Re: EG, Isis WPG, Orme

Dennis C. Lee ( (no email) )
Tue, 4 Jun 1996 00:45:54 -0700

I live just down the street from MIT. MIT is kind of conservative. I don't
think that loosing the National Magnetics Lab to Florida State has helped
any. I've even met the group at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center who is largely
responsible for Pons and Fleishman's move to France. I think that it may be
considered outside of the main stream to admit to be working on monatomic
research. Especially when there are somewhat bizarre claims associated with
the material.

Regards;
Dennis C. Lee

At 11:56 PM 6/2/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Joe Champion writes:
>> At 05:39 PM 6/2/96 MDT, you wrote:
>> >In other words, would it not be better to approach this from the perspective
>> >that Hudson really has come upon something highly unusual, and focus the
>...
>> I am being synical, but come on. All that we as "want-to-be-believers" need
>> is a little proof. It was not I who stated that M.I.T. tested a product for
>> ORME's. Nor, was it I who stated that A&L Labs provided analyses for white
>> gold, green gold and red gold! Nor, was it I was stated that others had
>> replicated tests.
>
>I am willing to suspend disbelief so long as that trust is not
>violated. But it is becoming ever clearer to me that all is not
>well here. If we do not do out best to verify any claims that are
>verifiable and hold those making such claims responsible then
>researchers will avoid this subject like the plague. And, despite
>my experiences so far, I still believe that there is something
>interesting going on here, whatever it may be.
>
>Every person must demand the truth for themselves.
>
>I have asked Sunshine Services (ISIS WPG) twice now about their
>analysis and I have been totally ignored by them [consider this
>yet another request -- as I'm sure they would claim they have never
>heard anything from me]. I have also asked Ian Kelly of ONE
>Enterprises (Etherium Gold) at least three times for this information
>and he has not told me anything beyond that it was at "MIT" (which
>I obviously already know, that doesn't help). Surely if "MIT" has
>confirmed monatomics in those products that the vendors should
>easily be able to give me the info about who did it so I can confirm
>it with the lab. Why is this not the case?
>
>A Public Challange:
>
>I will buy $250 worth of product from the first company that can
>produce a verifiable photocopy of a lab report indicating the
>presence of high-spin monatomic iridium, rhodium, platinum, palladium,
>mercury, silver, or gold in their product (i.e., I get to call the
>lab and speak with someone technical enough to confirm not only
>that some assay was done but can speak towards the veracity of the
>results -- the claimant must provide all required information so
>that I can do this). I will also publicly post my support and
>prominently feature that company on my web site.
>
>If a lab can test for high-spin monatomic elements as they claim
>then it *should* be a simple enough matter to verify this.
>
>This information is also now on my web site,
>in the "Commercial Products" file, off of:
> http://monatomic.earth.com/
>
>