Brian O'Leary Quotes

Can we really accomplish a program like Mars 1999? The sad truth is, we won’t be able to do it in today’s climate. Today’s paralysis will be tomorrow’s paralysis unless the workings of the institutions and the attitudes of individuals at the helm change toward the positive. The prerequisite to a successful Mars 1999 program is not engineering feasibility. It is people. And there is hope.<p> Meanwhile, as the dust settles from Challenger, NASA continues to search its soul. In the wake of the accident, it becomes all the more evident that the U.S. civilian space program has been suffering from conflicting interests and goals, intercenter rivalries, uneconomical operations, and an apparent inability to make the sweeping changes that are required. Management of the space station program suffers from this confusion. The space agency’s technical achievements have been, and continue to be, extraordinary. Nowhere can more intelligent and competent engineers and scientists be found. But there appears to be a bureaucratic inertia that inhibits the innovative thinking and risk taking required to blaze new trails.

Nuclear power. Carbon sequestration at coal plants. Ethanol-from-corn. Other kinds of biofuels. Carbon cap-and-trading. Hybrid cars. Conventional electric cars. Air cars. Gas-turbine micropower. Efficient powerplants. Hydrogen economy. Hydro-power. Geothermal energy. Solar. Wind. Tides. Waves. Ocean thermal gradients.<p>Which one(s) of these will solve our climate crisis and give us a large and lasting contribution to energy sustainability? The sobering answer to any truthful inquiry, I am sorry to say, is none of the above.

What I am suggesting is the indefinite postponement of the space shuttle program, a reduction in excessive NASA management costs and the establishment of a moderate unmanned space program emphasizing space science and applications. I believe all this can be done with an annual budget of less than $2 billion. <p>How about changing the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston into the National Energy Research Center?

[…] my basis for confidence in declaring my reality checks as valid is based primarily on observing repeatable, nonlinear electric outputs in many demonstrations and in replicated experiments which I have witnessed. I could not explain the anomalous results in traditional ways. These direct observations combined with a rudimentary theoretical understanding of the physics give me reasonable confidence that the effects both measured and calculated are real. <p>Add to this fact that I am building relationships with these individuals based on growing mutual respect and trust among colleagues. I would be surprised that all of these people, for the years of work they have put into these experiments, are either deliberately or naïvely fraudulent. On the contrary, these are the explorers of a new reality, often cut off from the mainstream, because the mainstream will more often than not debunk this reality, with a denial based on the most superficial and ad hoc reasoning.

But, as the 1970s began to close, while holding a faculty position in the physics department at Princeton University, I began to have some experiences that appeared to violate the “laws of nature” that I had so revered and had taught as my gospel. A remote viewing experience, a near-death experience, a mind-over-matter healing of an “incurable” knee, all led me into a new territory which none of my scientific colleagues seemed to want to enter.

The governments and private industry in India and Japan are funding top-level scientists and engineers to develop free energy for commercial applications, something about which the American government appears to know little or nothing. Cold fusion pioneers Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons, formerly of the University of Utah, are now in France being funded by a Japanese consortium. The inventor of the N-machine, Bruce DePalma, formerly of MIT, is now developing his free energy concepts in New Zealand. Other American inventors and researchers have gone underground most of the time (e.g. Thomas Bearden and Sparky Sweet), have been sued (Sweet), had their devices confiscated by the Government (e.g., the Canadian inventor John Hutchinson and American Dennis Lee), been convicted and jailed under questionable charges (Lee) and in at least one case have been told by the Government to change careers – or else (e.g. Adam Trombly).<p>In all, I have met several dozen free energy researchers. What all of these individuals have in common is the underfunding of their work such that it proceeds to proof-of-concept but no further. Developing useful prototypes requires a much larger effort as would come from bringing the researchers together in a research and development effort analogous to the Apollo or Manhattan projects. But there has been no public and little private support for free energy inventors – particularly in the United States – even though this country is where most of the ideas come from. We seem to be so active in repressing this technology we have driven most of our brightest inventors away or underground. <p>The remarkable fact is, we seem to have had this technology for one century! Nikola Tesla was among the first of such energy mavericks, who through the decades, have repeatedly demonstrated free energy, only to be suppressed later. For a whole century we probably didn’t have to pollute the Earth to meet our energy needs!