Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively

 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe


Energy Topics

Alt Fuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
Body Electric
Brown's Gas
Cold Fusion
Electromagnetic OU
Fuel Cells
Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
Gravity Motors
Human Powered
Joe Cells
Magnet Motors
Nucl. Remediation
Salt Water Mix
Solid State Gen.
Tesla Turbines
Thermal Electric
Waste to Energy
 - Water as Fuel
Wireless Electricity
Zero Point Energy
MORE . . .

Open Source
Freddy's Cell
Bedini SG
Safe Haven Villages
MORE . . .

Plastic and Energy
MORE . . .

OverUnity Forum
Discuss. Groups

Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

You are here: > News > April 3, 2005

Cold Fusion: Data vs Dogma: Fact vs Fiction

Leslie R. Pastor addresses the hypocrisy of the mainstream scientific community in handling the Cold Fusion revolution.  Cites extensive resources regarding Cold Fusion developments.


by Leslie R. Pastor <email >
with permission
reprint from

In a recent 'Cold Fusion' overview the manner and method of the 'cold fusion' introduction upon the world scientific community is claimed to have been controversial and unique from the usual methods of investigatory review. Yes, indeed it was unique, and yes, also indeed, it was controversial.  But when you consider the fantastic 'nature' of the claim with its 'extraordinary' and controversial claim of achievement at 'room temperature', you begin to realize that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann were making and declaring 'breakthrough' [scientific] research -- unparalleled in human history. They, as history has ultimately proven, provided the modern world with a new 'novelty of fact' that could not be explained with the then current 'research methods' of the twentieth (20th) century. Their statement-at the time appeared laughable, yes, and outright 'comical.' And under such circumstance, it would have been absolutely impossible to have overcome the inertial and myopic intransigence of the stodgy and staid 'resolve' of the imbedded festering 'scientific community' who resembled mere 'parasites' rather than learned and educated men of science.

The 'parasitic' nature of the current 'scientific community' [bears commenting]. They have been accepted as the 'status quo' and have been given substantial access to the unlimited 'largesse' of the federal government running into the 'billions of dollars' annually for the last thirty (30) years, who like 'pigs feeding at the trough' have availed to themselves unparalleled fiefdoms at the expense of the rest of the community. Their failed attempts at creating 'hot fusion' chambers known as 'tokomaks' costing billions of dollars to build and further billions to maintain-today appear almost 'laughable,' if it were not tragic that this is the very group who scorned and laughed at Messr's., Dr. B. Stanley Pons, professor of chemistry at the University of Utah, and Dr. Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton in England, when they presented their 'novelty of fact.' Indeed, both of these 'historic' men of true science were railroaded out of their positions of prominence-as a result of their audacity to circumvent the 'intransigence' of the 'scientific' peer-reviewed system-when they went 'public.'

Could it be that there is much more to this story than meets the eye? Why would two prominent men of science with impeccable records and substantial qualifications to boot-risk everything, including their careers-just to prove that you could have 'nuclear reactions at room temperature?' Why risk your tenure-your security-your reputation-and ultimately your sanity-unless there was a bigger picture, a greater reality, and an ultimate truth.

Extraordinary claims, especially those declared by Pons and Fleischmann, required extraordinary proofs. These two gentleman stated that they had achieved 'nuclear reactions at room temperature' on a tabletop under ordinary lab conditions-a remarkable statement. A statement-so profound, that it shattered the known 'paradigm' of acceptable 'science'-ultimately challenging the very foundations upon which the current and former edifice of 'science' had prevailed since the early 1940's under Einstein, Fermi and Szilard.

But as you will see from my research, the proofs are readily available to those who are willing to recognize and openly confess the reality of Nature-and of Nature's laws. For indeed most 'science' is merely the attempt at duplication of known 'natural' occurrences within the known 'natural' world all around us.

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

Personal Research:

PS: Nuclear Reactions transpire all around us within the living natural world among plant life commonly referred to as transmutation.


From: Leslie R. Pastor <email >
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:17 AM
Subject: Bears Commenting [Cold Fusion: Data vs Dogma: Fact vs Fiction]

The various styles of definitions of the word ‘parasite’ are interesting and appropriate regarding the current ‘establishment’ known as the ‘scientific’ community.  The recent and past thirty (30) years has provided ample proof of their accomplishments regarding ‘tokomak’ [hot fusion] reactions. (ref)  My personal belief is that these ‘tokomak’ methods are a complete waste of funding, which has up to this date provided no proof of ‘duplication’ of the ‘fusion reaction of the stars.’  There is however significant ‘proofs’ regarding ‘brown’s gas,’ which is capable of ‘sublimating’ [vaporizing] tungsten, which requires the ‘heat of the sun’ to accomplish under ‘normal science.’  And as Thomas S. Kuhn has significantly proven concerning ‘novelties of fact,’ in chapter six (6) of his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, “Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.”

