Badlands Media - Spellbreakers Ep. 159: Jeffrey Epstein & Cold Fusion Pt. 2: Science and Murder

Episode Date: March 21, 2026

In Episode 159 of Spellbreakers, Matt Trump continues the deep dive into Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to elite scientists, shifting the focus toward the darker implications surrounding advanced research, secrecy, and unexplained deaths within the scientific community. Building on the cold fusion discussion, Matt explores how certain breakthroughs and the people behind them seem to intersect with patterns of suppression, intimidation, and in some cases, suspicious circumstances. The episode examines how high level funding networks, intelligence ties, and academic institutions may converge around sensitive areas of research, raising difficult questions about who controls innovation and what happens when discoveries challenge existing power structures. Matt connects these threads to Epstein’s network, suggesting that his role may have extended beyond social engineering into something far more embedded within scientific influence. As the conversation unfolds, Matt challenges listeners to consider whether these connections are coincidence or part of a broader pattern where science, power, and risk collide in ways the public rarely sees.

That's a hell of a... Good evening and welcome to spellbreakers on Badlands. I'm your host, Matthew Trump. We come to you live every Friday evening at 7 p.m. Mountain time, which is 9 p.m. Eastern Time. And we go for usually an hour and a half. I tend to hop over to Onlylands afterwards, which I hope to do again tonight.

And I hope maybe you'll join us over there too. But in the meantime, we have a show to do tonight. We're doing part two of a two of at least, the two-parter that we started last week. And it's a little, so the opening feels very abrupt, as it does for a lot of, as a lot of our host here on Badlands this week, we have to change our opening. You may have seen the opening that I started out with here,

which is that, you know, we have that dramatic thunder clap that comes in and then it shows all the host. and then it ends with President Trump saying, The Badlands, tell me about those bad lands. And, well, we have to redo it every once in a while, of course, because we have shows that come and go. And it tends to be a little bit out of date at any given time before it gets updated.

But this week, we had a substantial change in the Badlands lineup. We lost a couple of our hosts. We left the Badlands Network for various reasons that I actually don't completely know about. Some of you may know more about it than I do. And I'll miss both of them. Both of the, I'm talking about Brad and Abby, of course, and I'll very much miss both of them from Badlands. Brad has been one of those people that kept me going personally at a time when I was doing my show on my own, and I didn't quite know how to fly this airplane a little bit.

And Brad was there to help me and make sure that things worked and all this. So I'm going to miss him in particular and also missing them both Brad and Abby at Gart. But we're going to have a great Gart anyway. So let's move forward. And also I have an abbreviated spellbreakers intro too that I have. Some of you may know that for a while I've been using the Route 66. theme song and just sort of playing random images. And, well, there's a couple things going on.

First of all, I wanted to make a real, I've been wanting to make a real intro for a long time, which I've done. And I've a little over two minutes of that music that I wanted to fill with the interesting images that I could just play. And I'm about halfway through it. I've got about a minute of it. But I'm using a short intro right now. And I hope to use a longer one.

but there's a bunch of complications now. All the complications this week, with all the things going on in the world that we all have to think about. And so tonight I'm broadcasting on YouTube for the first, streaming to YouTube for the first time. So if you're over there in YouTube, hello, hello, I hope you can hear me over there.

I think I actually can see your chat, actually, I think. If I go over to the chat, I actually get the YouTube comments show up, comments. Hello, everybody. Oh, look at, there's got people of Babbage 3, Harry Patriot, MZ. Mouser. Hello, all of you. Hello. I'm Luchis at Umbri. That's me.

That's, that's, that's me. I'm there. I jumped in the chat. I hope I remember to keep looking over at YouTube. Now, I wasn't even sure I was going to be able to do that because YouTube is really strict with copyright. And so we can get a bunch of bad, things can happen. I can get the the if the copyright algorithm detect something that's copyrighted music, say for example my theme song that I use,

then then that can get so that there's no revenue, YouTube revenue, ad revenue I get or whatever it how it works, I don't know quite how it works. That won't come through for the show but also the the the copyright can get struck in which there's a mark against the Badlands Media channel and if it gets too many of those, it gets demonetized and all sorts of, so I'm trying to be a good citizen. I learned that I can actually, and if you're watching YouTube, this is what I was trying to do tonight. I learned that I can delay the start of the YouTube broadcast a few minutes by starting on Rumble where there's no copyright issues. And if you've been watching my show a while, you know that I've often played a lot of

of clips of movie trailers and things like that at the beginning to sort of lead into the show. And so I was going to delay YouTube and then started after that. Well, and chat GPT said, oh, it's easy. You can just toggle on, say, YouTube, start streaming to YouTube now. Well, the word toggle, chat GPT, I guess made that up because you actually have to delete, I have to delete YouTube from the stream and then re-ad it. And it's about, you know, it's always like six or seven clicks to do all those kind of things. and doing that in the middle of the show.

I didn't want to do that tonight. So we're just flying. We're just going full in with the Route 66 music, which is only like, what, about 10 seconds of it that I use right now at the beginning. But that's enough. It only takes like it's like name that tune. I can name that tune in one note. Well, the algorithm can name a tune in one note.

And if it's an important part of the music, it can also, you know, YouTube's awful. This copyright thing is just awful. So it really makes it hard to do cultural commentary, which I think is un-American. The kind of cultural commentary I've done on a lot of the shows, I think that's a fundamental right to do. But I don't make the law. We made this Clinton administration made that law, Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And I know the people who are content creators, some of them like it because it protects their material. like we have one of our hosts here who is speaking out in front of it for it.

I brought it up yesterday in the in the Gart chat. And so, you know, Ghost, there was it? Burning Bright is a, you know, he's, he has books that he publishes. And he's like, well, you know, I sort of like the copyright protection in some cases. So all this is my way of sort of, I'm sort of tap dancing right now to just get used to being on the stream. I used to play those long 10-minute videos I made, and that would sort of give me a chance to, like, I'm on stage and I'm standing behind the curtain, and I'm like, okay, all right, get ready to go on.

All right, you know, don't have to, don't have to, you know, get all boozed up, pills like Judy Carlin, but, you know, sometimes you understand why people had to do that. So, because I want the show to be good, and I don't want to look like an idiot, I have ego, you know, embarrassment and all that. So, but I think we're ready to start the show. And so if you're watching on YouTube, hearty welcome to YouTube. And I see my friends in the chat, Sammy the Squirrel. I hate I am no longer able to watch as many of the shows like I used to.

Shaisal says, I love the Route 66 music. Oh, and Sammy the Squirrel posted, you should really follow his blog. He does give really good updates on the what's happened in Iran over the last week. because of all the things we got going on our personal lives, like all the stuff I just talked about, but we got, you know, we all of us have over our heads the Iran thing, which is confusing. It's confusing, if nothing else, because there's all sorts of contradictory things going on. And I think part of our narrative in badlands is that we've settled on among our host, the idea that the narrative is meant to be confusing and contradictory right now.

It's meant to expose those who would manipulate the narrative. And this is part of what Trump is doing. I think a lot of us have sort of settled on that point of view. But we do have some very big arguments going on in bad lands among people. And there probably will come up in Gart. So if you want to see some really interesting discussions, please come to Gart. I'm going to be there.

And I hope you will be there too. Now, also, I'm supposedly I'm streaming to Pilled.pilled.net, but God help me, I can't figure it out. So if you're watching Unpilled, you know, I probably can't see your comments. I tried to go just now and see the comments, but I can only deal with one innovation per week, I think. So let's get into the show. Last week we did a show. Well, first of all, last week we did a show, and we did it was Jeffrey Epstein and Cold Fusion Part 1. And so we went over some things. I'll review a little bit of that before we get into the thick of the show.

But tonight's episode of Spellbreakers is brought to you in part by our friends at, by our friends at a pet club. Science proves that a healthy immune system is the body's first offense against the smallest of ailments to the most catastrophic. Coriolis Versicolor is the most sought after all-natural supplement for both humans and pets to help boost the immune system. There are over 400 studies worldwide on its effectiveness in humans, including Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and now from the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinarian Medicine. Together, we can help reverse this terrible tide now plaguing your loved ones and give them the immune-boosting supplements that they need. All right, and we're also sponsored tonight by River. So I think Bitcoin was at 76,000, 600, I think, or 72,600 today.

It was choppy up and down today, sort of treading water a little bit. See, my roundsheets said, talk about the price of Bitcoin. But we've also got River. I'd love to play the, I love the Route 66 theme music. Stacks Satoshi, Sats with River. The Bitcoin only platform built by Bitcoiners for Bitcoiners. Why a river, zero fee recurring buys, stack Bitcoin effortlessly, hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly, 3.5% Bitcoin interest on cash, FDIC, insured, no minimums, withdraw any time.

Expert US-based support, human help plus private client services for big buys. That would be $100,000 plus. Business accounts, boost your balance sheet with Bitcoin and earn 3.5% paid in Bitcoin. Top-tier wallet. Send, receive, and manage Bitcoin securely. Unmatched security, full reserve custody, multi-sig cold storage and proof of reserve. Join the Bitcoin Revolution at badlandsmedia.tv slash river, right there up there on the screen, and earn real returns.

That's badlandsmedia. combeer. TV slash river. All right. Yeah, badlandsmedia. TV slash river. Okay. We have a couple of their sponsors.

We'll get to them later in the evening, including talking about GART. I hope you're all, hope as many of you as possible can come to Gart. So let's get into the show. So I'm going to share my screen. Share screen. Oh, we want to, we want the Chrome tab. Okay. We want a Chrome tab and we want,

is this it? Yeah, there we go. All right. So one simplification I've been able to do so I can talk to you more and relate to you more is I've learned to how to do my keynote slides. So if you don't know, Keynote is the Apple version of PowerPoint. And I've made most of it.

It's my sort of home medium that I like to use. And but it means I have to switch to the Keynote app in Streamier, which is my streaming platform. I have to go do that and then go back to the web browser. And that's really a pain to do that kind of thing. It's so typical stream yard to make everything that you want to be a one-click thing into a 10-click process and searching all over for things. But it is what it is. So we're going to get into it tonight.

I want to take a look at the chat again. Take a look and see who we got in the chat. Oh, good. Yeah, Spetzel, thank you for posting the link to Sammy the Squirrel's substack. I was hoping somebody would do that. And let's see, yeah, Rocket Savvy. My newest substack just published. Read it to learn about your glyco.

Okay. All right. Okay. No spam, though. So be careful. Be careful. You know, we get people in here that abuse it. I don't mind if my regular listeners post links, but, you know, we get people who drop in here

and they make it miserable by drop, try dropping their link. to their things. Spetzel, I think Badlands could buy a YouTube licensing option. I think it's $500 a month, though, not cheap. Does that, would that mean I could play copyrighted stuff? I don't know what that means. Eleanor 2000, hello, hello, my friend. I haven't been in the chats of other shows as much this week.

I've had so much going on. I've had to focus on that and just sort of lurk in most of the shows I watch. because I just had to. All right, squish the thumbs up. Yes, please do like the show. Please do give me a little like. Leslie Bayer, Scheisler, we said hello to you. Mrs. Ria, Freedom Fire.

Hello. Mountain Mama 1017. Hello, hello, Buckwain. Claire Cat, 361. Hello. Hello, everybody. All right, I hope I see you all here. I got so many.

Let's see. E.C. was here. Hello? Hey, did you notice? I had a piece in Badlands Daily this morning. EEC was here, Reddit. I'm going to start doing that more often, too. I sort of like that. I like that. I just set it blind to Ash. And I was like, oh, I hope she takes it. I tried to follow the instructions, and it works. So, experiment cleared. Eleanor 2000. Oh, you got the journal article. She got the journal article we were talking about last week, the original Cold Fusion article. So let's get into that.

Let's let's talk about. So tonight, it's called Jeffrey Epstein and Cold Fusion part two, science and murder. Okay, so, do we have enough lurid things in the title this week to get people's attention? I hope so. because I don't think I could cram any more in there at the moment. All right.

So, yes, please do give a thumbs up. Oh, 70,623. That was the Bitcoin price. So you had this slide queued up for that ad. All right. Let's begin. I want to begin with a term. We're going to learn a term before we start called pathological science.

I stumbled across this term this week. I hadn't heard it before, but I stumbled across it in my research about cold fusion. And I want to share it with you. So pathological science doesn't sound good, does it? And it's not, according to the definition at least. But let's see, let's look into it. Pathological science is an area of research where, quote, people are tricked into false results by subjective effects,

wishful thinking, or threshold interactions. The term was coined by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize winning chemist during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. So everybody who's in atomic, physics or chemistry knows this guy, Langmuir. All right, Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not go away

long after it was given up as false by the majority of the scientists in the field. He called pathological science, the science of things that aren't so. So it's loaded. You can tell it's sort of a loaded term. In his 2002 book, Undead Science, sociology and anthropology professor Bart Simon,

lists it among practices that are falsely perceived or presented to be science. Quote, categories such as pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, pathological science, cargo cult science, that's a term Richard Feynman invented for when you do experiments and you minimize all the negative things about it even in your own mind.

All right. And voodoo science. Examples of pathological science include the market, canals, N-rays, and gold fusion. You saw that coming, right? The theories and conclusions behind all of these examples are currently rejected or disregarded by the majority of science. All right, and then there's a little fault.

Pathological science is defined by Langmuir is a psychological process in which a scientist originally conforming to the scientific method unconsciously veers from that method and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation. See observer expectancy effect and cognitive bias. Some characteristics of pathological science are the maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity. And the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. Okay, so like a really threshold interaction.

Okay. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability or multiple measurements are necessary because of low, statistical significance of the results. Higgs particle. Excuse me. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say the Higgs particle as an example of this. I did not say that.

There are claims of great accuracy. I have said that, though, but I'm not saying it here. All right. There are claims of great accuracy. Fantastic theories contrary to the experience to experience are suggested. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. the ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Langmuir never intended the term to be rigorously defined. It was simply the title of the talk for some examples of weird science. As with attempts to define the scientific endeavor, examples and counter-examples are always to be found. All right, so maybe you can see, you know, I haven't heard this term, but maybe you can see that it's one you could, you could apply to a lot of things you might hear about. But also, one man's pathological science is another man's hard, you know, real science maybe. We get into that issue, right? But I just want you to know this term. I think it's a good term to know and we'll keep it in mind because supposedly cold fusion is an example of this.

And as we saw last week, so last week we started the whole thing with a talking about the release of the Epstein files. And unexpectedly, amidst all the other things in the Epstein files, there was an email from a, Epstein to a guy named Al Seckle, who is not his brother-in-law, but Al Seckle was married to Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, Isabel Maxwell, both daughters of Robert Maxwell. And so they know each other. And it was a very interesting email, just one line from Epstein to Al Seckle. Regarding Cold Fusion, I killed Pons years ago. So Pons referring to Stanley Ponds, One of the two scientists working at the University of Utah in 1989, who claimed to have discovered what we now call Cold Fusion,

which was billed as a revolutionary possible energy source. So we're getting into the realm, a broader realm, I think, that might continue after this show, talking about innovative, different speculative energy sources, because energy is where it's at, isn't it? We, you know, it's everywhere you turn lately, there's something having to do with energy. Even, you know, even like G money and the Bitcoin maximalist, well, Bitcoin's all about energy. It's like, okay, all right, there we go again, energy.

So, so do we have a revolutionary new source of energy for humanity? Yes or no? If so, has it been suppressed? Has it been suppressed to the point of murder? Well, not in this case, at least, because Pons was not murdered. He's still alive, actually. So Epstein, as we said, wasn't specifically talking about having Stanley Pons murdered, but we're going to see there are some murders that we're going to get to some murders in this show.

So if you're a unsolved or maybe partially solved murder mystery fan, this shows for you. Okay. Now, Al Sekel is his friend and sort of part of the extended Maxwell family. was married to Isabel Maxwell, died himself under mysterious circumstances in 2015, was a self-proclaimed, sort of not fully educated, but self-proclaimed science advocate and skeptic. So we know the type. And these kind of people, they tend to be, it's not like they don't serve a useful purpose, but they can be really obnoxious, these people.

Because they claim, I'm speaking for science. It's like, oh, God, not one of those. you know so because it's like they learn the mainstream interpretation and they like anybody who doesn't conform to that it was you know they're going to go to war against it's like you know what it can be a little bit more nuanced than that guy but he he he's of that ilk and then we talked about the whole extended Maxwell thing so you see Jeffrey and Al Sackle there and the two Maxwell sisters and and the the the physicist and from below that went to conference with him at Epstein Island,

the little St. James Island, that is, including a couple guys at MIT, an institution that we'll get to tonight. And we learned how through Robert Maxwell, through his former business partner in scientific publishing, they make quite a sway in scientific publishing for a number of years, including his partner, Paul Rosbaud, an Austrian, was influential,

getting the nuclear fission results of the German lab in 1939 published to the world, which set in motion the chain of events that led to the Manhattan Project. So we're putting Epstein in there and putting an arrow over there to Stanley Pons and Fleischman, who were not murdered, but were introduced the idea of cold fusion to the world in 1989. We're going to learn some more about that tonight. So, okay, where's my cursor? Where's my cursor? Oh, God, I'm starting to really dislike this thing. Okay, there it is.

My black cursor disappears, and it's like, where is it? All right, so here's the paper. This is when Eleanor 2000 got a hold of because it's behind a paywall, electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. So let's go back to, so thank you, Eleanor. I would like to get a hold of a copy of that. We'd go back to 1989. So 37 years ago this month.

And this is when cold fusion was sort of dropped onto the world as a thing that might revolutionize energy production. It might revolutionize humanity. And what it was was, well, we'll get through that in a moment. We went through that last week. But there was a paper. And then there was a press conference, a press conference on March 23rd, 1989, where Fleischman and Pawns introduced the idea and said, we've discovered this revolutionary energy process. And that was in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah.

And my cursors disappeared again. All right, there it goes. And so fusion, we covered this last week. We went over what is fusion and that there's, you know, there's fission, which is the breaking apart, which is what uranium does. And then you can power a nuclear reactor with that because what you get out of that when you split uranium apart is that, the pieces fly apart, and that's essentially the same as heating up something, and you heat up water, and it turns a turbine, just like any other time you heat up water, and you can generate power with that. And if you have a very intense concentration of uranium, you can even have an explosive reaction, a bomb.

But fusion's a different process. It's fusing together, and it doesn't take big elements like uranium. You do it with small things like hydrogen, and you push them together. And there's a couple, according to our current models, evidence theory, we've got a couple ways that fusion can happen. One is that we think it's, well, the current we, the current model of how the sun and all stars burn is through fusion. By the hydrogen in there, it's so hot and under such pressure, such high temperatures and pressure, that the hydrogen can overcome the natural repulsion it would have. At room temperature, you couldn't force hydrogen together. It would fly apart because they both have the same charge.

