The Tom Bearden

Help support the research



Subject: RE: Lisitsyn's Work
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:46:46 -0500

Dear Chris,

 I have the Lisitsyn report somewhere; it was translated back there originally by a contract from the intel agency.  I did a little work then for our medical intelligence people.  What probably happened was that the Russians changed the book, which then would include the U.S. version.  I don't think they intended that one to leak out of there.

 But finding the report will prove a challenge.  Still in hypoxia, slowly recovering from a heart attack.  My "files" are actually "piles" in my 1230 sq. foot office, so it will take me some real time.  But if I can locate it, I'll copy it to you.  Can't promise.

 Yes, don't argue with the professors.  Just bide your own time, learn from them what you have to do to get your degree and do well.  But just understand the stuff better.  I got a minor in electronic engineering, without ever realizing that we were not calculating the field in space before its interaction with the assumed "unit point charge" at any point, but only after that interaction.  In short, we were calculating what was diverged or diverted from the field (as-it-exists prior to interaction) after the interaction. Of course that is substituting the effect for the cause, a grand non sequitur.

 However, can't blame them too much.  Originally space was considered filled with a material ether, so to the old guys there was not a single point in the entire universe where mass (and charge) were absent.  So they thought the field actually existed in space in that form.  But when the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved that material ether, then the problem began.  They never changed an equation, but simply announced one day that "well, since there isn't a material ether, then we are not using one!

But don't press it; just understand it.  That understanding then frees you from the notion that models are perfect.  They are not.  One must always look for a better model.

 Also, in classical EM theory (as used in electrical engineering), the model assumes that the local vacuum is inert (falsified by particle physics for a half-century) and that the local spacetime is flat (falsified by general relativity for nearly a century).  Please hold in your mind (but do not dispute with the profs!) the notion of the SUPERSYSTEM.  The supersystem consists of three components: (1) the system and its dynamics (as you were taught, with assumed flat spacetime and no net vacuum interaction), (2) the local nonlinear vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics.  All three components of the supersystem interact with each other.  The present closed-current-loop circuits are specifically (unwittingly) designed to self-enforce Lorentz symmetrical regauging, which then self-enforces such symmetry on the circuit's behavior.  In short, it minimizes or negates the interaction of the other two components of the supersystem.

 In the real world, no electromagnetic analysis of a system is complete until the supersystem interactions have been analyzed and/or accounted for.  This is of the utmost importance in extended electrodynamics, particularly of overunity systems.  Yet this central organizing concept has not been recognized as such, but just in bits and pieces in the literature.

 I attach a paper showing the necessity for considering the Dirac Sea in normal theory.  I assure you that it directly appears in all COP>1.0 EM circuits, and unless understood and dealt with, will kick (decay) those circuits right back into COP = 1.0 condition.  A colleague and I have filed a patent on the process for transforming negative energy into positive energy (special kind of regauging), so that the decay process then furnishes the powering energy for the system, with all the energy coming from the interactions of the other two components of the supersystem.  It is working in prototype on the bench, and makes possible self-powering closed-loop EM systems.  Those will be the systems of the future.  I will have details on that process, etc. in my forthcoming book (2002) published by World Scientific.

 Best wishes,

 Tom Bearden

Subject: Lisitsyn's Work
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:59:57 -0600
Please forward to Mr. Bearden.

Mr. Bearden,

My name is Chris and I have been following your work for a number of years now.  Recently I had a chance to get my hands on both the American and Russian version of a book you reference in one of your papers, "Problems of Bionics".  You had mentioned that a soviet scientist, S.K. Lisitsyn, had written about the brain code and had inferred that the soviets had broken this code essentially into an alphabet of waveforms that could be used to mimic thought patterns.  The reason I am writing you is because I seem to be in a quandary.  After having searched through the American version and after having the table of contents translated from the Russian version, I can find no entries or reports by Mr. Lisitsyn.  I am very interested in reading the report you mentioned or at least the abstract, so if the name of the book it appeared in is in error please let me know.  Even better, if you have a copy of the report and could forward it to me that would be great.

Additionally, I have been trying to find the technical details of the work
presented by Dr. Valerie Hunt, which you also mention.  However, it's been like trying to pull teeth with a spoon.  To date, no one at the
Psychotronics Association has gotten back to me with a catalog of
presentations for the years in which she presented and I have emailed her
several times from her website but still have gotten no response.  If you
have copies of the technical details of her work and/or presentations and
could get them to me, it would help me a great deal in my work.

On a different note, just to let you know where I am coming from, currently
I'm a third year student in EE at the University of Colorado in Colorado
Springs.  I'm also a member of Eta Kappa Nu, the electrical engineering
honors society.  I always keep the papers you've presented here and in the
past in the back of my mind while studying and it seems to be very helpful
in keeping a clear hold of EM phenomena.  I also don't discuss it with my
professors because I did bring it up a couple of times and all I received
for my trouble was a barrage of opinions as to why I was wrong rather than a serious look at what you've presented here.

Anyway, if you can find the time to forward me copies of the reports
mentioned above, my full name and address are below:

Christiaan T
Colorado Springs