Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[professor]

Hi Pese
I fully agree with your analogy..
What upsets me so much is that there are people that claim of having all kinds of  Qualifications,we have to take this for granted and believe what they say,yet they don't take Meyers or Dingle for granted despite all of the evidence, Hippocrates.
By the way Meyers had no Degree and accomplished more than all of you thatare bragging about your degrees.
Did Tesla hold any Degrees? I could Name a few more .... I rest my Case. 
With all of those highly educated people on this forum, has anyone of you figured out Meyers or Dingles technology and if so why have you not replicated it? Don't get me wrong I never said that an education is not Important but there is always someone that takes it out of Context and writes his own version distorting  the meaning of another Members post. Not intelligent for someone that boasts it to be.
I know what I know  I don't feel insecure and I do not need to brag or boast about my Education or Knowledge.
I think either Jason was looking for browny points  and had hoped for us to confirm his  Assay without doing much of his own homework. He confirmed but never elaborated about Dingle,or he is testing us to see if anyone of us has some real Information  to pass on or he just simply wanted to arouse us.You do'nt throw rocks when you are in a China Shop. Not a smart Idea by any standards!
professor

 

@ ProfessorHey Professor,
When you get involved communicating with "Naysayers",you will receive only dumb arguments and a bunch of rhetoric
making it impossible to respond to. Everything what can not be seen or proven due to its removal from the
consumer market can not be proven.
This is exactly what these people are waiting for, to report back to their dubious employers,thus
being their only purpose to frequent these forums, to listen read and report what the automatic scanning  of the internet's censorship system may have overlooked. This is my Opinion, formed after reading this article.
Gustav Pese

[Farlander]

Yea you fucker get the fuck outa here.  Fuckin brown nosin college pansy.  You're degree ain't worth shit except how to drink beer and party.  I've learned more about electronics and electricity in the last 6 months on my own study than you did 4 years and $100k later.  You goddamn neo fascist, 

Hey Sparks,
Excellent summation.  Are you proposing to combine pulsed DC with radiant energy to derive a wave, one that oscillates at the frequency of, let's say, water?  Isn't that all a magnet really is anyway, converting radiant energy into kinetic?  Aren't flux fields radiant energy, or distortions in it, like difference potentials?  Cool

[Spewing]

This has got out of hand, jason meant no harm here as he only wanted input.

I made a deep post on his forum for all to read, i feel as if jason took attention to it while the researchers didn't even bother with reading it.

My question to you is. Would you rather see a video of a car that ran on water, or would you rather someone tell you how to run a car on water but not show proof?

Or, do you want to have the cake, and eat it to.

I suggest for everyone to get alone as this technology as it is not meant for you to understand it, things aren't always as they appear. This technology lacks the respect it deserves.

What if someone proves all wrong? what if the skeptics then becomes believers and the researchers then become in denial? then what?

[newbie123]

Ok..  The problem here is "Faith" in a technology ..   This is exactly what you have (like it or not)  if you've never seen a (new and amazing, revolutionary) technology such as Stan Meyer's 1700 percent efficiency water splitter, or his water cracking spark plugs work for yourself, and you believe in it.   Faith in a technology (theory) and the proof of a technology are two different things.

I'm not trying to debunk Stan Meyer...   I never saw his demo units working in person, with measurements taken.  I don't know if it worked or not....


But, IMO, we have way too may people talking about Stan Meyer like he's their cousin, and claim to know the technology inside and out, swear it works..   Giving us amazing and speculative theories ...   But provide no evidence..  just useless ramblings....    And chances are  they've never seen a working replication in their life.  C'mon now guys.  Am I the only one tired of this crap?

[jeffc]

To be honest I expected a different response from people. People here don't seem open to new ideas at all, I don't see why what I have said should be so threatening if you truly believe what you believe based on solid reasoning. I don't want to fight with people so if you want me to leave just say so I won't come back, it would be a little dissapointing though.

Jason,

I can't pretend to know your true intentions in posting here, but at the very least I would say you are naÃÆ'Ã,¯ve to think responses would â€Ã...“convince youâ€Ã,. 

This site is dedicated to OVERUNITY and secondarily Free Energy, both of which are either impossible or unlikely according to classical education.

Your thread title was provocative, â€Ã...“Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoaxâ€Ã, and the article you provide certainly isn’t based on your personal, first hand witnessing of anything. 

You come here asking for people to prove that SM’s car wasn’t a hoax, when you know very well for that proof to be possible, someone would have to be able to replicate the SM car, demonstrate, measure, and have the proof of secondary replications.  Since we all know that hasn’t happened, and you very well knew that before ever posting, what was the point other than to start a flame war?

As mentioned by others, this site is dedicated to theory and experiment which go beyond conventional science.  That DOES NOT mean these fine minds ignore what is taught in schools, it only means that we understand that there are tremendous gaps in classical physics and quantum physics and there are quantifiable observations (many repeatable) of properties and processes that cannot be fully explained.

So, again, did you really come here asking for people to convince you, with real evidence, that OU/FE is possible?  That is unrealistic. 

There are only 2 realistic possible results: 
1)   You won’t be convinced quickly and will leave feeling superior because obviously there has been no provable OU/FE to date
2)   This group can somehow point out the limits of current science and at least open your mind to possibilities beyond what you have been taught

I’m typically quiet on this site, but you seem to be an intelligent guy and for some reason I feel like trying to get you to open your mind a little.  Physics is only a hobby for me, my profession is computer engineering, so I can’t speak to things with authority like many here who have spent many years trying to break the rules. 

But I can tell you, I’ve got some great friends in Silicon Valley, and they tell me that classical and quantum physics don’t explain many things they deal with on a daily basis so they’ve had to write their own rule book of nature in some cases. 

Anyway, I remember my arrogant physics professors, (I did 2 years aerospace as well), and my arrogant computer and calc professors.  PHDs all of them, and each were famous and we had to buy their text books for our classes.  They knew everything.  They were so smart. 

I was a computer wiz and my prof wanted to fail me for not doing things his way, even though I proved time and time again that he was wrong.  Dangerous, true.  I prevailed by going over his head and proving my case to the dean.  I received an A and came away with a valuable lesson â€ââ,¬Å" learn from everyone, but don’t forget to question and try to find a better way. 

Word of advice: look around this site, and others like it.  Everyone here isn't a crackpot.  The next generation of technology might just come from collaboration on the Internet.

Enough, I’m done.  Good luck.  And to the rest of you, I watch and hope for your efforts every day.

Regards,
jeffc