fail to bend over when asked are "bad" Muslims. We have such a long way to go.

Hitler would have thought that Godzilla was Jewish, but he would have been wrong. Gary similarly mixed up Jewish gangsters with the Jewish people and fell for a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda (as in they worship the devil). It was "interesting" that Churchill saw Zionist Jews as the "good" Jews, and today in "conspiratorial" circles, Zionist Jews are the "bad" Jews.

As I have written, FE will mean the end of the world as we know it, and nations, race, ethnicity, cities, and the like will disappear. It can’t come too soon.

Best,

Wade

I've always subscribed to the principle of taking people as I find them and to quote Churchill from that article, "There are all sorts of men -- good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent -- in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.", he at least had the concept of same. Whether he suffered from cognitave dissonance or was a bare-faced liar I cannot say, but his policies indicate what he said publicly was largely rhetoric.

From what I can see Churchill's idea of a Zionist and the modern view are not the same, as in the definition of a Zionist has changed in public perception. Regardless, my motto, as first stated has no room for racism of any kind.

I recently watched a 3hr + video called "JFK to 9/11 - Everything is a rich man's trick." It exposes quite nicely the depth of support that, idealogically or literally, many industrialists, politicians, media and the Royal Family had for Hitler.

Claims within the film need further research to provide context or even validity.
For instance, the film states that Standard Oil and IG Farben made and supplied the Zylon B Gas used in the gas chambers. When one investigates this they first find that Tesch and Degesch produced the gas, and that two of the partners of the former were executed following the Nuremburg Trials. Digging deeper it transpires that IG Farben provided the patent to both companies. Three months after Hitler came to power Ivy Ledbetter Lee, the publicity director of the Rockefeller Foundation was assigned public relations director for I. G. Farben

As always the rich got richer and others carried the can in the shape of death and destruction. Ultimately it was just another chapter in the pursuit of total control of the planet.

You have remarked that the problem is us, and I cannot disagree. But what guilt can you assign to people born into a prison and conditioned from birth to slot nicely into the matrix and never question anything.

We cannot awaken people by prodding at their world view, they have too much invested in it, (their entire being), and such a path would take too long; the planet does not have that timescale and therefore nor do we. The bread and circuses of the Romans have come a long way, the matrix is all encompassing. (Why was the last refuge of humans called Zion?)

Pretty much everyone has heard the injunction to 'Know Thyself' at one time or another, but without a spiritual guide, (earthly form), who even really comprehends what it means. Every system man has built has left the following generations to suffer. All by design, or just a series of snafu's? Religion led us astray from the path, state-controlled education is designed to stupify and concomitant with forced medication and talking heads it seems to be doing a spectacularly good job.

FE would bring a paradigm shift hurtling into play faster than any previous shift has ever gone, could they handle it? Yes, I think so, though severe disruption may be inevitable in places. If a DIY model could be made and the blueprints simultaneously flood specific sites on the internet (hackers required) would that work? I don't know. I will be watching developments with interest.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Anakie:

Churchill, to me, was just another murderous politician. There were times when he could be frank, and for that he got some respect from me, but he was an integral part of an imperial machine that put Hitler and Stalin to shame. He wanted to use anthrax bombs in WWII, but it ended before he could, he called for the complete extermination of Japan, and he was an enthusiastic supporter of napalm attacks on German cities.

You will find that I am not too much into documentaries and YouTube stuff. A lot of it is fluff, and can only be an introduction to subjects, and often dubious ones at that. My work always aims far deeper than that.

Hitler was indeed the "fair-haired boy" to many interests in his rise to power, and because I am an American, the enthusiasm from corporate America for the Third Reich was "interesting." Allen Dulles "rehabilitated" some of Hitler's biggest supporters in Germany and put them right back into the positions that they held while supporting Hitler. Of course, Dulles could not get enough of those neat death camp Nazis to staff the CIA, which materially assisted in heating up the Cold War. Dulles himself is a key suspect in the JFK assassination, and he led the "investigation" into his murder. Yes indeed, the Hitler/Rockefeller/Farben/Lee connection is one of many grim connections, and the Dulles brothers were front men for Rockefeller interests.

I was born into the same prison as the rest of us, and at least I began to notice that there were bars. We are all responsible for the world we live in, and each of us can do something about it. I may have had more "privileges" and opportunities than many others, but Dennis was born into the bottom of the barrel. I really do not use the word "guilt" much, but I do use responsibility. Each one of us can make a difference, if we choose to. That most have chosen to see to their immediate self-interest is the reason why we are in the situation we are today. Almost everybody takes the blue pill. No judgment, but just cause and effect. Each one of us answers to the highest judge, ourselves, when we pass over.

After 40 years of this energy journey, I realize that the masses will be no help at all for manifesting FE in the public sphere, but all Epochal Events in the human journey were initiated by a relative handful of people, so this will be no different, and I am trying to amass that relative handful.

Once FE is made available for public use, however, then the changes will come fast and furiously, as you note. The arrival of FE will be the biggest event in the human journey, by far, and I have devoted the rest of my lifetime's "spare" time to building that choir. That is really all that I have time or interest for these days. My big essay covers thousands of topics, and when you finish that essay and want to discuss its topics, I will be here.

DIY FE is what almost everybody who hears of FE suggests within the first few minutes of hearing about it, and that approach does not have prayer that I can see (and many others like it). That kind of thinking is part of the FE field's arrested development. It is all a lot harder than some make it look. If we can build Intel chips in our garages, then maybe DIY has a chance. Everybody looks for the easy way out. There is not any that I know of.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This post and a few more will be an addendum to a prior series of posts on the fringes and navigating them. I doubt that anybody could seriously read my work and call me Mr. Orthodox, but I have been called that by people when I did not support their pet theories that they heard from some fringe source. Just because something is fringe does not mean it is valid, and just because something is orthodox does not make it invalid. I wrote an essay nearly a decade ago on the subject.

Within their limits, the standards of scientific and scholarly investigation can work well. The problem in orthodoxy is that those standards are often abandoned when wealth and power get involved, and the problem in the fringes is that those standards are often not used at all. That essay gives several examples, but I am going to get a little deeper into it in this post and some others.

That booklet that changed my life and introduced me to alternatives was written by professional biologists, and it was the result of research. That booklet was banned in the USA because it had unorthodox conclusions (that people's diets affect their arterial health). But the orthodox position at the time was that hardening of the arteries was a normal aging process. Today, orthodoxy admits that it not only did not know what it was talking about when it stated that hardening of the arteries was a normal aging process, but the regimen promoted by that banned booklet is now the orthodox position on how to best fight hardening of the arteries!

