All of Stanley Meyer's Equipment FOUND Including Dune Buggy! (Videos Here)

[MarkE]

Mark, I just had to throw in my worthless two cents.

Stan Meyer's story is one of the few that I can't actually offer an opinion either way.  I was quite amazed at reading about the procedures at his "trial", meaning the court case about his claims that failed.  If you actually read all about it from all the angles, then there was enough "strange" things happening during the trial to indicate he was going to fail, no matter what was done or found.  Seeing that I firmly believe in the phrase "I believe it when I see it for myself.", I cannot state that I believe his claims.  Even the reports that I have read are not my own "firsthand" recordings, so I cannot say for certain that they are accurate, but enough details match-up with the court reporter's record to make me wonder.

I HAVE seen evidence that was obviously designed to confuse.  The entire setup with all the extra circuitry that was published was a quite simple Fuel Injection system.  Of course, at the time, it was quite forward thinking, but 99% of the circuitry was to support the proper pulse width and timing for injection purposes and I was very frustrated with a LOT of experimenters that didn't recognise that as soon as they saw the prints.  (I still have several GB of collected data from that time, but to review it again would be a waste of time.)  No matter what I say, and no matter what anyone else posts here, the real proof will come when the process can be replicated.   There are plenty of basic specs out there.  The process IS simple to try.  Has anyone had success?

I can say that I actually attempted the "Original" method, from another unnamed experimenter, using a motor/generator with a shorted output diode.  I have even blown up intake manifolds on small Briggs engines by missing the fact that intake valve sealing is not always perfect, along with waste spark, timing, etc.  The mechanical aspects of actually using HHO is a whole different game, Just as you say.  Only once did I see, for myself, what I would consider "OU" production, but it was short lived and quite destructive, both in the fast burn of HHO (Which BOTH explodes andimplodes if my observations are correct.  That's Another area of study, I guess.) and what it did to the circuitry involved.  I stopped right there and went to other things.

As a final "Dumb" remark, I hope that people remember that if you are dealing with "Real Electron" manipulation, then you are playing with the sub-atomic realm, by definition.  It's already proven, by mainstream science, that not all things add up correctly when in that realm.  I would not be too quick to judge because actually seeing certain things can be a "Life altering" experience that not all basic experimenters are prepared to deal with.  Some go to God, some go power crazy, some go greedy, etc.  I sometimes think that keeping a level head and hiding in the shadows might be the easiest way to go, even if it's not the most responsible and demonstrates a lack of courage.  Of course, some get into the sticky position of NDA's and government work that can make part of the work not up to discussion.  That can be a hard point to get past.

All in all, it does require a lot for me to accept Stan's initial concepts, but I cannot state for certain either way at this point and would love to see anyone try their own replication of the slow conditioned, six tube setup from the original information.  That would be a nice starting point.  As to the rest of it, I'll believe it when I can replicate it for myself...

Chess....

Do you have any firsthand info on the "Original" setup.  (I remember the nice video of the rapid pressure rise in the six tube setup, but have no info on actual test conditions...)   I would be pleased to review any documentation that you might have.  Just the idea of the container being a "Water Cap" introduces a lot of variables having nothing to due with basic conduction through the water.  I am always interested in such info as it can be a release from certain agreements if the info comes from another source.

Loner what it all boils down to is that Stan Meyer made a series of extraordinary claims that are not supported by understood science.  From time to time an extraordinary claim will turn out to be correct.  What tells us such a claim is correct is hard evidence. 

Evidence in favor of Stan Meyer's extraordinary claims is sorely lacking more than 20 years after he made them.  I encourage anyone who thinks that Stan Meyer's claims might be true to investigate to their personal content.  It is after all their time and money to do with as they please.  If someone wishes to promote his claims as true then I ask that they provide hard evidence to support such claims.  So far, no one has.

[chessnyt]

@MarkE:
First you state that the off topic message was "supposed"...

Third, the supposed off topic message was a response to armcortex' question.

Then you go on to ADMIT that it was in fact off topic and not just "supposed"...

out of left field

You contradict your own statement within the very same reply!  By your own admission, you clearly prove that the posting in question was in fact, OFF TOPIC!  Do you believe that the people viewing this thread can't see or realize that you are contradictory and less than truthful?  Really? 




@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories. 


The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day.  They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress.  They are talkers and not doers.  They have no friends because they have no people skills.  They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates.  They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity.  This is not their purpose.  They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships).  They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance.  They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned.  They always chose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb.  They NEVER actually contribute to a replication.  Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters.  Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.


The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way.  They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research.  They are the doers and not just talkers.  They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts.  They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics.  Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with.  Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
           
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt.  They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord.  They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on.  They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes.  They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum.  They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible.  Some just get a kick out of it.  Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.


Now once again I ask, will the builders please step forward?





Regards,

Chess

[MarkE]

@MarkE:
First you state that the off topic message was "supposed"...



Then you go on to ADMIT that it was in fact off topic and not just "supposed"...



You contradict your own statement within the very same reply!  By your own admission, you clearly prove that the posting in question was in fact, OFF TOPIC!  Do you believe that the people viewing this thread can't see or realize that you are contradictory and less than truthful?  Really? 