What we have is a basic ‘dishonesty’ maintained within a fictional ‘paradigm.’  We have an ‘out of control’ government throwing money at useless projects coupled with an ‘amen choir’ of imbedded ‘scientists’ who applaud the governments ‘largesse’ towards them and their ‘programs.’  Neither of which has produced ‘returns’ of equal value at parity or ‘new science.’

While at the same time, we indeed, do have ‘novelty of fact’ discoveries that are either ‘mocked and ridiculed, or are conveniently sidestepped and forgotten to the detriment of the entire community of nations, many of whom go begging for relief in the form of ‘energy requirement’ of their own.  This is especially tragic------since the true energy requirements of this planet are escalating exponentially. 

In 1999 Antony C. Sutton contacted me via email and requested that I find out just who Peter Zimmerman was.  He was concerned because he had information that Dr. Zimmerman had deliberately intervened to have the first COFE [Conference on Free Energy] cancelled by ridiculing the COFE group to the then Secretary of State Madeline Albright. (ref)   This is what I mean by the imbedded parasitic nature of the current establishment of controlled ‘science.’  They have become a veritable priesthood mouthing their mantras of ‘hot fusion’ uber alles.  Just who the hell are they----and why should we keep funding their resultant failures, to the tune of billions of dollars, when there are significant other alternatives currently available, right now for a mere fraction of the cost of achievement.  Tom Bearden’s M.E.G. is a prime example.  All he needs is a fraction of that amount, a mere eleven (11) million dollars.

Antony C. Sutton was so enraged at this basic ‘dishonesty’ that he wrote about it in his book. Cold Fusion, The Secret Energy Revolution,

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were driven from the US by a screaming mob of scientists and media science reporters.  They went to France to a Japanese funded laboratory.  In the US high energy physicists used the media to continue the assault.  No researcher could obtain funds for cold fusion research.  The US Department of Energy issued a regulation stating that no cold fusion application would be considered for a research grant.  It was rumored that a grant application from a researcher who expressed interest in cold fusion would deny that individual funds for any other project.  An entire generation of your physicists has been brain washed and kept brain washed by these funding restrictions.  If funding didn’t do it, peer pressure kept scientist in ignorance and in line.  Science journals ensured that nothing favorable was published on cold fusion.  What we have today in the United States is the Soviet approach to science, a politicized science.”

Related Links by Leslie R. Pastor


The controversy of a 'star in a jar'.

Pro-Fusion and Con-Fusion

An Embarrassing Editorial

Another Testimony

A Judges' Verdict [Italy]

What is Cold Fusion?

A Cold Fusion Primer

When Discovery and Invention Don't Mix

The Return of Cold Fusion\

Excess Heat

Cold Fusion: The Experimental Evidence [Book] Dr. Edmund Storms

Peter Hagelstein: Warming Up To Cold Fusion [MIT]

Alternative Energy: The Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion [links] Data

Executive Summary Regarding Cold Fusion

Tom Bearden and Eugene Mallove Correspondence Regarding Cold Fusion

Jean-Louis Naudin's Verification of Cold Fusion

Is the Earth A Cold Fusion Reactor?


Eugene Mallove

James Patterson

Data Verses Dogma

Russ George


[Excess Heat Measurements]

Cold Fusion: The Secret Energy Revolution by Antony C. Sutton [1925-2002]


Scientific Freedom in Totalitarian States: How is it Possible?

by Mary-Sue Haliburton, PES Network Inc.
April 7, 2005

The Leslie Pastor article finishes with a quoted paragraph characterizing top-down control of science as "soviet". Of course, in using this word, Dr. A. Sutton means "totalitarian" — which this type of railroading certainly is. Both communist and Nazi states exhibit similar tendencies to restrict freedom of thought and to bend science to serve the state.

However, it turns out that the soviet scientists were actually more free to pursue independent lines of thought and research than scientists in the "West" today. Why is this the case?

Antony Sutton’s remark about science being “Soviet” actually weakens his argument. He says:

“Science journals ensured that nothing favorable was published on cold fusion. What we have today in the United States is the Soviet approach to science, a politicized science.”