As a biochemist discovered on his journey, that situation, in which the pioneers have their lives ruined while orthodoxy steals their innovations, while never giving the pioneers any credit, is typical. That booklet was banned by the same medical establishment that hunted for "quacks" for generations, but the chief quack-hunter was a quack himself who not only never practiced medicine a day in his life, but he assisted the tobacco companies in structuring their "research" so that they could make health claims for cigarettes. The crowning moment of his "medical" career was structuring "research" to promote an asbestos cigarette filter! It is surreal. Western medicine is a racket (which one of the USA's Founding Fathers warned against), and the false paradigm is enforced far more ruthlessly than it is for the energy racket.

I could give many other examples, but I will only provide a couple more. Fluorine is the most reactive element known to science and forms the smallest negatively charged ions. The only organisms that use fluorine use it as a poison, and they are plants. There are no known uses of fluorine in animals, and the fluorine ion poisons enzymes. Naturally occurring fluorine in drinking water was found to destroy teeth, and an effort was launched in the USA to investigate its effects. However, the world's largest fluoride polluter was owned by the same man who had authority over the federal agency performing the investigation, and in a finding that was an Orwellism before there was Orwell, the investigation concluded that fluoride was good for teeth in the right amount, not harmful. The "discovering" scientists for that bizarre finding both later admitted that their data did not provide any support for their "fluoride is good for teeth" arguments, but their original "findings" were all that was needed for industrial interests to mount a huge propaganda campaign to fluoridate the USA's water supply, and an industrial waste received a surreal makeover and became "medicine." During the early years of that campaign, the USA also made the first nuclear weapons, and the Manhattan Project also became a huge fluorine polluter. It was at the forefront of not only covering up the harmful effects of fluorine, but also promoting its "salubrious" properties. That the fluorine ion also attacks the brain may have been a "bonus" effect and may be used as one of the mass mind control methods that Americans are subject to. Many scientists, from the very beginning, spoke out and questioned the health benefits of fluorine. Their careers often ended for challenging the propaganda, no matter how innocently. The USA's water supply is fluoridated to this day. The situation is so black that it is hard to look at for long.

In a similar vein, Louis Pasteur is a towering figure in medicine, with his germ theory of disease. However, it seems that the findings that made him famous were at least partial plagiarisms of a contemporary, who came to a different understanding of the foundations of biology and disease. But Pasteur's methods became the basis for corporate empires, including vaccination. But there is no clear evidence that vaccination is safe and effective, and to this day, mercury is in vaccines, which is a well-known poison. Like fluorine, no animal used mercury, but humans use it as "medicine."

In the 20th century, two scientists developed optical microscopes (1, 2) that attain resolutions that defy optical theory, but the data is there to prove that those microscopes indeed attain those "impossible" resolutions. Those scientists with their microscopes not only confirmed the general findings of Pasteur's contemporary (but were unaware of him), but their findings led to novel disease treatments, for cancer in particular, and the first one had his life wrecked by that same quack who promoted asbestos cigarette filters, and that scientist was eventually run out of the USA, a broken man. The second was run out his home nation of France, and was put on trial in Canada, where the prosecution sought life in prison.

Those tawdry spectacles demonstrate very clearly that medical "science" is not really science at all, but part of a highly politicized racket that rakes in trillions of dollars each year.

On the medical fringes, however, charlatans also abound, I exposed one of them on my site, and the tabloids promote all manner of fad diet and treatment. The principles of healthy living are not hard to understand, but they are not lucrative for the medical racketeers and most people do not live by them, as it takes self-discipline, and almost nobody ever exercises that. In fact, the masses file along like lemmings, slaughtered by the medical racket. I have watched people choose certain death rather than question their indoctrination. It was initially shocking to see, but I now accept it as normal.

The medical racket hums along and the masses all submit to it, or they try faddish stuff that is no help, but it just another way that people try to avoid taking responsibility for their health. When people seek to avoid responsibility, others will happily take it from them, and the end results are never pretty.

In summary, the Western medical paradigm has largely been adopted for reasons of wealth, power, and people's learned sense of helplessness. Many scientists have challenged the paradigm, and have often lost their careers because of it.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Having fun with an Avalonian in another forum, and my latest is below…

I think that if people realized what happened at the top of the medical racket, like the energy racket, they would learn that they are considered useful while being used/treated as a "customer," and slaughtered when their utility expires. Brian O's buddy Rappoport said that the medical racketeers are more vicious than the energy racketeers, and from what I have seen, heard, and studied, I'll buy that.

The objectivity/subjectivity issue I think is getting at the bedrock issue of our reality. The only two things that scientists know exist are energy and consciousness, and that materialistic explanation, that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of brain activity, is the predominant explanation in mainstream science. When people like Brian and I had our mystical awakenings (while performing the same exercise, five years apart), we could no longer drink the materialistic Kool-Aid, and it eventually ruined us as mainstream scientists.

With your experiences, there is no way that you would ever buy the materialistic explanation of consciousness. I constantly exhort my readers to go get some experience in some of these areas, especially if my work does not quite "gel" with them.

I consider it very likely that Jonestown was a CIA op, probably one of the unofficial MKUltra operations mounted after the CIA officially "discontinued" it. Jonestown was founded the same year (1973) that the CIA "discontinued" MKUltra. Those people coming out of the jungle that you "saw" were likely black ops types. Many of the "suicides" had injection marks on the back of their shoulders. I believe that Leo Ryan is still the only member of Congress who died in the line of duty. I know of so many evil activities in California, by officials, gangsters, spooks, and Godzilla, that nothing would surprise me in that realm.

In the big picture, this is what I think. This reality is only "objective" in that everything and everybody here has decided to cooperate in the creation of physical reality. When we are being "objective," we simply agree that we have a common subjective experience. The price of admission into this reality is to accept the "ground rules," and seeming objectivity is one of them. Otherwise, this reality could not be created. Reports by psychonauts who visit the Astral Plane state that the denizens there also co-create their realities, although more consciously than we do here, but those denizens can experience their reality as objectively as we do. But they can enter, leave, and create realities in a way that we can barely comprehend. Time and space do not exist there: they are parameters that were invented so that we could have the experience of physical reality. There are also many different kinds of physical realities, and some are much more "plastic" in their space and time attributes than we experience here.

