NASA Video: So what was all THAT about?

Friday, January 20, 2012

What a bizarre week it has been.

Most puzzling of all has been the amazing NASA video which went to great lengths to extol the virtues of LENR, promising us a world of clean abundant energy before being shot down in flames by the same people who made it. As you do.

In our original post discussing the Zawodny NASA LENR video we said "This video by NASA seems to validate the work we have been seeing recently by Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli and Celani and the claims that LENR (Cold Fusion) is a valid technology with enough power and potential to completely replace fossil fuels and polluting nuclear power."

So in no way did we single out the work of Rossi and his eCat. What we said was that the NASA video validated LENR as a valid technology and Zawodny confirms this in his blog. It does not matter who crosses the finish line first, what matters is that LENR becomes integrated into our lives and we start to drag ourselves out of 19th century energy generation.

This is just an opinion, but If Zawodny is backtracking both by dissasociating himself and his work from "official" NASA control and by claiming LENR is not commercially viable then that's NOT what the video is hinting at. Want proof? Read the comments on the YouTube page and you'll quickly realise that people are certainly not interpreting the video as merely proof of excess heat.

Can NASA REALLY say they are surprised at the public reaction to the video?

The video has the official NASA logo stamped all over it, it repeatedly refers to NASA scientists and NASA patents. Meanwhile the video contains images of trucks, planes, ships and other power hungry transportation and hardware that presumably could be powered by LENR, so why are those images in the video if it was not intended for people to read this conclusion? What was the purpose of the video then? If it was to simply confirm that LENR produces excess heat and that it has real potential for the future then it's dead simple. Don't put trucks and planes in there. And how does one go about getting a video onto the official NASA technology portal? I'm willing to bet that anything going on there needs some sort of official sign-off and approval from a MUCH HIGHER AUTHORITY. Was it the censors day off?

And what about the timing of the release of this video? Is it just a coincidence that several LENR researchers (including Rossi) have been confirming USEFUL results and plans for commercialization? Is Rossi's seemingly rampant march towards commercial products pushing NASA on information release a little quicker than they would have liked?

It could be argued that the video was intended to go out with the intention of slowly drip feeding the public and preparing them for this new technology and that slowly over time this would have ramped up until we accepted it like it has always been that way. How do you boil a frog? - Very slowly so that it barely notices the slow rise in water temperature.

What ACTUALLY appears to have happened (and again this is only an opinion) is that NASA miscalculated the amount of public interest in LENR generated by Rossi over the last year. After realising that the public reaction was BIG they quickly moved to pour cold water on the story before it hit the global mainstream media. Their planned slow drip-feed may have turned into a potential Tsunami ahead of time.

Again, this is just an opinion, so no-one needs to get their knickers in a knot.

But buried in this whole story is a small but important fact and that is that Zawodny confirms that LENR in his professional opinion has been shown to produces excess heat. Essentially LENR (cold fusion)works!

Just try getting an official government agency to admit cold fusion was a real prospect even 12 months ago and I could have sold you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Can Pons & Fleishmann now get an official apology? Will the scientific community now admit they were wrong? Where are the old establishment oligarchs now? The ones who made sure cold fusion was killed off before it even got started.

In terms of the bigger picture, Cold fusion is no longer a dirty word.

National and international official govt policies on LENR have been CHANGED. The question is who ordered it and why?



Anonymous,  January 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM  

I waited a week.. was that the exclusive?

FE Truth January 20, 2012 at 12:36 PM  

Another abusive comment from another anonymous poster. No, it was not the exclusive. You will KNOW the exclusive when you see it. We are still waiting on the 3rd party to give us the information promised.

Anonymous,  January 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM  

That was my comment and I hope you didn't consider it abusive, I am just to lazy to log in.. I have been checking your site every day to see what this exclusive is. I guess you will say when it is the exclusive?

Anonymous,  January 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM  

All very NASA. In the past they specialized in putting men on the moon and actually putting sicnece and engineering first. This was in the years when engineers ran things.
Now it’s PR types, professional butt kissers and bureaucrats.
The video clip is self explanatory and anyone who has watched it gets the message straight and clear – LENR is real, it’s almost here now and in a commercialized format.
The back down makes no sense unless we’re to assume the person on film – a NASA employee – has set out to either deliberately embarrass NASA or has the scientific credibility and personal judgment of jello.
Neither of these answers makes sense.
The video is simply what it is – an admission and discussion of LENR and its possibilities.
Now some one with more experience in spin than in common sense has ordered a retraction or back down.
NASA –Never A Straight Answer.
And these guys used to put people on the moon?
Not any more, not any more…

dobermanmacleod January 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM  

My guess is that no US Federal government official wants to pre-empt the Commander & Chief.

BTW, did you ever have a person say one thing, while they gave explicit body language saying the exact opposite? Sort of like Zawodny releasing that video, and then backtracking on his blog. The non-verbal signal ALWAYS trumps the verbal one -meaning keep the eyes on the video, not on the backtrack blog entry.

Anonymous,  January 21, 2012 at 1:51 AM  

The 3M thing says EXCLUSIVE, but if was that, you shouldnt publish such unfounded text, basically it says nothing.

Anonymous,  January 21, 2012 at 2:01 AM  

How was the first comment abusive (it wasn't mine)? Under promise,over deliver is my motto. That doesn't seem to be a very common theme when dealing with the e-cat or e-cat blogosphere.


