A free gift that may be over-unity or free energy to the world by Jay A. Lunke.
See our entire collection of Free Energy related documents here.
President Donald Trump declared Monday he will move to make a new branch of the military focused solely on space.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council.
"Our destiny beyond the Earth is not only a matter of national identity but a matter of national security," Trump said.
He floated the idea for the force as a part of his national security strategy on March 13, saying "space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air, and sea." The president described then how he had originally coined the term as a joke, while discussing U.S. government spending and private investment in space.
"We have the Air Force, we'll have the space force," Trump said in March.
As it turns out, the space force sounds a lot like the space corps legislation the Trump administration opposed last year.
In the National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee proposed last June the establishment of a space corps, a new branch of the military that would fall under the command of the Air Force. This branch's relationship to the Air Force would be similar to the Marine Corps' ties to the Navy. The space corps would have an area of responsibility that encompasses the vast expanse outside of the Earth's atmosphere.
At the time, the White House, the Air Force as well as Secretary of Defense James Mattis disapproved of creating a sixth branch of the military.
"I oppose the creation of a new military service and additional organizational layers at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting efforts," Mattis wrote in a letter to the House and Senate armed services committees.
While the legislation passed the House, the space corps bid did not make it into the final defense authorization bill in November.
The addition of a service branch would be the first in 71 years. The Air Force is the nation's youngest branch and was added shortly after World War II.
Hearing of this recent announcement, former Supreme Commander of the Galactic Empire, Darth Vader, immediately volunteered for the position.
There has been a revived energy revolution movement going on around the world over the past 20 years and strongest in the past year, that has not been covered or reported by mainstream press, established scientific journals or university research publications. Most of the discoveries have been made by curious, ingenious minds, who on many occasions have observed experimental results in cold fusion, superconductivity, and magnetic motors which appear to violate present laws of physics, chemistry and electrodynamics. A term has been used to describe such phenomena, is called over-unity energy or free energy, which in many cases means getting more energy out of a system or reaction (magnetic motor or cold fusion reaction) than appears to be put into it.
A better explanation is that excess energy is being accessed from as yet not completely explained source. (Note: An atom bomb is an over-unity device which gets a tremendous amount of dirty energy out, in the form of harmful radiation, than is needed to trigger the reaction.)
The first question that usually pops into a skeptic's mind is that if the technology is for real and discoveries have been made, such as Pons & Flieschman's cold fusion cell or Rory Johnson's fusion magnetic motor, why has it not been reported or mass produced for use by our energy-hungry world? The answer is suppression. What do we mean by suppression? Suppression can be an active type -- where a corporation or oil company or OPEC, who does not want the invention marketed, will blow up or destroy the lab and the invention and threaten to kill the inventor if he again attempts to market the revolutionary device. The other type of suppression is the passive type where a competing company, who has big bucks, such as some of the major oil companies, will come in and buy out a patent with no intention of bringing it to market until the demand for oil greatly exceeds the supply and gas prices soar, then they will start marketing a 100 mpg carburetor for ICE (Internal Combustion Engines).
Other types of passive suppression include universities which are receiving big funding from oil or nuclear establishment sources, refusing to do research, or muzzling bright professors (by withholding tenure) from publishing theories and results as to the what, how's, and whys of these over-unity motors and cold fusion reactions. Or the example where a Patent office refuses to grant patents in revolutionary technology, claiming perpetual motion machines, s they see them, aren't patentable, or if they are patentable, that they can place a secrecy order or gag order on the patent, which prohibits the inventor from disclosing any information to anyone for such disclosure might be detrimental to national security.
A government-funded study says radiation from mobile phones can change the way brains process sugar.
Is that a big deal? The scientists aren't sure, according to media giant CNN Health's report. But our story has some scary tidbits.
Like this quote, from Dr. Nora Volkow, the Journal of the American Medical Association study's lead author and a neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health:
"The human brain is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones, but for the brain to be impacted the cell phone has to be close to the antenna. So keep your brain away from the antenna."
In layman's terms: It's better to be safe than sorry, she says.
Despite years of research, there's still no conclusive proof cell phone radiation causes cancer and other health problems in the brain. Studies, some of them funded by the wireless industry, have produced contradictory findings. But the nearly ubiquitous devices haven't been proven 100% safe either. So, for the sake of argument, let's say you are worried about this and you do want to "keep your brain away from the antenna."
How do you actually do that?
(AA) In the wake of the recent string of solar flares, some Americans--particularly Gulf Coast residents--may be wondering whether there are places in the U.S. that are safe from such natural disasters. The short answer? No. The Midwest may not be vulnerable to hurricanes, but twisters drop in regularly. Major earthquakes don't tend to strike New England, but strong winds can peel the roof off a northeastern house and snowstorms can shut down cities.
"Every location in the country is exposed to one disaster or another," says Wendy Rose, spokeswoman for the Institute for Business & Home Safety, a Tampa, Fla.-based nonprofit insurance industry group that aims to reduce losses from natural catastrophes.
Still, some places are less susceptible than others to natural hazards. To get an idea where they might be, we partnered with Sperling's Best Places ( www.bestplaces.net), a data collection company based in Portland, Ore. Sperling's has compiled weather and disaster data for 331 metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S., and we used the information to discern the safest--and least safe--areas in which to live.
Mind-opening news articles, shirts, editorials, & videos that inspire our readers and help liberate them from the status quo.
HAVE A TIP OR STORY TO TELL? JOIN TODAY & SHARE YOUR STORY!
If you have a breaking news tip or idea, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org