Those "apparitions" that you have encountered are probably mostly "dead" people who hang around our physical reality for various reasons, and some are because they died with physical addictions (and try to get vicarious "sniffs" of their addictions by hanging around addicts in physical reality), died suddenly, often violently, and either cannot or will not let go, and sometimes they hang around for "noble" reasons, such as looking after people who they had a support agreement with for that lifetime, and as it got cut short, they are trying to help fulfil their agreement. They all eventually move on, but being "trapped" in physical reality is something that all souls do. Learning to let go, leave, and resume our larger lives is one of the lessons that incarnating teaches us. This is no easy task, coming here more than a hundred times, evolving our souls. The ensouled species game is not easy, and a third of the time they wipe themselves out before they "grow up" (if what I have read can be trusted ). We are on the brink today: we will either wake up or wipe ourselves out and start over in another life form on another planet. In the big picture, it is all just experience and nothing is "wasted," but it is very hard on a soul to finish its incarnation cycle in a different life form, not to mention carrying the karma of wiping out their species (and taking many others with them).

That you have pretty regular precognitive experiences does not surprise me. Being at a forum like this, and from what I have heard of your journey, you are the kind of guy who steps outside of time fairly regularly. You are also grounded enough so that you can handle it. People who have such experiences and are not grounded can become what we call "crazy." You aren’t that crazy.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi

Yesterday was an important anniversary for my profession. When the fun and games end, there is going to be one hell of a day of reckoning.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Hi Wade,

I am so very sad the last couple of days you see I play the trumpet.

We lost one of the greats of the twentieth century on March eighth....

His name was Lew Soloff of Blood Sweat and Tears fame so he was kind of a rock star.

Yet, Mr. Soloff always had his passion and heart in the jazz world and even as he was recruited to play the trumpet for BST many who were asked before him turned the gig down.

Lew said what the heck and took the gig in 1968 for 200 bucks a week but the trouble started early when the promoter said that you could only be paid 100 per but however, you are part of the franchise....which turned into a huge pile of money....as it were...

That gig lasted from 1968 until 1973 and all the time his mind was on jazz and the creation of something real and meaningful and then the end of it came and so Mr. Soloff left BST for work in the studio mills of the '70s you know you sell your talent playing jingles for money for a buck or two....

And so Lew lost interest in those gigs and started playing jazz in small clubs and other alternative venues and everyone in New York just loved the guy....

When Lew talked about music and Jazz in particular he just over the top pointed out that the best of them were pure or what us Jazz guys talk about as being a purist and his admonition that there are so few out there ....as it were....

And I would say that for the last decade of his fine life that Lew Soloff lived up to what it means to be a purist in the Jazz world....

A fine obituary from Jewish daily news:

https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/...ff-dead-at-71/

And dear Wade if this does not come up please look for it....

I want you to watch him in this vid as an older guy just blowin his horn...

Well done and may he rest in peace...


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

Sorry for your trumpeting loss. Watched the vid, and listening to BST as I write this. I have their greatest hits. That band always sounded black (such as "And When I Die"), but were a bunch of white guys. I played the trumpet for three years (and had a year of piano lessons at the same time), until it was finally accepted that I had no musical talent. One relative plays sax, and lived with me for about a year, practicing every day. I have also mentioned my relative who had his own Vegas lounge act. So, I had daily doses of jazz and big band music, and grew to like it. Soloff had a good run.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have written plenty on my reading the daily newspaper for 20 years, thinking that I was getting the news. My first inkling that the media was not about reporting the truth was when I saw a hatchet job on Dennis's company on a Seattle TV news show.

In Boston, even though we were huge, earth-shaking news in New England's electric industry, Boston's media completely ignored us as the authorities began sharpening their axes. It would have gotten bloody if we had stayed much longer.

We then moved to my home town, and the fireworks began. Again, my mother making a scrapbook from her employer's libelous newspaper clippings about us was a trifling footnote of what I lived through. When Dennis was arrested, he was splashed across the LA media, and the next year, when I read a several-page "investigative" report on us in the LA Times, I finally realized that the media can simply make it up as it goes.

The next year, when I heard who was probably Ed Herman talking on KFI about Lies of Our Times, was I ever ready for the message. The first page of my first issue is still the one I remember best, as The New York Times simply made it up as they went when "translating" Arabic script. Lies of Our Times is where I saw an ad for Ralph McGehee's book, which I soon read, and my media and history studies began in earnest. I was soon reading lots of Chomsky.

The news has been called the first draft of history, and the processes are similar for both. Unfortunately, integrity and fidelity to the truth are often absent. It is an ideal that historians adhere to more than journalists, probably because of the impact of "news," as it influences more people and more immediately than works of history do. But when wealth and power are involved, the ideal historian's perspective goes flying out the window, too. In the media, lies of commission are common, such as the Iraqi incubator story, which was instrumental in bringing the first Gulf War into being. The WMD lies about Iraq, preceding the USA's invasion, is another instance of shameless lies of commission in which the media became parrots of the propaganda line, and journalists who dared not toe the line or did a little true investigative reporting soon found themselves without jobs and careers and even had their lives shortened. The current spectacle of Fox News, which would have even made Goebbels blush, is just a sign of the times. The recent scandal of Brian Williams making up war stories is simply more evidence of what a farce the mainstream media is. Reporters are actors who read their cue cards and sometimes ad lib.

Historians are a more sober lot than journalists, and rarely invent or repeat lies of commission, but they are experts in lies of omission, again when serving rich and powerful interests. They might briefly mention the unsavory facts so that they cannot really be accused of omission, but they then bury them in the "rosy" ones as they create hagiographies for state-approved heroes. The American historians' treatment of Christopher Columbus is a case in point. Another is how one of the USA's leading historians participated in the whitewash of Padre Serra's bloodstained record, to prepare him for sainthood. Another example is George Washington, who, along with the Columbus, is the greatest Founding Father, whom our nation's capital is named after. My home state is named after Washington and the biggest river in the state is named after Columbus, and I once worked in a city named for him. There is no escaping those Founding Fathers, but Washington's greatest achievement was architecting history's greatest swindle, as Earth's richest continent (Asia was larger and ultimately had more wealth, but North America was the only one that could be stolen, and it was biologically richer, as it had not been plundered as Eurasia was) was stolen from its inhabitants by using his plan, which swiftly became official policy and remained so until there were no more lands to steal. Just try finding a discussion of Washington's greatest feat in his mainstream biographies. Nearly a decade ago, somebody mentioned that glaring deficiency in Wikipedia's Washington biography while citing my work, and to this day, Washington's greatest crime/achievement is swept under the rug, and that Washington biography has achieved "good article" status and is protected against an editor like me adding his greatest crime/achievement to the article.

