I believe the word primitive isn’t quite enough to describe the problems that JF has owerviewed.
Well, let’s hope a smart water/ovetunity inventor vines forth in a smart way.
If the stakes are that high then I suspect that he would have to be specially trained by Father and listen to his advice and spread the word of it without being killed and stopped.
The dangers of internal combustion engine cars, etc. are not being argued here. It is well known the inefficiency of fuel-based cars, lorries, etc. Using that portion from JAHTruth to support EVs is using it out of context. No-one here is in disagreement about the dangers presented. Why are only certain members being called out and questioned. Is bias and cliquishness a factor? EVs are highly problematic economically, environmentally, etc...
Challenges such as high overall cost, limited ranges, limited electrical infrastructure, long charging time, electricity from fossil fuels, and toxicity all result in EVs remaining somewhat of a novelty.
Above portion of the reply is in general and not directed at JF or any one member.
I just care about the planet, that's all. And I guess that is more important to me than whatever selfish people want to do or don't want to do. We are or were supposed to be stewards of the earth, that Father created. Therefore if we want to show gratitude and help ourselves to survive then we should be taking care of it and be concerned about the effects of human activities on the environment, like JAH has advised people for years and still does.
Not doing that is selfish and it is insanity, as it is also explained on Jahtruth.net.
Since I'm also a technically minded person and always have been, I tend to look at the benefits of the technology itself because of how it can help if used in a good and responsible way, like an advanced and intelligent society would be doing.
What the so-called elites may want to do with it, for me is really not that relevant since they won't be around to be able to inflict their tyranny forever.
I often think of how this world could be if more people would choose to be listening to Father and Christ and then strive to do it. TWH talks about technology being sent in order to advance and prepare the world, so these advances are not people's inventions, they are simply discoveries of what has been sent.
THHOFTF
12:13 Since then, the world has gradually been prepared, and sent technology, little by little, so that now, mankind knows there are other planets, and people have built their own crude spaceships, which are ONLY children’s toys, just like nuclear-missiles, compared to the technology of home. The technology on this planet is prehistoric, compared to the technology of Venus. You have been sent just enough, to prepare you for the truth, and no more.
12:14 Think about the technology necessary, to build a living organic computer (human-body), which self-repairs and self-reproduces; not crude bits of wire and transistors, and lumps of metal and plastic, like human-made computers.
12:15 Put your egos away people! No-one on this planet has EVER invented anything. Specific people were prepared by God, little by little, and then, when they were ready, He told them, by telepathy, “from out of the blue”, or “from God knows where”, and that is EXACTLY from where,
and how, these ideas came.
12:16 The world has been sent communications-technology, in all its many varied forms, to make the publishing of God’s Truth, to all the nations of the world, quick and easy.
12:17 Satan has inflated people’s egos, into claiming the glory, and saying that THEY had INVENTED these things (Sura 96:4-8), and he has obviously given all the evil-ideas, by telepathy.
12:18 The glory belongs, as it always has; to God. God’s is the power; the Kingdom; and the GLORY; for ever.
And again, I've always been fond of and intrigued by electricity. Where I'm living at the moment quite a lot of people are driving around in EVs and they are much quieter. They also can take off quick. To me it's just logical that it will be a big part of the future.
That is because it has been suppressed for what, over a century, so that the rich people that everyone wants to fight against could continue to extract oil and sell it for profit. I used to be close enough to that industry to be able to learn some things about it. If it's not overdone, the environment can cope but as the demand has increased with a much larger population and everyone hoping to reap the benefits of it, it becomes a problem so new innovation just becomes necessary. It's also a lot of dirty drilling operations in order to get to the remaining oil and that will eventually run out, with continuing environmental disasters such as oil spills, aside from all the pollution that is created. People should also bear in mind that in order to extract oil, you need to input a lot energy in the first place to be able to do that, so it is all very inefficient and can't go on forever. And how many wars have been instigated and fought, just to take other countries oil reserves?
EVs are becoming advanced now but it's still really in it's infancy, due to being suppressed for so long. Now the world is trying to catch up. And no, it is not more problematic environmentally if you ask me. Not by a long shot. EVs are way more efficient than traditional cars in how they convert and use energy. And they don't emit fumes. We could have had this probably 100 years ago as many people tried. Now it's happening, and it seems to be happening whether people like it or not. So, I just tend to think of the obvious benefits of it being developed. Yes, the rich people may have other ideas but I don't believe it's going to be up to them in the end. There are more important matters than what they may think or want and it's not about what they want anyways in my view. Of course, I could be wrong. But that's how I think about it at the moment.
Thank-you. How would you reconcile this, please? As follows:
Thank you, Ah, it was in signs.html. I looked for this quote for quite a while but wasn't able to find it.
If the dangers of electric cars are being argued here, then the dangers of internal combustion engine cars should also be argued, since comparing the two is necessary to evaluate how dangerous electric cars are.
What do you mean, please?
context
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.
out of context
If a statement or remark is quoted out of context, the circumstances in which it was said are not correctly reported, so that it seems to mean something different from the meaning that was intended.
In a discussion about the dangers and seemingly overall badness of the electric car a paragraph written by JAH about the badness of ICE-vehicles, is out of what context?
Not directed at anyone? It was I who called out @ThePrisoner so it's clearly directed at me, but am I correct in understanding that you no longer wish to be in direct communication with me and this is your way of avoiding that, please?
I did not mean to sound like I'm questioning or interrigating anyone. I just asked @ThePrisoner since he seems to be a proponent of ICE-vehicles and was curious to see how he would answer to JF's message. (By changing the argument to just being "engines are primitive" and bringing up the mythical overunity water powered engines.)
Is this an automatic show stopper?
If one has the extra funds needed to get an e-vehicle of some sort instead of a cheap model ICE-vehicle or some sort? 1000 eur used e-bike instead of a used old moped for 500 eur? Is this e-bike highly problematic environmentally?
Which do you believe is more polluting and inefficient, please:
A. You have 100,000 typical cars (some guzzlers, some efficient, some old, some new) all burning fossil fuels, (gasoline and diesel)
B. You have 100,000 e-vehicles (not much efficiency variation due to age) which are being powered by electricity provided by a power plant that runs on fossile fuel.
Some of it will be from fossil fuels, but not all of it. Some would be from other sources, like solar and wind, as these could also be drawn from to charge up an EV.
But in the case of internal combustion engines, you can be sure it's all fossil fuels, since there is no other option.
I'm not against ICE vehicles. I like them as well. There are settings in which ICE makes more sense and would be the obvious choice, for instance like on a farm. Or for long journeys, that still seems preferable.
But within cities and neighbourhoods, I think EVs can have many benefits.
Sounds far too reasonable for the Green Communists in charge. I agree with the gist of what you say.
You posted this in the meme thread @ThePrisoner
“Professional EM reader” salesmen must be making a killing these days. Most consumer grade devices seem to be scams and most users have no idea how to use such a device, that is if they are using a real one and not just a fake ones like for instance grifter Mark Steele uses.
Yeah because it's a meme...
Looks like this is the suit that Luke Skywalker needed in Return of the Jedi, but didn't have.
Is that the relevant argument?
By Rhoda Wilson on June 6, 2024
An article last month published by Merkur about the German electric car industry being in crisis and no recovery is in sight in the short term noted: “A recent YouGov survey shows that more than half of German e-car owners regret their purchase or leasing. The main reason is rising electricity prices. In contrast, other car sectors are experiencing an upswing, as current figures from the Federal Motor Transport Authority in Flensburg show.”
We’ve attached a copy of Merkur’s article below (German to English translation using Google Translate).
Continued at link...
I have it on good authority that the (scanty) reports of Nikola Tesla's free energy car are actually true, despite the doubts about it. No batteries and no fuel manually added.
We know that he was murdered (1943) and his free-energy inventions were stolen, and that the culprits: the Bush's (real name Scherff), working for the powers that be, were around him even before then.
So THEY've had approaching 100 years to figure out Tesla's ideas, and I think we can bet on it that they have.
So, a gentleman pops out of the woodwork and starts making EVs and names his product after Mr. Tesla!
A bit weird wouldn't one say? After all the EVs are not exactly Tesla's car, and like Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles they come with pros and cons, which includes the power to remotely just switch them off; you know, together with the driver's blocked central bank digital currency account.