@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories. 


The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day.  They have no life or they wouldn't have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress.  They are talkers and not doers.  They have no friends because they have no people skills.  They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates.  They don't build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity.  This is not their purpose.  They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships).  They pretend they don't care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance.  They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned.  They always chose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb.  They NEVER actually contribute to a replication.  Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters.  Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.


The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way.  They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research.  They are the doers and not just talkers.  They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts.  They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed "laws" of physics.  Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with.  Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
           
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt.  They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord.  They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on.  They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes.  They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the "good guys" of the forum.  They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible.  Some just get a kick out of it.  Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.


Now once again I ask, will the builders please step forward?





Regards,

Chess

Is that a big no to my polite request that you identify where I supposedly attacked you as you accused?  Is there a logical reason that you have misrepresent my reference to Armcortex' post as a reference to my own? Is there a logical reason that you assert that answering Armcortex was an inappropriate digression off topic, but your now repeated posting classifying posters is somehow on the topic of Stan Meyer's equipment?

Define yourself as you will.

[ARMCORTEX]

MarkE, my attack dog,

I want you to break his will

4 years ago he argued with me, that is unacceptable.

Does not even dare to answer to me directly, he is a scared broken man, he asks himself at night
If he is locked into a corner, he is.

MarkE, plz relieve him of his imaginary burden, it is not up to him to develop breakthrough technology

[chessnyt]

Mark, I just had to throw in my worthless two cents.

Stan Meyer's story is one of the few that I can't actually offer an opinion either way.  I was quite amazed at reading about the procedures at his "trial", meaning the court case about his claims that failed.  If you actually read all about it from all the angles, then there was enough "strange" things happening during the trial to indicate he was going to fail, no matter what was done or found.  Seeing that I firmly believe in the phrase "I believe it when I see it for myself.", I cannot state that I believe his claims.  Even the reports that I have read are not my own "firsthand" recordings, so I cannot say for certain that they are accurate, but enough details match-up with the court reporter's record to make me wonder.

I HAVE seen evidence that was obviously designed to confuse.  The entire setup with all the extra circuitry that was published was a quite simple Fuel Injection system.  Of course, at the time, it was quite forward thinking, but 99% of the circuitry was to support the proper pulse width and timing for injection purposes and I was very frustrated with a LOT of experimenters that didn't recognise that as soon as they saw the prints.  (I still have several GB of collected data from that time, but to review it again would be a waste of time.)  No matter what I say, and no matter what anyone else posts here, the real proof will come when the process can be replicated.   There are plenty of basic specs out there.  The process IS simple to try.  Has anyone had success?

I can say that I actually attempted the "Original" method, from another unnamed experimenter, using a motor/generator with a shorted output diode.  I have even blown up intake manifolds on small Briggs engines by missing the fact that intake valve sealing is not always perfect, along with waste spark, timing, etc.  The mechanical aspects of actually using HHO is a whole different game, Just as you say.  Only once did I see, for myself, what I would consider "OU" production, but it was short lived and quite destructive, both in the fast burn of HHO (Which BOTH explodes andimplodes if my observations are correct.  That's Another area of study, I guess.) and what it did to the circuitry involved.  I stopped right there and went to other things.

As a final "Dumb" remark, I hope that people remember that if you are dealing with "Real Electron" manipulation, then you are playing with the sub-atomic realm, by definition.  It's already proven, by mainstream science, that not all things add up correctly when in that realm.  I would not be too quick to judge because actually seeing certain things can be a "Life altering" experience that not all basic experimenters are prepared to deal with.  Some go to God, some go power crazy, some go greedy, etc.  I sometimes think that keeping a level head and hiding in the shadows might be the easiest way to go, even if it's not the most responsible and demonstrates a lack of courage.  Of course, some get into the sticky position of NDA's and government work that can make part of the work not up to discussion.  That can be a hard point to get past.

All in all, it does require a lot for me to accept Stan's initial concepts, but I cannot state for certain either way at this point and would love to see anyone try their own replication of the slow conditioned, six tube setup from the original information.  That would be a nice starting point.  As to the rest of it, I'll believe it when I can replicate it for myself...

Chess....

Do you have any firsthand info on the "Original" setup.  (I remember the nice video of the rapid pressure rise in the six tube setup, but have no info on actual test conditions...)   I would be pleased to review any documentation that you might have.  Just the idea of the container being a "Water Cap" introduces a lot of variables having nothing to due with basic conduction through the water.  I am always interested in such info as it can be a release from certain agreements if the info comes from another source.

@Loner:

I do have much to share concerning Meyer's original setup, but to post it here would simply be an exercise in futility.  As soon as I post something, it will be completely buried in worthless trash from MarkE and his friends within 15 minutes thus making it a complete waste of time and effort.  They count on that too.


Below I have left a link where you, or anyone else seeking to gather and share information on Meyer's research minus the drama and wading through the skeptics along the way.  At that link, I have started a new thread that focuses the discussion towards builders and towards Meyer's original technology (the tubular cluster array).  Over there, I can guarantee you a completely different experience altogether.






LINK:


http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2533.msg5791/topicseen.html#msg5791