The historian's ideal of objectivity is readily discarded when writing for The Establishment. This issue of the "news" and "history" is not one of intelligence, but integrity, and is completely consistent with the most important lesson of my journey.

It is not a great feat of intelligence to report the facts and let the audience decide for themselves, but that practice is rarely evident in realms where wealth and power are impacted. The news and history professions are corrupt to their core in the USA, and it is the case, to one degree or another, in every nation on Earth, as those professions primarily see to the needs of their ruling classes.

Navigating current and past events to get at the truth can be a perilous process, and in the USA, the disinformation is fed children nearly in their cradles. That steady diet of lies helps form in-group "cohesion" so that those children will become easily manipulated cogs in the machine, and about 99% of the population readily digests their indoctrination and will never be the wiser. I eventually grew to realize that all of the reactions of denial and fear to the idea of FE were rooted in an addiction to scarcity-based perspectives that were imbued in people when young. They never woke up to reality and violently opposed such awakening. Almost nobody can admit that their entire awareness and self-image is a carefully contrived illusion, as if their identity was just another crop to be raised. When given the chance, more than 99% of the population takes the blue pill. Of course, I am here to offer the red pill. Only people who have swallowed the red pill, or are willing to try it, can help with what I am attempting.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This post will be about navigating the fringes of scholarship, as far as winnowing the wheat from the chaff, and in important ways, scholarship and science have similar ideals and methods. Whether it is a historical perspective on an event, person, nation, and so on, or a scientific hypothesis, the ideal is dealing with the sum total of known evidence. The ideal scientific hypothesis not only accounts for the sum total of known evidence about a phenomenon, but can also be subjected to testing that can falsify the hypothesis. Proposing a hypothesis and then trying to prove it wrong is a process that has produced most of our scientific theories. It is the very opposite of faith.

In scholarship, and history in particular, the scholar is dealing with past events. Part of the task is to understand what happened. As scientists have been crossing disciplinary boundaries, they have been asking questions about why something happened, as well as what. An example is how scientists have been addressing collapsed civilizations in recent generations, and the answers have been converging on the idea that those collapsed civilizations ran out of energy. In preindustrial civilizations, that basically meant food and wood.

As scientists have studied the lands which were the subject of Old Testament tales, they cannot find much historical accuracy to the stories. The Old Testament appears to be a mixture of some fact and a lot of fantasy. The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam did not take their current form until more than a century after the alleged events, and as with all organized religions from the very beginning of civilization, the texts were doctored by the priesthoods to serve the day's political-economic climate. Moses and Muhammad may not have even existed as real people, and many of the tales in the New Testament are also likely fabrications, although there is some independent documentary evidence other than the Gospels that Jesus really walked on Earth.

The whats and whys of the past have been subjected to similar methods of investigation, and for times before there was writing (7,000 years ago), scholars do not have much to go on, and the previous 4.6 billion years of Earth's history and the journey of life on Earth is the province of scientists. The tales told by preliterate peoples do not provide much evidence that scientists can use in their investigations.

Historians therefore are restricted to relatively recent events, and even though the tools of science are often brought to bear on historical investigations, the historians' province is generally the realm of documentation and its interpretation. I recently reviewed Charles Hudson's masterpiece on the Soto entrada. He advocated that anthropologists and historians work together, and his work on the Soto entrada will be the gold standard for quite some time. That work of history incorporated the historical accounts into a rich narrative that included geological, climatic, ecological, archeological, and other scientific evidence. The best such works are now done that way.

Velikovsky tried something kind of similar, but he did it kind of backwards, working backward from ancient texts and constructing hypotheses to support the literal interpretation of Biblical events such as parting the Red Sea, manna from heaven, and the Sun standing still. Not only did he work backwards, he did not really consult the specialists in the evidence that he interpreted in formulating his hypothesis (primarily concerned with planetary near-misses with Earth), and tried to interpret Sumerian cuneiform on his own, for instance. Sitchin did something similar and argued for a planet on a 3,600 year orbit, inhabited by humanoids that have greatly influenced the human journey. No professional scientist or scholar today takes Velikovsky or Sitchin seriously. Those men gave it the college try, but the realities that they argued for have little or no scientific evidence in their favor, and what has been used by their supporters to bolster their positions is highly dubious, and many pieces of evidence either falsify their scenarios or make them dubious to a high degree.

For an example of completely bogus "scholarship," you can study the works that argue that the Jewish Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated by an order of magnitude. I spent time doing that in the 1990s. What a thankless task, but it was educational for helping me understand that brand of "scholarship." I have seen it called pseudo-scholarship, and understand the sentiment, but I have also seen the terms pseudo-history and pseudo-science, and people such as Carl Sagan greatly abused the term pseudoscience. If you examine Richard Harwood's math in his Did Six Million Really Die?, and have any background in working with numerical information (I do that in my profession as an accountant), he is playing the equivalent of a shell game with his readers. Numerical exercises like his can only dupe the ignorant, but millions of people have been duped by "the Holocaust never happened" scholarship. Millions of Americans are "sure" that the Holocaust never happened, and more than ten million doubt that it did. On one hand, that is better than a quarter of Americans who do not know that Earth orbits the Sun, but on the other, it reflects how the Sturm und Drang of Holocaust Denial "scholarship" has influenced people. Gary Wean bought some of it, I am sorry to say. Heck, 40% of Israeli Arabs also think that the Holocaust is a fiction. Here is an American Holocaust Denier running for office.

I can be accused of playing the Straw Man game by using such easy targets, but I had to spend years becoming familiar with enough of the science on the subjects that Velikovsky dealt with to feel competent to evaluate his claims, and I did not find any that seemed to hold up. There is no astronomical evidence that Venus is only several thousand years old and erupted from Jupiter and nearly hit Earth, and the same goes for Mars wildly traveling around the solar system, or the idea that Earth once orbited Saturn, or any compelling evidence that celestial events killed off the megafauna or that the Sun stood still in the sky.

As I noted in my prior post, professional historians failed badly in concocting the hagiography around Washington, Columbus, Serra and other heroes and saints of American history. But their failure was generally around omitted evidence, as they cherry-picked the facts that supported their foregone conclusions. There is a proper way to do it, and it has to do with standards of evidence (how robust, how reproducible), principles of logic (Ray Perkins's Jr.'s Logic and Mr. Limbaugh is a good, short logic class and applied to the writings of one our time's demagogues), and an honest assessment of the evidence.