Anonymous,  January 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM  

It sound like a 3rd party promised big earth-shattering news and has not yet delivered/or cannot deliver. I too was checking in everyday this week. oh well. I'll keep waiting but I agree FET should not have promised by the end of the week if their source is unreliable/questionable. This is not abuse, this is simply an observation of fact. I realize it may be out of their (FET) realm of control. But such is life.

Bruce Fast January 22, 2012 at 7:06 AM  

I think Zawodny got heat from his yellow-bellied colleagues. I think he's just bowing to peer pressure because the yellow-bellies are threatening to run him under the bus like they did to Pons & Fleischmann, and like they did to SPAWAR.

Anonymous,  January 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM  

Can you in fairness give us reliable ETA for the exclusive story thats going to have the pseudosceptics toiling in fits?


Anonymous,  January 24, 2012 at 3:56 AM  

Is this:

what was going to be your exclusive? This is huge IMO.

Anonymous,  January 24, 2012 at 6:14 AM  

Well, in every place in the world it is now at least Monday and in some places it is even Tuesday. That means that last week is over. That means that you said that you were going to give us some awesome exclusive last week and failed to deliver. I believe that, if your anonymous sources are holding out on you, you should consider outing them as punishment for making you look like a fool. I was reading an article a while back on where one of their reporters and/or pundits was writing about this problem with anonymous sources being deceptive and/or irresponsible and then not being punished adequately. He was arguing that reporters and/or pundits should adopt a policy of outing the source if the source gives bad information that is the result of deception and/or irresponsibility. He was also arguing that this is the only way that this anonymous source system can truly work well. I think that you should consider it.

FE Truth January 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM  

We just got the information from the third party this morning for which they apologised for the delay. I am preparing the story and it WILL be published this week.

In future we won't be giving advance warning of an upcoming story and place ourselves in a position. We've had way too much abuse and emails from know-it-alls telling us how to run the site and reminding us daily that "they still haven't seen this exclusive".

Those people who would have done it better themselves can go off and start their own blog, or if the information here is not up to their expectations they can simply quit reading Free Energy Truth.

Researching these stories and talking to people involves time and money, both of which are in short supply. If you want to read a regurgitated copied piece of text from Andre Rossi's site or a fanciful dreamy story about what life could be like post free energy then there are plenty of other blogs where you can get your daily fix. Our stories take longer because we believe quality is more important than quantity. You don't like this - then don't read it.

PS: We will no longer be accepting anonymous comments due to the constant abuse we've recently received. Apologies must go to the polite individuals who will now sadly suffer because of the actions of a small handful of rude individuals. This is one of the reasons why comment moderation has been turned on for the last 3 years and why people complain about their posts not appearing quickly enough. If you want to see this change then be polite, courteous and act like an adult and not a petulant child.

If you are not willing to put your name to a comment then it will be deleted from now on.

Anonymous,  January 24, 2012 at 10:23 AM  

Boy, you guys are sensitive. It's cool, though. I'm sensitive, too. I just wanted to let you know that, although I was kind of blunt, I did not want to be mean or hurt anyone's feelings. I just wanted to make the point that your sources did make you look bad and that the sources should be punished for doing so.

John January 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM  

You make some good points in this post. In my life I have never seen a scientist debunk his own work!

When the NASA video was first posted to YouTube I strongly suspected it was a hoax! I didn't believe it was real until I got the link directly from the government website.

So, no, that video was *not* an endorsement of Rossi but it was absolutely an endorsement of LENR. There can be no confusion on that point.

And, let us not forget, the only reason NASA released the video was in support of a patent which is designed to make LENR commercially viable.

Im not one for conspiracy theories, and I'm not suggesting one here, but Zadowdny can't fucking debunk his own fucking patent!!!


dsjm1 February 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM  

Re Zawodny back tracking on his Youtube preso.

I suspect (based on some recent research) that NASA having worked with Larsen for some years to understand the Widom-Larsen theory of LENR, realized that using W-L would allow them to get in early with patent applications in the US, for LENR processes that are key to making LENR a viable technology. Thus it is important that NASA appear to be seen as a key player.

An intiguing slant on the NASA-Larsen connection ...

Patent Catch-22 ...
The US Patent Office won't accept any patents claiming a cold fusion process unless the submitter offers accepted theories as to the science. Of course there are *none* so it is 'new science'. But W-L theory does not involve strong force theory, only weak-force transmutations. So, no 'new science' and thus a way to get a patent in without proving 'new science'.

NASA Position on LENR ...
Also, Dennis Bushnell (NASA Chief Scientist) presented a slide show on 22 Sept 2011 at GRC to other scientists and researchers & NASA officials, where he stated "The 2 decades of experiments and the weak interaction theories have removed the existential risk, what is remaining is to ENGINEER for improved performance".

The Zawodny youtube was actually a brief summary of the points Bushnell made in his GRC presentation. Zawodny also had a presentaion that focused more on LENR & experiments.

Bushnell's preso ...

All very interesting when one examines Bushnell's statement - that NASA's chief scientist said the 'existential risk' with LENR is gone. All that remains is the ENGINEERING for improved performance, AND, that that performance can power space missions, aircraft etc: (see Bushnell preso).

Doug Marker

Post a Comment


Contact me at

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP