Another Letter From David LaPoint

I am the guy who made the Primer Fields video. Sorry for the length of this post, but is has to be long in order to address the issues I am seeing in some of the comments here. I just have time to make this post here and then back to work on the next videos and a paper for submission that covers my research. I hope to have PF2 up by Feb. 1. I will not be able to respond to any questions or comments here. I may read them and then address them in my upcoming videos for all to see and learn from.

Regarding intrinsic magnetic fields. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields to it. Research this. All I did was change the shape of the source of the intrinsic magnetic fields. My main focus of my work has NOT been astrophysics, but physics at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The particles of matter at the LHC are driven around the LHC by MAGNETIC FIELDS. They are able to do this because of the intrinsic magnetic fields in all matter. Think this through carefully. It is based on repeatably proven science fact and experiments. Magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter structures and that is undeniable fact. Trying to prove where they come from would be like asking me to prove water is wet. Think this through.

They are there and I don’t have to prove that as it is already accepted as fact. If you think that they can be electrically generated just on what we find in space, then I challenge you to prove it and not just say it. This is what true scientists do, they prove their statements. In six years of experiments I find zero evidence that these intrinsic magnetic fields are driven or generated by external electrical currents. I have run many many experiments without my magnetic emitters and I have seen zero evidence of this happening. If you go back and look at Birkleland’s experiments you will notice that he had to put a source of a magnetic field into his sphere to find his Birkeland currents. No magnetic field no Birkeland currents. So the magnetic fields have to be there before any electricity is provided. Therefore the electricity did not form the magnetic fields and without magnetic fields you get no Birkeland currents.

The EUT is mostly correct and absolutely more correct than current mainstream AP. But there is no proof as to the source of the electricity. I am very aware of magneto hydrodynamics and in fact my theories use it, but you still have to prove that MHD is the real source and I see no evidence for that when it comes to externally powered stars etc. In fact if you carefully observe my experiments you will see the variance between my electrically driven plasma formation and the formations in space. They are NOT the same. They are similar in that the plasma reveals the shape of the fields. The steel ball experiments I show in the videos also do this WITHOUT electricity. I do this to show that electricity is NOT the driver of the formations we see in space, but in fact is produced by the formations we see in space. I have to be careful in how I present this evidence because I have working technology based on these theories and I have patents in the works. But in PF2 I will present the mechanism by which electricity is produced by the Sun. I DO NOT AGREE with the current mainstream view of the Sun as being internally fusion powered and I find that all evidence and hard data point directly away from this concept. So I do understand the EUT frustrations with the blindness in the mainstream. But I am not the mainstream. So do not try and say things against what I am saying until you can prove it. That is what I did. I kept my mouth closed until I had hard repeatable data.

But I do find that the Sun is fusion powered from the outside. Find the highest temperature and you have the place where fusion is greatest. Simple logic. Then as to the EUT, If the Sun were externally electrically powered we would not find these incredible temperature variances between the surface of the Sun and the corona-sphere. It would all be pretty much the same temperature. This is simple logic, backed by experiments. So in an externally powered Sun you have to explain the mechanism for the Solar interior being 5000K and the hottest areas in the corona-sphere being over 2 million K. IN fact you have to provide a mechanism for the interior of the Sun to be cooled as it is surrounded by the much hotter corona-sphere. That mechanism I cannot prove, but I do have a couple of ideas that I will expound on in my videos. Too much to discuss here.

My thinking that the Sun cannot be externally powered is also backed by experimental proof of little or no temperature variance in my experiments, which are indeed externally electrically driven. Therefore one must conclude that NASA et all is incorrect and the current EUT theory is incorrect based on repeatable experiments. Six years of experiments in fact.

But again I do agree with the concepts of the EUT more than I agree with BH, DM, and DE, which I find no reason to exist and in fact I find zero proof that any of them exist.

Furthermore. I am a plasma physicist as you can see. I know very well what a Z-pinch is. Please do not make comments that I don’t realize I made a Z-pinch. To those who actually worked with Z-pinches a comment like that makes the whole EUT look really bad. What I made is not a Z-pinch at all. NOT AT ALL. Trying to say it does makes you look really really bad. Sorry, but it does. It makes those who really know how a Z-pinch really works pay no attention to anything else you say. I am sorry, but that is how these guys think.