Here is an example of how to not play the historian game. I get asked pretty regularly about authors who allege ancient lost civilizations (a number of authors play that game), or write revisionist history, and Gavin Menzies comes up periodically. No serious scholar takes his work seriously. I have a copy of his 1421, and opened it to a pretty random page. In his chapter on the New World (chapter 5), he mentioned that Charles Darwin discovered Mylodon remains in such a state of preservation that Darwin thought that it was recently deceased. The reality was that humans drove virtually all of the South American megafauna to extinction by 10,000 years ago, and sloths were particularly vulnerable. Because of South America's splendid isolation for about 60 million years, sloths and other South American mammals had about the lowest mammalian metabolisms on Earth (why sloths are so slow). Sloths survived the Great American Interchange of three million years ago because of their great claws. The glyptodont survived because of its armor. While claws and armor were effective strategies for those slow-moving giants, they became exceedingly easy meat for invading humans, and all large South American mammals like that were quickly driven to driven to extinction by humans.

Gavin seems entirely unaware of the state of science regarding Mylodon, and argues, based on a letter from a correspondent, that natives of historical times domesticated Mylodons like cattle and kept them in caves in the winter and let them out to forage in the summer. There is not a scientist alive who believes that. That kind of fantasy is of the way-out tabloid variety and belongs next to articles about humans riding dinosaurs.

That is not all. Menzies uses his "understanding" of Mylodons to argue that the Chinese fleet, on his fantasized visit to South America as they circumnavigated the world in the 1420s, brought back some Mylodons for the emperor's amusement. The Weekly World News might have stooped that far, but The National Enquirer's editorial standards may have been too high to publish such a fantasy. Menzies further argued that some of those Chinese-born Mylodons escaped in Australia, because there was a statue near the "Gympie Pyramid" that he fancied resembled a Mylodon. I am not sure that even reaches tabloid standards of scholarship.

Am I erecting straw men, with Menzies, Holocaust Deniers, Velikovsky, and Sitchin? Hardly. Einstein took Velikovsky seriously enough so that Worlds in Collision was open on Einstein's desk when he died. But Einstein would be the first today to admit that Velikovsky was wrong about all of his celestial hypotheses. Einstein also wrote the forward to Hapgood's book on pole shifts, but it was before the science of plate tectonics was developed, so Einstein would once again be the first to say that Hapgood's hypothesis had been convincingly falsified.

It is one thing to formulate a hypothesis. It is another thing entirely to subject them to testing that can falsify them. None of the works of Menzies, Velikovsky, Sitchin, or Holocaust Deniers passes muster in light of the evidence, and specialists in the areas where those admitted amateurs play do not take any of their work seriously.

Most fringe science and scholarship is like that what I presented above. If I had not performed my studies for the past dozen years, it would have taken a little longer to get to the bottom of Menzies's Mylodon tale, but I would have gotten there, and I hope it is evident that a great deal of other evidence does not jibe with reconstructions such as Menzies's. The Indian Ocean and Eastern Pacific, which the Chinese fleets did sail in the early 1400s is a far cry from sailing across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. I have read some clever books that have novel reconstructions of the historical, archeological, geological, and paleontological record, but Menzies's stuff does not survive a cursory inspection. I confess to being a little mystified as to why work like his has much appeal, and I suppose that it is because the tabloid crowd will eat it up. But there are very good works on history, science, and the like that were written with the lay audience in mind. Why stuff like Menzies's? Anyway, the fringes are filled with chaff like that.

Were those authors being deliberately fraudulent? I doubt it (except maybe for Harwood and friends). I think that they were, to one degree or another, deluded and trying to punch far above their weight class.

Again, I have seen integrity be far more of an issue than intelligence, and I cannot help but think that many people cling to their long-since falsified hypotheses out of ego. Heck, scientists are very guilty of it. While I performed my studies for my big essay, I continually encountered scientists telling their readers that the ideal of scientists abandoning their pet hypotheses after they have been falsified is rarely adhered to, as scientists go to their graves clinging to their pet hypotheses and paradigms. Nick Lane wrote about it in his books, and he was far from alone. Peter Ward also wrote about the losing sides in scientific controversies continuing to cling to their falsified hypotheses, while the field left them behind, and scientists can get on bandwagons, just like anybody.

Mr. Skeptic is a great example of the deep dishonesty endemic in organized skepticism, and is also a great example of how playing his "affable skeptic" game easily gulled people in the FE field. When his old lies about Dennis were exposed, he just made up new lies, without ever missing a beat, and I watched highly intelligent people make excuses for his criminal behavior.

It is a jungle out there! I have spent many years navigating those waters, and have winnowed the wheat from the chaff as best I could. My spending months on the moon landings might have seemed like a waste of time, but Brian wished that he had before he allowed himself to be "ambushed" by that camera crew. If Brian had done the work, he would have been like Einstein would have been on Velikovsky, in that he would have understood that the faked moon landings evidence does not withstand scrutiny. And to this day people approach me to argue for faked moon landings. It is like the chaff is constantly recycled and continually sucks in the unwary and undiscerning. There is still a Flat Earth Society, and it is not a hoax.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As an addendum to the previous posts, bogus scholarship can come from orthodoxy or the fringes, and both come from failing to follow the "rules." The "rules" were established because they tend to produce scholarship that is valid. My experience is that bogus orthodox scholarship usually comes from the dishonesty that arises from a conflict of interest (usually meaning service to the rich and powerful), while bogus fringe scholarship largely comes from incompetence and not following the "rules," probably because the author is unaware of them or incapable of following them. There are surely charlatans on the fringes, too, but incompetence rather than malice likely explains most bogus fringe scholarship.

There is plenty of "fringe" scholarship that is of the highest order, often because it challenges bogus orthodox scholarship. For instance, it was not until reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States that I had any idea that the Columbus story taught to me as a child was similar to stories of Santa Claus. When I began reading Chomsky's and Herman's work, it was astounding. Over the years, I tried to find critiques of their work, too see if their work held up, and all I found were hack attacks that misrepresented their work and often lied outright. The hacks generally had positions in The Establishment, but even the right wing and "liberals" attacked them. I have spent a great deal of time digesting critiques of their work, and I almost never found them valid in the slightest. In fact, I used many of those critiques for my essay on my critics and their adherence (or lack thereof) to logic and the "rules" of scholarship. What I found that what virtually all attacks on Chomsky's, Herman's, Zinn's, and my work had in common was that the attackers were defending their in-group ideologies from anything that threatened to invalidate them.

