Practical Guige to Free Energy Devices

astronomical distances. His revelations did little to enhance their reputations as paragons of integrity.
The principles employed by astronomers in their measurements are essentially the same as those used by
surveyors in measuring distances and elevations. However, some surveyors admit that they are unable to
determine the height of mountains with any degree of precision and their measurements may be off by as
much as 10%. Mr Cater has tested this using an altimeter which was set to zero at sea level and then driven
to the top of a mountain at 42 O 30’ North latitude, which is supposed to have an elevation of 9,269 feet. The
altimeter reading agreed closely with the established elevations of towns along the route ranging from 1,000
to over 4,000 feet. However, at the top of the mountain, the reading was only 8,800 feet. Mr Cater then
reset the altimeter to the 9,269 feet attributed to the mountain and retraced his route. At every spot on the
return trip, the altimeter consistently indicated elevations more than 400 feet higher than before. Even after
several months, the altimeter reading was still more than 400 feet higher than it should be. A similar test
was carried out on a mountain with a recorded elevation of 4,078 feet and at the top, the altimeter showed
3,750 feet although it agreed with other established elevations much lower down.
The fact that the altimeter was accurate at all places except the top of the mountain (whose official height
was found by triangulation) shows that the methods employed by surveyors and astronomers are far from
being accurate. The heights of mountains determined by triangulation will always be considerably more than
the true value. There are two factors involved. First, the atmosphere becomes steadily denser as one
descends from the top of the mountain. Second, the orgone concentration becomes greater closer to the
ground. This means that light rays from a mountain top will be refracted and so appear to be originating from
a point well above the top of the mountain. This was also confirmed by a barometric test at the top of Mount
Everest which indicates that it is actually 27,500 feet in elevation and not the 29,000 feet previously
supposed.
A friend of Mr Cater had his property surveyed to determine the acreage. Afterwards, he checked some of
the distances determined by triangulation, using a tape measure, and found significant errors. Refraction of
light is clearly throwing triangulation results off. The bulk of refraction effects are caused by orgone
concentration. The measurement of mountain elevations taken at different times give different values and
this is due to fluctuations in orgone concentrations, which are higher on hot sunny days than on cool cloudy
days. Also, they are generally higher during summer months rather than at other times of the year.
The examples above show the unreliability of results obtained by triangulation. Astronomers are faced with
additional factors when they try to apply triangulation, such as the Van Allen Radiation Belt, varying
concentrations of orgone throughout space, etc. It is not realistic to assume that astronomers can determine
planetary and astronomical distances with great precision.
There are several factors which astrophysicists and astronomers have not taken into consideration in their
calculations. Perhaps the most important of these is the fact that all electromagnetic radiations including
gravity in free space, suffer an attenuation effect which is well above that of the inverse square law.
Everywhere in the universe is permeated with soft and hard particles of all kinds. These particles have been
radiated by planetary systems for countless ages. This principle is demonstrated by fluctuations in the
velocity of light and gravity attenuation.
There is a steady decline in the velocity of light as it travels through space. The reasons for this can be seen
from the following considerations. Normal light, or light which has travelled a relatively short distance from
it’s source, immediately resumes it’s original velocity after passing through a dense medium such as glass or
water. As shown earlier, this is due to the close bunching of photons and soft electrons in any given ray.
The concentrations of particles in a ray of light tends to decrease after travelling great distances. The father
it travels, the more attenuated the ray becomes. This means that its ability to increase it’s velocity after
passing from a medium of a given density to one of a lesser density, will be reduced. This is, of course, due
to the scattering and dissipation of particles within the ray as it encounters the conglomeration of particles
moving in random directions throughout space.
Since conglomerations of soft particles permeate all known space, and the distribution is not uniform, it
follows that light will experience refraction effects, even when passing through free space. Therefore, even
under the best conditions, with observations being made beyond the atmosphere, astronomical observations
cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. The difficulty is, of course, compounded when the
observations are made inside the atmosphere. It is small wonder that Charles Fort found a wealth of
evidence that completely debunked the astronomer’s claims of great precision.
The fluctuation in soft particle distribution, along with the refraction effects of the atmosphere, rules out the
possibility of averaging out errors by making many observations and applying the mathematical method of
11 - 128