It would be like me telling you the moon is really made of cheese and then wondering why you won’t listen to me. So really research what you believe, for your own sake.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don’t have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week. Everything I say is backed by experiments and I have not had one mainstream physics or AP attack on any of my theories that I am aware of. All I have heard is their silence. In fact I have physicists who totally back all I say.

I know it is very frustrating to have the mainstream be so totally blind to some of the things the EUT calls for, but I am not mainstream and I am not your enemy. I am on your side more than I am on their side. I would suggest all of you take a step back and wait for the rest of my videos and my papers that I am working on as hard as I can. I only seek the truth and that is all. That is what every true scientist does. Just make sure you are seeking for the truth no matter where it leads, and not just trying to convince yourself that all you believe is true. That can be a very dangerous psychological trap that goes by the name of cognitive dissonance. This is the trap that I believe the mainstream has fallen into. I.E. our theories are correct and now we need patches to make our theories work.

My approach is to try and shoot down my own theories and prove them incorrect. This approach has worked really well for me and any mistakes or problems are revealed when I do this. If I cannot prove something, I will not say it as a fact. If I say I believe that means I think that this is correct, but I cannot yet prove it, therefore it could be wrong. I think all of us should be like that, even NASA, even you, even me.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from.

Cheers to all,

Dave

21 responses to “Another Letter From David LaPoint

  1. No, the patent isn’t mine, it’s one of Davids. My work is in the theoretical aspects of the discovery.

    Advice taken. What do you think about this theme???

    As to the mention; “Thank you. I’ve only glanced at your groups site for the moment, but will check it out thoroughly later this evening.

    Thank you again for the comment. Hope you visit again. There’s lots of interesting stuff here. 🙂

  2. David…!!! I finally found you…!!! Will you be posting the other 4 Primer Fields videos? I’ve been holding my breath with excited anticipation…!!! Say Yes….Yes….!!!

  3. oceanoz,
    I am sorry, but this is not David.
    My name is Richard and I am simply a fan of the research.
    I also work on the theoretical aspects of the discovery.
    Over the last couple of years I have been in off and on contact with David and another member of his team. As you might be aware, this last year David went completely dark due to various reasons.
    I am happy to disclose at this time that he IS in fact okay. 🙂 Alive and well so to speak, but unfortunately for me, NOT on my writing staff. (If I had one! 🙂
    I’m pretty familiar with his work though if you have any questions. With a little initial help from David, I’ve been able to take the concept and create a unified theory that I believe holds a lot of promise.
    If you have anything specific to ask David, I am in contact with him, and would be more than happy to forward it to him, but I can’t guarantee his reply at this moment.
    I would ask that if you have a good understanding of his concept, perhaps you and I could discuss some of your understandings.
    I look forward to your reply.
    Sincerely,
    Richard
    thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com

    • Hey, I recently heard and watched the primer fields video by David Lapoint. I was wondering if you can help me with something. What is matter( based on this theory) on the molecular level and how does this fit in a overall “theory of everything?” What does it say to us as humans? If you or David can answer that I would like that? Thanks!!!!

      • Unfortunately David is busy with the development of a new company he’s recently started and doesn’t really have too much time available for discussions at this moment. I know it stinks, but “what are we gonna’ do?”
        I’ll see if I can give it a shot for you though.

        In this model, “on the molecular level” matter is energy. And the way it fits into an overall “Theory of everything” is that it “is” everything. Literally. It’s understanding this that will lead to all the other answers. (There’s no real “ancient wisdom” thing going on here, what I’m trying to emphasize is that the structure that the energy is in is what gives it it’s properties.

        What’s it say to us?

        That we over complicate things.

  4. Wow. That’s the truth. I really appreciate your feedback. It clears the fog! So, I hope this doesnt sound like a dumb question, but what then is the energy that matter is made up of? Is it plasma in motion? What is the energy that constitute the sub atomic particles? What is the substance being compressed?

    • Energy.

      As simple as it sounds. Simply smaller. Go on to infinity if you’d like.

      Some have even suggested that when you look at the universe, you’re just looking the other way up the microscope… :O

    • Energy is what makes up the particle. It’s structure is what gives it it’s properties.