During my free energy journey, I also eventually realized that those in-group ideologies were all scarcity-based and egocentric, and promised material rewards and egocentric strokes to the adherents. What made the work of Chomsky, Herman, and Zinn so compelling was that they focused inward on their in-group, not outward. Chomsky has stated that much of his work is based on a very simple ethical principle: we are most responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions. They did not seek scapegoats and rarely took Establishment hacks to task, but focused on how we all contribute to the world that we live in. Their work was largely an exhortation that we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions. How adult. How mature. That was precisely why the attacks on their work have been so irrational and vicious.

I was writing to Chomsky about free energy in 1992, and I still try to get Ed's interest (he will be 90 next month, and he still cranks out monthly articles for Z Magazine and still writes books, although now he gets some help – it is incredible to see them at it, and Zinn died at 87 in the middle of a speaking tour), but free energy was beyond their own ideological horizons, as I eventually realized. Free energy seemingly violates the "laws of physics," and the school of thought that those men hail from is known as "structuralist," and they have an aversion to conscious manipulation of the political-economy by elites and prefer a model that is more "anarchist," in which everybody narrowly pursing their self-interest produces the outcomes that we see, and there is no need to invoke "conspiracies" to explain how the system functions (Ed and Howard gave a nod to conspiratorial aspects of the JFK hit and 9/11, for instance, but Noam generally dismisses and avoids "conspiracy theories"). It took me many years, of studying the right, left, and mainstream, to really understand where they were coming from and why each camp was no use at all for helping the biggest event in the human journey manifest. The right is trapped in their conspiracy theories, while the left is trapped in its structuralism, while the center merely defends the mainstream ideologies that their paymasters use to manage the "great herd" of humanity.

I also found that the structuralist bias mirrors the prevailing assumption of mainstream science, in that nothing designed the universe: it just came into being somehow, and life self-organized from inanimate matter, without anybody or anything intending it. Actually, that is a little unfair to scientists, as the best ones admit that the scientific process does not even address the intent issue, so really cannot say anything about it, or if there is a creator. Unfortunately, it is a minority position among scientists, as they have turned the scientific process and its findings into a religion. The "skeptics" largely defend that religion, and the similarity of the house organ of organized skepticism, The Skeptical Inquirer, and the Catholic Church's Holy Office of the Inquisition is no coincidence. After studying organized skepticism for several years, I interacted with the leading free energy "skeptic," who made a name for himself by attacking Dennis, and his incompetence and dishonesty were originally shocking but actually typify how organized skepticism operates. Mr. Skeptic was probably a professional, on Godzilla's payroll somehow. But what astounded me was how he gulled naïve members of the free energy community with his "affable skeptic" act.

What I also found was that all groups had allegiance to scarcity-based ideologies that saw the world through a victim's lens, not a creator's. At its root, their perspectives were rooted in fear, not love. IMO, that is the problem. For those who have their mystical awakenings, they can begin to see through the mists and grope toward becoming owners of their experiences, not a victim of them.

My first exposure to alternatives was when my family went "health nut" when I was twelve, which saved my father's life. The booklet that saved his life was banned in the USA, but today the medical establishment embraces the findings of that banned booklet. I eventually wrote a book-length essay on the racket that Western Medicine is today. There is a vast difference between the fringes of biology and medicine and fringe scholarship such as Menzies, Sitchin, etc. Ralph Moss has a doctorate in biochemistry, and he showed that the targets of the cancer racket's medical inquisition were almost all MDs or had scientific doctorates. Furthermore, those who ran the medical racket in the USA in the first half of the 20th century, when much of the organized suppression of cancer cures was the most blatant, were quacks of the highest order. The most famous failed anatomy in medical school and never practiced medicine a day in his life, and his greatest "contribution" to medicine was working with tobacco companies to structure their "research" so that they could make health claims for cigarettes, and his crowning achievement was promoting an asbestos cigarette filter! You could not make this up if you tried.

When I began looking into the medical racket, after already having been on the receiving end of its racketeering methods, I noted that there was an alternative paradigm of microbiology and disease, in which the emphasis was on the internal dynamics of the organism and not "germs" in the environment. What's more, two biologists developed microscopes with "impossible" resolutions (1, 2) that allowed them to independently arrive at their conclusions, which coincidentally mirrored the findings of a contemporary of the father of the germ theory of disease, Louis Pasteur. Pasteur seems to have plagiarized his peer as he sought wealth and fame, and may have placed microbiology on a false foundation from the beginning. Microbiology textbooks to this day repeat the fairy tale version of how that father of microbiology came to fame.

Ralph Moss is one of many scientists who have visited the lab in Canada where one of those biologists with his "impossible" microscope works, and they all come away amazed. Where is the stampede of scientists trying to reproduce those microscopes and their findings? The silence is deafening. I eventually came to understand that the denial of scientists has not changed since Galileo's peers refused to look through his telescope or the Wright brothers flew for five years while the scientific establishment ignored and ridiculed them. Brian O'Leary told me, soon before he died, that establishment science's institutional blindness and denial is worse in the 21st century than it was when the Wright brothers flew.

Rock-solid evidence that overturns scientific paradigms is ignored as if it does not exist, when it is not being ridiculed. What I found was that the more wealth and power invested in a paradigm, the greater the resistance to change, and that was where organized suppression by powerful interests was likely to be found. Just like those hacks who write hagiography of Columbus, Washington, and Serra, the standards of scientific practice go flying out the window when wealth and power get involved. While establishment scientists can be amazingly obtuse when encountering such "radical" scientific findings and live in denial, the techniques of organized suppression have been highly effective in removing the offending technologies and data from the scene, too, which makes the entrenched denial all the easier to maintain. But much of it is out in the open and ignored, and the blindness and irrationality of scientists when encountering paradigm-shattering evidence can be something to behold.

The transmutation experiment with Brown's Gas has been performed at least a hundred times. After a Congressman (who was cured of cancer by the treatment (and he is alive today at age 94) that that biologist in Canada with his "impossible" microscope developed) badgered the Department of Energy enough, some DOE scientists attended one of those transmutation experiments, with Geiger counters in hand. They confirmed the experimental success, but then tried to get the facility shut down and engaged in logical summersaults to explain away what their Geiger counters showed them. Years later, when I spoke at DOE hearings about that very same process, to solve the nuclear waste issue, the DOE official who ran the hearings admitted to our faces that nuclear waste management was a racket.

Similarly, the inventors of the heat pump that Dennis developed and sold cut its performance data in half so that they were no longer laughed out of engineering offices for the "impossible" performance that they reported. Dennis, like Sparky Sweet, naively believed that the energy interests would welcome their technologies with tickertape parades, but were rudely disabused of their delusions. The opposite happened, as the energy interests wiped them out. Brian visited Sparky in his hiding place in the desert the week before Sparky died of a "heart attack" after the final death threats were delivered.

