OU - Reproducability why is it so hard? A New Perspective!

[acerzw]

Great link FreeEnergy, I was not aware of this, I will read with interest... and the nature of your avatar again shows a link from popular culture, the blue pill or red pill view of 'reality' is substantiated here, the agents (humanities collective beliefs) against the individual is manifest.. our reality is a matrix constructed of beliefs..

There are also similarities with the 'Kybalion', the 'Divine Cosmos' website of David Wilcock, and no doubt thousands of others, all roads lead in the same direction.. many different expressions of this same basic idea are required in order to help the maximum audience understand the nature of this 'Reality' game... its more fun then and we all get to consciously contribute to our collective destiny...

My particular expression of this same basic truth is aimed at a more 'geeky' audience than many of the others... for that is my nature... and I need to understand too!

Acerzw

[Tracker]

Acerzw,

I totally agree that we CAN change reality. Forums like this (or other social networks) will help us to "pump" much more information into new generations in higher ratios than it was done before. You are right that "common" sense of history can be altered. Interesting time we are altering right now. WE JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE. Interesting fact is that more and more OU devices are popping up. It is just a matter of time they will simply start to work. I personally think that because of their "mysterious" nature the first working design will be VERY VERY simple, because so much people will believe in it. We could make a small research (especially inside this forum as good source of information) to find which design (magnetic rotor, TPU, SMOT etc. etc.) is to be the most "reproducible" and has been witnessed working.
I bet with you this will be the most obvious design of all (like Orbo). Just spread the news and information and we will be soon witnessing a CHANGE. Regards

[shruggedatlas]

Question: Why is it so hard to reproduce OU devices and effects even when clear and seemingly simple instructions are available?

Answer: Obviously part of the problem might be down to inventors concealing some vital details, yet even when a simple device is reproduced different people get different results, some of which could be down to their skill, but maybe there is 'something more' to the problem than that!

The "something more" could be as simple as there not being a design to date that works.

[acerzw]

shruggedatlas, a fair and very important question, to which there is an answer...

The are many examples, for instance the many attempted replications of John Bedini's simple devices like the SGG, as first explained to me by tao elsewhere in the forum, John's machines work, you can buy DVD's of them working (The Energy from the Vacuum series, highly recommended), Tom Bearden explains in exhaustive detail the physics of how they work, they have published detailed circuit diagrams. Yet when others built identically as possible, their machines do not generally work... Sure, maybe the replicators are all bad inexperienced engineers, but that is not the case...

There are many other OU devices which suffer from the repeatability problem... even when being replicated by their own inventor such as Hutchinson who goddylla mentioned previously...

Any effect such as that I am describing will to an extent be masked by 'normal' causal factors... however, how else do you explain the blurring of UFO photos taken by so many different individuals with different equipment in different places at different times throughout history... it stretches credibility to suggest they are all bad photographers with shakey hands and faulty equipment.. I site this specific example because, it is a situation without many of the normal causal factors that could potentially mask the effect I am trying to explain, after all a camera, lens and film are basically simple devices the operation of which are well understood in contrast to an OU device, and should in common sense terms work reliably nearly all the time regardless of what they are being used to photograph... but against intuition the subject being photographed does appear to affect the functioning of the photographic equipment!

(I should also note here that the UFO photograph blurring effect does not necessarily require a retrospective action of the principle which I am explaining, since at the time when the photograph was taken it is a given that most of humanity did not believe in them!)

Acerzw

[shruggedatlas]

shruggedatlas, a fair and very important question, to which there is an answer...

The are many examples, for instance the many attempted replications of John Bedini's simple devices like the SGG, as first explained to me by tao elsewhere in the forum, John's machines work, you can buy DVD's of them working (The Energy from the Vacuum series, highly recommended), Tom Bearden explains in exhaustive detail the physics of how they work, they have published detailed circuit diagrams. Yet when others built identically as possible, their machines do not generally work... Sure, maybe the replicators are all bad inexperienced engineers, but that is not the case...

There are many other OU devices which suffer from the repeatability problem... even when being replicated by their own inventor such as Hutchinson who goddylla mentioned previously...

Any effect such as that I am describing will to an extent be masked by 'normal' causal factors... however, how else do you explain the blurring of UFO photos taken by so many different individuals with different equipment in different places at different times throughout history... it stretches credibility to suggest they are all bad photographers with shakey hands and faulty equipment.. I site this specific example because, it is a situation without many of the normal causal factors that could potentially mask the effect I am trying to explain, after all a camera, lens and film are basically simple devices the operation of which are well understood in contrast to an OU device, and should in common sense terms work reliably nearly all the time regardless of what they are being used to photograph... but against intuition the subject being photographed does appear to affect the functioning of the photographic equipment!

(I should also note here that the UFO photograph blurring effect does not necessarily require a retrospective action of the principle which I am explaining, since at the time when the photograph was taken it is a given that most of humanity did not believe in them!)

Acerzw

I cannot speak on UFOs, and of course with a UFO, we cannot take the thing and examine it.

If an OU machine works on video but not in real life when replicated, there are two explanations.  One, the person who replicates the device does not do so correctly.  Two, the device only appeared to function in the video, but in reality did not function as the drawings/plans would indicate.  I tend to think that the second explanation is correct, given how many people have tried to replicate how many devices.

I think a working OU design is still in the future.  I agree that positive thinking is good, but at some point it becomes wishful thinking and hinders progress.