      As on the first page of my blog, Energy to matter is simple. Simply confine enough energy to a density that exceeds it’s magnetic wave and you start to achieve mass.

      In demonstration, picture a concentration of energy still being fed power. For structural stability and to maintain cohesion, a magnetic field needs to be created. A single piece of energy leaves the COE. (Something you shouldn’t even imagine though as Newtons rules are wrong.)
      Anyway… As one leaves, one can enter.

      Structure formation has many parts, but often similar mechanisms. As one enters, another exits. THIS ONE affects the other. (Think about how….)

      Right. It alters it. By grabbing it it yanks it around.. And they keep going….

      One exits one comes in… All three are tugging now. Repeat…..
      Until you’ve got a string (remind me to tell you where string theory math is. It’s in Birkland currents)
      This string is too heavy to keep trying to escape orbit. It comes back down.

      Repeat the above until you can imagine a ball (The Concentration of energy or COE) with a bunch of really thin wires around it. (The magnetic field.)

      Okay. Now here’s where you get your matter.

      That picture in your mind right now? It’s COE is really big compared to the magnetic field you’re most likely imagining. (So you can see it all in your mind, and because it looks like the Earth. AAAhhh. See that one??? Remember the other end of the microscope?)

      The COE is MUCH BIGGER in density, volume, weight than the equal number of pieces of energy making up the magnetic field.
      You have a big heavy ball of matter.

      Now. Picture the COE MUCH SMALLER. Continue with your field lines really long, thin, and really light.
      Wouldn’t most things it comes into contact with fly right through the field lines? Very rarely hitting the COE?
      HHmm. Small, light, fast, and shows little interference… light!

      Make the COE dense, field lines short but MASSIVELY numerous!!! You have a VERY STRONG structure. You can pack an INSANE amount of energy into it. The barrier it creates is so tight that occasionally a piece of energy can exit. (Because it’s really not a stable particle) You now have an emitter. *(Radioactive???)

      This is over simplified, but should give you a few hints.

      🙂

  5. This may be a little odd but I saw David’s video on The Primer Fields and found it to be very interesting. I don’t know why it fascinates me because I am no scientist, but immediately after I saw a video of a new crop cycle and it made me feel there might be a connection and I wanted to share this with David. Since you have knowledge of David’s work and can connect with him, please share this with David….Watch “Crop Circles 2015 – Luxenborough, nr West Amesbury, Wiltshire” on YouTube

    • Very cool crop circle!

      I’ve always wondered exactly how they do that. Something tells me that they are slightly more complicated to create than a couple of drunk guys with boards and strings would be able to manage.

      • My point is that the crop circle diagram looks like the diagram of the Primer Fields work that David LaPoint is working on. But this crop circle diagram has a little something more. I am sure if David is hiding out so as to not be disturbed by people and things that he may not have seen this crop circle. Will you be able to share with him?

      • The crop circle is really interesting, and I’m sure it holds some deeper meaning than I’m currently able to appreciate, but I’m not going to be able to forward it to David directly for a variety of reasons I’m not really interested in going into at this moment.

        If it’s any consolation, I am fairly certain that David will see it at some point right here though as I have it on good authority that he does visit the site every so often.

        I’m sorry I couldn’t offer you more assistance, but I’m sure you know how it is.

        Sincerely,
        Richard
        thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com

  6. hello,

    I think David LaPoint would find the filed of Subquantum Kinetics by Paul LaViolette quite interesting so well as edifying in it’s revelations. There are many similarities and I think knowledge of those mutual coherences will propel much of his further work.

    Please forward him of my suggestion if possible as this can truly have remarkable consequences for his own research.

    Kind regards.

  7. Dr. Paul LaViolette has made a few noteworthy discoveries in the examination of the vacuum of space, and he raises even more interesting theories in the area of Electrogravitics. I’m sure David is familiar with Dr. LaViolette’s work, but I’ll do what I can to remember to mention it to him the next time we speak.

    Thank you for your suggestion.
    Richard

  8. Richard I thank you for this website.
    I was seeking further info on David LaPoints YouTube videos.
    David has become somewhat my hero over the last 3-odd days.
    Never too late to watch and learn eh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s