When I became Dennis's partner after he was run out of his home state (he was eventually run out of his home nation), we immediately received an offer of $10 million to buy out our idea for a free energy device. A year later, Dennis received an offer with a couple of zeroes added before we had the boom lowered on us in my home town. When the dust settled a couple of years later, my life was shattered and I was radicalized. I then began the studies that led to my public writings. During my adventures, I saw that scientists could be as irrational as Christian Fundamentalists when their paradigm was challenged. After playing the Paul Revere of Free Energy for five years, interacting with the tops of the world's scientific, academic, and "progressive" institutions, and all that he received was denial and fear to the idea of free energy, Brian began openly wondering if humanity was a sentient species.

During the 1990s, not only did I become aware of Sparky Sweet's technology, but a close fellow colleague was given a show by the people who run the world of just what technologies are being kept under wraps. My friend's eyes were bugging out as they showed off free energy, antigravity, and other technologies that seemed like magic. Brian nearly yawned when I told him about that underground demonstration, but I have rarely encountered a professional scientist who can even begin to wrap his/her head around that multifaceted issue. Fear and denial are the standard responses, and scientists and academics seem to be the groups most impervious to the reality of those technologies. They deny the possibility of those technologies by citing the "laws of physics," and deny the organized suppression that I and my fellow travelers experienced as a "conspiracy theory." Yes, the physics textbooks will turn into doorstops when those technologies come into the open, if they come into the open, but the history of science is full of paradigm shifts, so their obtuseness was really puzzling to me for many years. Didn't they understand the history of their profession?

I admit that having the technology sequestered like that has been very effective in helping maintain the general air of denial, but there is plenty of data that can be reproduced today that should open the eyes of scientists, but it all remains in the ignored corners and is actively suppressed by agents of the rackets.

Since Dennis was wiped out repeatedly in the 1980s, those heat pump installations have gradually diminished, as Dennis was never able to get an industry going and when those installations needed maintenance, refrigeration mechanics scratched their heads and did not know how to fix them, so they eventually failed and were uninstalled, just like people eventually replace their refrigerators. After a nearly continual presence on the Internet for nearly 20 years, I am still waiting to have an intelligent conversation with anybody on why Dennis's heat pump was the best heating system that has ever been on the world market. Similarly, I have presented the basics of my first professional mentor's engine, which a federal study hailed as the world's best for powering an automobile, by far, and I am still waiting to have the first intelligent conversation about it. The silence has been deafening, and all that the talking heads in the free energy field can do is lie about Dennis when they are not ignoring him. Some of the same people who attacked Dennis and Brian turned around and embraced the liars, including Mr. Skeptic. It was kind of surreal to witness at first, but it was just another example of personal integrity being the world's scarcest commodity, and those behaviors are just more evidence of why the entire FE field is in a state of arrested development and why I do not want to have anything to do with it today.

The ideal of scientific investigation works if it is honestly and intelligently applied, but for paradigm-shattering data and technologies, especially for those that threaten to disrupt the global cartels, scientists and other intellectuals can be as bad as Flat Earthers. It was really something to witness.

In short, there is not a group on Earth today with the right stuff to move free energy and related technologies beyond the organized suppression and humanity's inertia that comes from all corners, as people irrationally and dishonestly defend their in-group ideologies. Consequently, I am trying to roll my own, and that begins with building the choir that I envision. I do not kid myself that the people that I seek are on every street corner. I seek needles in haystacks, who have already taken or are willing to take the red pill. They will not worship at any of those ideological altars, and the best way to understand their false nature is to have had some kind of awakening experience of how bogus they are. Few ever have what it takes to seek such experiences, but those are the people that I am hunting for. First of all, their hearts need to be in the right place, and they need the inspiration of an artist and the discrimination of a scientist. Such people are less than one-in-a-thousand in the general population, maybe far less, but I am using this new technology called the Internet to find them while I can.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Choir Q&A.

Q: Wade, you recently wrote that you have never had an intelligent conversation about your mentor's engine. How about with a sock puppet like me?

A: OK, what did you have in mind?

Q: How about how it worked, why it was hailed as the world's best for powering an automobile, why it wasn't built, and how he came up with it. That seems like a good start.

A: I have written the basics of how it worked, and probably do not need to belabor it, but an external combustion engine for a car was unusual, to say the least. Arguably the primary innovation was the pressure intensifier, which turned a low-pressure gas into a high pressure liquid. The pollutants that cars produce are partly due to the high temperatures and running at various speeds. It is hard to perfect the burn when the rate of combustion is wildly variable. Since it was an external combustion engine, think of the heat source like a gas furnace. It "runs" at one speed, and it can then be engineered for the most perfect burn that will produce the least pollutants. Also, the engine ran cool enough so that nitrogen would not react and create pollutants. The only "pollutants" from burning would have been carbon dioxide and water.

Another ingenious aspect of the engine was that it separated the prime mover from the drive train (which is why the prime mover could operate at one speed, which could also be engineered for maximum efficiency), and when the car braked, the kinetic energy of the car's momentum was put back in the gas tank, so to speak. When a car moves faster, the friction of the tires on the pavement and the car in the wind increases as the square of the velocity, so slow moving cars, such as in a city, should get far higher MPG than on the highway, but the constant wasting of energy through braking makes cars have less MPG in the city than on the highway. Mr. Mentor's engine would have made it so that driving around town would have had far higher MPG, and government estimates were that a mail truck, for instance, would get about 200 MPG in town. Also, with one-tenth the amount of fuel used, that would have meant one-tenth of the combustion and pollution, but the pollution problem was largely solved with the external combustion engine. I also summarized the problems that the engine solved. There were others, such as that the prime mover and drive train could be separated, with the hydraulic motors at the wheels, and three of the four motors could fail and the car would still run. The military particularly liked the idea that the car had redundant drive trains, as the vehicle would be harder to disable in combat situations.

It solved many problems at once, which was part of its appeal. The rocket scientist who was first assigned to analyze the engine was awed by it, and said that it should have taken a team of engineers a career's worth of work to design it, but it came to my mentor in a flash at a stoplight. He then drove home and sketched out the engine in a half-hour. That was in 1972, before the USA had its first energy crisis. In the wake of the crisis, a federal study was commissioned to explore alternatives to the internal combustion engine, and Mr. Mentor's engine quickly became the study's focus, which led to a U.S. Senator calling Mr. Mentor at home and encouraging him to participate in Congressional hearings regarding getting his engine developed. Jimmy Carter's declaration of a war on energy (and his program looked suspiciously like what Brian O'Leary crafted for Mo Udall in the same election campaign) I think might have come after that federal study, which was likely initiated under Nixon or Ford. It was during the early stages of that hullaballoo, in 1974-1975, when I first began dreaming of changing the energy industry.

