----------
> From: Jerry W. Decker <jdecker@Keelynet.com>
> To: interact@Keelynet.com
> Subject: Re: Was Keely a fraud??????
> Date: 19 October 1999 05:11
>
> Hi Nick, Theo et al!
>
> Nick, you surprise me..<g>...I read it and couldn't help but chuckle
> knowing how much information is out there to study on Keely, then
> comparing his reports to modern day duplications.
>
> Theo is absolutely correct....we should do our homework...Scientific
> American and no one else could remotely touch or remotely DUPLICATE ANY
> of Keely's demonstrations, even with OPENLY EXPOSED tubes, pipes,
> pressurized containers, hydraulics and such.
>
> Only on his death was this revelation made. Now I'm not a fanatic about
> Keely and have often said I believe he did fake a few of his
> demonstrations for bucks, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw the
> baby out with the bathwater.
>
> If you notice, despite the name being KeelyNet, we have files on many
> subjects, from many inventors, not just Keely or just Tesla, but
> many...the idea being to have a patron with some overview that would tie
> together many SEEMINGLY disparate observations and phenomena...in this
> case control of the aether...with my feeble attempts at understanding
> Keely, his theories and such, I have not yet found anyone with a
> superior view of how the universe works and how we can tap into it.
>
> It might be wrong and I certainly don't want to be trying to sell anyone
> on my views, but if you look, you will find more than enough that will
> inspire and to some degree enlighten...it has been thus with me and my
> relationship with Keelys work to date.
>
> There is a fellow named Russ Robertson who has been studying Keely for
> many years, finding all kinds of old clippings and reports and trying to
> determine what is going on and how it works....he is very upset because
> he found a document published after Keely died which claims everything
> Keely ever did was one gigantic fraud. The article has diagrams, NOT
> PHOTOS of what is claimed to be the insides of some of his machines with
> giant springs, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc....
>
> Russ is ragging on me for not posting that file....he says this report
> made him lose complete faith in Keely and thinks I am doing a disservice
> by continuing to fog peoples minds and efforts with Keely...<g>...geez,
> ain't the world a wonderful place?????
>
> That's why I'm rich, living in one of my three palatial homes in Maui,
> Sri Lanka or Florida...never working, just scamming people to invest in
> my bogus ideas about Keely using the KeelyNet....puhleeze, just shoot me
> now....that is so untrue...I work +40 plus hours a week to barely pay my
> house payment and bills rather than using KeelyNet or anythig else to
> scam anyone.
>
> However, Theo said he too has that report and knew better than to
> believe ONE single report generated ONLY after Keely died and by his
> detractors and people who had felt Keely as a thorn in their sides for
> over 30 years...now they had a chance to destroy in what little was
> left...maybe they were right but I'd bet serious money AGAINST them and
> their expose'.
>
> Not once in all his demonstrations has anyone been able to duplicate
> even the simplest effect using hydraulics, pneumatics, clockwork or
> leverage.
>
> A good magician or scientist will be able to DUPLICATE the effect using
> known techniques IF they can. But THEY COULDN'T....
>
> And how thorough they have been....even going so far as to remove the
> MAIN CHAPTER of the Bloomfield Moore book on Keely, the ONE chapter that
> deals with the aerial propeller in a book called Aerial
> Navigation.....now isn't that odd?
> Fortunately they did not get ALL the copies....and through Vic Hansen we
> have posted that missing chapter.
>
> You think I'm kidding or making it up? Buy the book from Health
> Research, Dale Pond or anyone else and look for the missing
> chapter...you won't find it...in fact, read the whole book and tell me
> where, just once, it talks about a flying machine? Why would you call a
> book aerial navigation and not mention it in the book?
>
> Something stinks...