Ironically, this is a highly politicized statement reflecting American political myopia. Sutton reveals his ignorance concerning the remarkable science that was being conducted in Russia while under communism. Free of the twisting and corrupting influence of big money from corporate interests, Soviet scientists were actually more free in some areas to pursue alternate concepts.

Witness their discovery of the abiotic origin of oil, which they used to turn Russia into an oil-exporting nation. Though exhaustively researched and rigorously-proven, the abiotic oil theory is still flatly denied in “the West” — which instead gives credence to a two-centuries-old idea: the derivation of oil from fossil life-forms. Though this notion was put forward originally as pure guesswork, this theory has been believed as if it were gospel truth, but it has never been scientifically demonstrated. (1)

This fossil-origin-of-oil theory is still supported by oil-company-influenced scientists and their mouthpieces in the media. Based on the concept that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource from fossils or “ancient sunlight”, the corporate self-described champions of “freedom” can use the “peak-oil” theory to justify insane price increases which put the world’s economy at risk. This serves not the nation-states, but the interests of corporations which have become more wealthy than many of the world’s elected (or unelected) governments.

Another controversy shows the same anomalous freedom of investigative research in the former totalitarian communist state while suppression of independent research is the norm in the “free” West. Then “Soviet” – and now Russian – data collection and analysis underscores the reality of non-thermal injuries to living organisms caused by microwaves. This entire data-set is still ignored and denied by the vendors of microwave (“cell”) phones, and by corporate-influenced governments in our arrogant, so-called free, society.

Only citizen networks and “fringe” reporters are attempting the uphill battle of questioning the official science, and supporting those few independent voices in the scientific community who are aware of the full facts of the case against microwave phones. (2)

In the April 2005 issue of his newsletter, Heart, Health & Nutrition, cardiologist Dr. Steven Sinatra outlines these dangers, and warns against allowing children to use these phones, because their brains are still being formed. Yet these devices continue to be heavily marketed even to children with unfounded “reassurances” that they are safe.

Meanwhile, the microwave towers serving such phones are being widely installed in schoolyards! Due to tax cuts, the school system needs the revenue. And in the world of bean-counters, the health of children inside the school buildings does not register in the bottom line.

A British citizen reports:
“I wrote to the Chancellor’s office under the “Freedom of Information Act” and was directed to the Government Valuation Officer in Manchester and what he relayed to me explained why this and every Government loves TM’s wherever they may put these masts.

“ In the UK there are 21,706 masts paying a Rateable Value and the total sum a year is a staggering £303,421,394. No wonder the Government encourages mobile phone companies to blight our communities with these masts.” (3)

Though we hear little about this in North America, the controversy is so intense in Europe and Britain that people have actually been knocking down some of these towers. (4)

It seems that as tax revenues decline and citizens demand lower taxes, education crumbles unless it is propped up by private-sector “donations”. However, no private money comes without strings attached. The research funds are “given” to serve the aim of the donor company — which is to maximize profit. Therefore, if some low-cost, effective solutions to health or transportation or energy-generation problems would be likely to result from a new avenue of research, and if this would undermine profitability for the corporate products, this research has to be squelched by the private-business interests controlling the university.

How can science become free again?

No one wants a return to “communism” with its suppression of political dissent and freedom of speech. But we do need to take a hard look at how scientific research is funded, and come up with ways to ensure that researchers are free to work with concepts from other paradigms than those currently dominating universities — which train the scientists.

Part of the solution has to be exercising this very freedom of speech to report on alternative science. If this helps to create demand for new technologies, products and approaches that are better for both humanity and our biosphere, the private sector itself will be stimulated to develop in this direction.



2. which jumps to:


4. For ongoing coverage of the campaign for truth about cell-phone risks and the campaign to limit installations of “masts” (towers) which is entirely suppressed in the so-called free Western media, subscribe to the StarMail newsletter: Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), Umbrella Organization of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection against Electrosmog: 1. Chairman Siegfried Zwerenz, 2. Chairman Barbara Eidling, Mailing address: Lindenweg 10, D-95643 Tirschenreuth, phone 0049-(0)9631-795736, fax 0049-(0)9631-795734, e-mail <pr{at}buergerwelle{dot}de>, Internet

5. Another good overview of the microwave safety issue can be found at:

See also

Page posted by SDA April 3, 2005
Last updated December 24, 2014





"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)


PESWiki Departments:
LatestNewsXMLFeedDirectoryCongressTop 5Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.