I am going to stretch out this Q&A to a few posts, my sock-puppet friend, as there is plenty to discuss.

Q: So, what happened to the engine?

A: During the hoopla, a high-ranking official told Mr. Mentor that if he really thought that he was going to make the internal combustion engine obsolete, that he had better first make his funeral plans, because the Detroit automobile companies would not take it lying down, and bumping off gadflies like Mr. Mentor was one of their specialties. That the same basic engine powers cars today as a century ago is no accident, but due to a carefully contrived situation. Many superior engine designs have long existed, but that is not the problem.

Also, Mr. Mentor told me that if he would have had those hearings, he would have lost the commercial rights to his engine (the federal government already had rights to it, as it funded the patenting process), and that was an early indicator to me of the problems with inventors. They mainly invent to get rich and famous, not really to help the world. Over the next generation, I had that pounded into my head in no uncertain terms, but when I was a teenager, because of Mr. Mentor's tutelage, I began my energy journey with the inventor's perspective.

About the time that that Senator (who made a name for himself as the alternative energy Senator) was calling Mr. Mentor at home, an industrialist offered to build the engine and make an automobile company from it. His offer was that he would own 95% of the company and Mr. Mentor and that rocket scientist would split the remaining 5%. With a "deal" like that, Mr. Mentor and the rocket scientist declined that fine offer, and that was the end of the engine…but not quite.

A few years later, some people built the engine and drove the car in the Rose Parade, and announced that they would revolutionize the automobile industry. At this stage, a reader might think, "Hey, they would have had to pay a royalty to Mr. Mentor if they built them." That is a nice idea, but it almost never works that way in practice. Even in normal inventing, the inventor almost never profits from his invention, as he loses out in the shark tank environment of capitalism. Theft of inventions is another Detroit specialty, which I knew about, but I also heard about it from one of the thieves.

Even though those people in the parade stole the invention, they presented a threat to Detroit. I think that I heard about their fate a decade later, when Dennis's and my company ended up in my home town of Ventura, California. The owners of that company may have been the people who were kangarooed into prison, which we heard about soon after we hit Ventura. As I later discovered, such a fate is not unusual in the field. The Big Boys don't play fair.

We were in Ventura partly because of Mr. Mentor, and we were trying to build his engine, using the panels from Dennis's heat pump as the heat source, to do free energy. Then the boom was quickly lowered on us and many lives were wrecked, including mine.

I have quite a bit more to discuss surrounding that engine (that rocket scientist, Victor Fisher and his hydraulic heat engine, the rudiments of thermodynamics and my studies of their engines, the problems of building cars, how Detroit wiped out upstarts, and Dennis joining that fray more than 30 years after Mr. Mentor's engine was invented, to be run out of the USA for his trouble), and will do so over the next few days. It is interesting if nothing else, and helps show how the world really works, not the TV version served up for the masses.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

I want to thank Anakie for his posts about the holocaust and your responses to them and as an American many, and I mean many of my evangelical friends are waking up to the truth of what America is really about and of course many of them are into the "rebranding" of the Hitler franchise....scary...

The dark path is so dark that I just do not want to go down there and so your essay on how war is a total racket and how all in the west went along with the "program" and so our dear Adolf looked to America with how we treated our very own native peoples for his program of making room for his people the "superior race" and the genocide was not just about Jews but gypsies and most of eastern Europe and so what many find and are angry about is the fact that some Jews want the holocaust to be only about them and not the destruction of 25 millions or more....as it were...

I would think that any thinking human being would agree that all of these genocides were an abomination but of course all countries conduct them and I could quote many examples and so to admit this would condemn most if not all of the human race and so it is ignored and I suppose really it is easy for most humans to except the fact that it only happened to the Jews and to repeat that slogan "never again" and then ignore it when it does happen again and again....

And so our most recent example which would be our dear prime minister of Israel speaking to our American Reichstag...I mean congress and the hooting and hollering on every word as he proposed a new war and a new genocide upon the people of Iran!

Really what can one say?

Of course the real game afoot is the huge energy reserves of the middle east and the gangsters are just dividing and conquering as they always do....

Of course you have spoiled me Wade since my world view has changed now and every thing revolves around the energy issue.

And of course the scholarship of the right is absolutely horrible and one must re-asses if one is to remain sane....

Again thank you for your fine work....


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

Yes, my work might be best digested with a stiff drink.

Yes, that "rehabilitation" of Hitler in right-wing circles is pretty horrifying. Since Hitler modeled his plans after the USA's success in securing the good parts of North America, maybe those right wingers are just returning the favor.

I have a relative whose father worked for the SS, and to this day, she says that Hitler was all right. All right if you were part of his in-group. Living on the West Coast as I do, I know lots of Jewish people (and met a guy with the concentration camp tattoo on his arm). I can only imagine how they feel when seeing that neo-Nazi spectacle. I knew a guy (Mr. Engineer) whose family did business with Al Capone, and he thought that Capone was all right. There is probably not a despot in world history who members of his in-group did not think was all right, as he buttered their bread. They enjoyed the plunder of the rapaciousness.

Yes indeed, Israeli Jews are doing to Palestinians what Hitler did to Europe's Jews, and although Israel has a nuclear arsenal aimed at its neighbors (which the USA has a blind eye to, as it is illegal), Israel will bomb and threaten any neighbors who might built a bomb for themselves, so they are not invaded like Iraq was.

I was just reading Lifton and Mitchell's Hiroshima, written for the 50th anniversary of nuking Hiroshima. This year marks the 70th anniversary, and the USA is in as much denial as ever, and we are taking a blowtorch to the powder keg in the Ukraine, which is threating to ignite a war between two nuclear powers. We are still living in the world of Dr. Strangelove. Crazy, crazy, all around. That scene of Netanyahu addressing the American Reichstag was sickening.

Yes, if we adopt an energy-centric view, a lot becomes clearer. With FE, the motivation for war disappears. Psychopaths can probably never get enough of war (at least for others), but in a world of abundance, they would no longer run the show.

If I can get that choir going, then that army of lambs, it will not matter what the psychopaths do. The Fifth Epochal Event will be here, and the world as we know it will end, and perhaps, as Jesus said, humans will give up war.

Best,

Wade