>
> I've taken a lot of flak about Keely over the years and thats ok, those
> who can see, do...geez, that sounds so hokey new age, but some do 'get
> it', others simply don't...I know it took me from 16 to about 32 for it
> all to SNAP with the basic realization of what he was saying and how it
> worked (my opinion of course)...its all about frequency(ies) and how it
> can be used to produce push, pull or balance...from that all matter and
> energy phenomena ensues....all I can do is find correlations and bring
> them to light not in an attempt to expand the Keely or KeelyNet church,
> but to validate the first report of the phenomena...and add to the
> information pool that might help to duplicate the more intriguing
> phenomena, particularly self-rotation as in the Globe motor and gravity
> control as with the iron sphere and levitation as with the Airship
> demostration for the US Army in 1896.
>
> Your last comment asking why none of Keelys devices have been duplicate
> applies to MANY, Moray, Hurwitch, Coler, Testatika, Hendershot, Hubble,
> Searl, Hamel, and on and on...nada, zilch....
>
> Way too much smoke from way too many disparate sources....and THAT is
> the GIST of KeelyNet, to compile and CORRELATE, looking for common
> effects possibly described with unique or different terms....hoping to
> lead to greater understanding that will INEVITABLY lead to experiments
> where we can TEST and prove or disprove the hypothesis...that IN MY
> OPINION is science in its essence...
>
> Nick Hall wrote:
> > >I think any good magician realizes this foible with
> > >human perception and takes advantage of it to produce
> > >difficult to explain effects.
> >
> > Jerry, several times in this list we have both stressed that
_verification_
> > of alternative energy claims is all important.
> >
> > In the context of Keely I would say this:
> >
> > Personally I know little of the man or his claims, and have generally
gone
> > along with the seeming assumption on this list that he was genuine and
that
> > he discovered effects that can`t be explained by orthodox science and
that
> > his discoveries might be significant for the free energy enterprise.
> >
> > Today, it came as an eye opener to read in an old copy on Scientific
> > American (January 1968, pp115 ff) an article written by Stanley Angrist
on
> > "Perpetual Motion Machines". At the end of the article it discusses
Keely`s
> > later developments and the Keely Motor Company. He writes:
> >
> > "Keely and his associates formed the Keely Motor Company, capitalised
at $1
> > million. They raised much of the money from gullible New York
businessmen.
> > As the years passed, although no engines other than the first one were
ever
> > built, Keely`s showmanship became more polished. By 1881 he had begun
to
> > attribute the production of vapour to 'vibratory energy,' and he would
> > 'vivify' the energy during demonstrations with a giant tuning fork. By
1884
> > he had so mastered what he now called the 'interatomic vapour' or
> > 'interatomic aether' that he demonstrated a new device: a canon,
complete
> > with a 'vibrator' near the breech, that was capable of propelling a
ball
> > 500 yds with a muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second."
> >
> > So far so good, then he goes on to say:
> >
> > "Keely died in 1898. The son of one of his major backers promptly
rented
> > his house and explored the premises in the company of reputable
witnesses,
> > seeking evidence of fraud. Under the floor of the house they found a
> > three-ton metal tank that had evidently served as a reservoir for
> > compressed air. In the walls they found quantities of brass tubing and
a
> > false ceiling suggested the means by which Keely and his associates had
> > conducted the compressed air to his generator."
> >
> > So an obvious nest of questions comes to my mind:
> >
> > Was Keely a fraud?
> >
> > If "yes" then why do we have a mailing list named after him to
> > facilitate the discovery of genuine alternative energy???
> >
> > If "No" then why hasn`t someone laid these claims to rest and forced
> > Scientific American to retract what is clearly libel?
> >
> > I don`t know enough to answer these questions.
> >
> > But I do wonder how it is that even though Keely (it is claimed)
> > demonstrated various free-energy devices we don`t have any surviving
ones
> > that can clearly show a) he was genuine and b) it is possible.
> >
> > Not even _one_ as far as I am aware......
> >
> > And what did happen with his Keely Motor Company????
> >
> > What were the final findings when it was wound up - was a legal
judgement
> > made as to the genuineness of the original claims?
> >
> > Thanks - looking forward to the replies....
> >
> > Nick Hall
> ---
> Jerry Wayne Decker - jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://www.keelynet.com
> from an Art to a Science
> Voice : (214)324-8741 - FAX : (214)324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716
> Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------