So here's the thought.
What if the current EV is deliberately being promoted (apparently the backing and government funding is enormous - has to be otherwise significant deficits apparently?) with a view to it being a closer stepping stone to Mr. Tesla's real free-energy car than an ICE vehicle would be.
And it's already got the name! Why did they choose that name? Real intentions hidden in plain sight?
And we can't keep wholesale raping and polluting mother Earth of and with her (burnt) hydrocarbons. The oil barons (Bushes etc.) and oil kings (Battenberg/ Windsors etc.) must know that too. And also the excess planetary heat that all the ICE engines generate.
To my (non-technically trained) mind it seems that an EV would be simpler to convert than an ICE vehicle. Maybe the conversion capability is already in the design? Maybe certain sections of the population already have the conversions; you know; just take your EV to this facility and they'll convert it for you, but keep quiet about it?
And if so, wonder if Elon is in the know, but it seems at least highly probable that someone behind his scenes is!
And will they come clean with Mr. Tesla's tech when sufficient numbers of humans have been culled by their vaccines, and claim the credit somehow - not many people even know that Mr. T. had such a car. And the remote shut-down - and spying on the driver - features will have been thoroughly tested.
But THEY might just "declare their sin as Sodom" and we'll know for sure? Or have they already with the name?
King of kings Bible - Isaiah 3:9 The look on their face doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
!?!? truth is stranger than fiction as the saying goes. Or just seems stranger because there's been so little of it.
P.S.
It's probably safer than the highly explosive Hydrogen tech - the running cars on water, even with the burning of the Hydrogen at source of production obviating the need for the highly dangerous storage: tank (that could probably be phrased better?).
[Apologies if already guessed at somewhere else. I haven't been following the threads too closely.]
Is It True?
Is It Ionizing Radiation or Non-Ionizing Radiation And Is There A Difference?
Is Standing Near A Running Microwave Dangerous?
Who Is This Man? Is He An Expert?
Is That An Accuarte Aevice?
What Is It Saying?
Why Is It Capitalized Like This?
Are These Rational Questions Or Should We Just Trust The Meme?
Does Anything In This Particular Message Indicate What Kind of Cars I Like?
I would invest in one, if I had been in a position to be able to do it. Then you can invest in methods to charge it up using your own renewable energy sources, like solar panels and wind power. And then once you have that, the charging cost would be offset by however much energy you are able to harvest for free, from that point onward once the investment has been made.
For an electric bike, it is easy to achieve being able to charge the battery completely for free for many years (after the initial investment has been paid for) with only a few solar panels, some storage batteries to retain the power gathered from the sun (and/or wind) and then all you need is an inverter to power the charger.
For an EV the setup would need to be scaled up a lot, but it would be possible. Nothing would be cheap though, which is the downside. But if it could be afforded, it could be done.
Hi @phithx. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts with us. 
First may I say that I am also non-technically trained on the subject, and with that understood, I have some questions and thoughts to share too.
Firstly, the term "free energy" can be misleading (IMHO). Perhaps, "frequency energy" in the case of Tesla is better? In all that Tesla did, as far as I understand it, antennae (of some sort) are needed. So, theoretically a "wireless" car would still need an energy source like a tower (like 5G? ) or satellites (that provides internet, etc. for example). With that being said, emf / frequency changes/disruptions in the air would occur. I am not stating any of this as fact. Consider this whole post a big question! So, theoretically, such "free energy" could cause frequency pollution. A better source would be to somehow use water (I suspect there are those who know and use it, but fear for their lives to disclose it). Now I will share a vision (not sure what else to call it) or a lucid dream I had in the past that may bring some insight about the use of water for energy. I was in a spaceship of sorts. A heavenly one for sure and not one from the satanic military industrial complex on Earth. The space ship I was on was propelled by water. There was something like a running sea of water underneath it giving it the energy to move. I cannot say more about that because I have no further information other than there was water and it was not a steam engine, but flowing water with a massive amount of energy. It was very powerful. It is so unfortunate that this technology is withheld from the populace upon fear of death.
Thank-you and understood.
Interesting!