So you can't make them come together. But under high enough temperature and pressure in what's called the plasma where the electrons are stripped out, we think this is how the sun works and all stars work to do this. And that the discovery of this then led to speculation after the development of the uranium bomb, which is fission. We can we use fusion in a bomb? could release way more energy. And the answer, you know, history says the answer is yes. Now, some of you may not believe there were fusion bombs.

It's okay with me if you think that. I don't care. But after 1952, the H-bomb, which are thermonuclear weapons, uses fission to release extremely large bombs that are of much greater magnitude than Hiroshima. And we entered then the thermonuclear weapons. nuclear age since 1952. So those, you know, that's sort of standard theory. And then there was like, well, can we do fusion in a lab?

And we've tried since 1969, special kind of reactors called Tokamax, which are donut shaped. And yes, we can do make fusion happen in a lab. But the problem is, if there's no, there's a net energy loss. We don't get energy out as much as we put in. We lose energy. And that's not good for power. that's, you know, it's like trying to make money and you lose money on every transaction.

Well, now I guess in the modern age, you can do that because you're trying to pump up a stock price, I guess. But according to conventional economics, you want to have profit, not loss, or else you're going to go out of business. So that's sort of an analogy between energy. Energy and money is always a good analogy, by the way. We'll get into that next week. We talk about more about what energy is in its various forms.

But for right now, that's the problem. And it's been considered an engineering problem, as much as a physics problem for the last number of decades. Now, there have been engineering breakthroughs lately in the last couple of years. There was one at the University of Texas, my institution, with some of the people upstairs from where I worked at. I don't know quite what it is. I haven't looked into it, but I might by next week, just because I'm curious. And then there's this fourth thing. So again, conventional plasma fusion reactors,

require enormous temperatures and pressures duplicating that that would be in the interior of the sun. But what if we could just do it in a lab, in normal conditions, normal temperature and pressure? Well, that would change everything, wouldn't it? And that's supposedly, that's what Fleischman and Ponds claimed to have discovered in 1989 and announced via press conference, which that itself sort of got him and got them off to a bad start by doing it that way. And we'll see what sort of why they did that, because it goes to a broader story of what we're going on here. But, you know, it's disputed. This is not accepted by science that we can do that. By the scientific community, I should say.

When I say by science, that's, I mean by the scientific community as a whole. All right. So is it been debunked maybe? I hate the word debunked, by the way. It's a terrible word. It's used as a shorthand for way too much. So they claim they did this that it's an ordinary chemical reaction. I should have put there.

It spells it reaction. So it starts out just using ordinary chemistry in a lab at room temperature, and it has a net energy gain. A cheap could be a cheap power source, if that's true. Redally available fuel, just using ordinary hydrogen. You don't have to use fancy fuel like uranium. But, okay, so, well, that sounds great. Well, it would be if it's true, but is it true?

Okay. Can we, oh, I can go up and down by arrows. Thank, thank God. Okay. All right. So the press conference, yeah, that was March 1989. They also submitted that paper, which is okay. and they were going to submit another paper.

Now, there was another guy working at the same time that's going to factor into our story. I'm just going to put his name out there. His name was Steve Jones. And he was a professor at BYU, also in Utah, at the same time. And he was working on, and this is, I want to get into this a little bit, at least tonight, have a chance to explore it,

which was that the cold fusion that Pons and Fleischman claimed they had discovered was one of a couple types of possible cold fusion. It wasn't the only one. And Steve Jones was working on a different kind called muon-catalyzed cold fusion. In fact, he invented the term cold fusion for what he was working on at his lab.

And so, of course, Jones and Pons and Fleischman knew about each other. They were just down the road from each other in the Utah Valley. And to say that they were rivals, well, they would become rivals in part because of the way the clumsy situation played out. But Jones is going to figure out into our story. And he's an interesting cat, this kid Steve Jones. We'll talk about him a little bit. So let's just go through a timeline here.

This is a good timeline. It illustrates a lot about how science sort of works in a sloppy way. Because here's the thing. Science is, somebody tells you that science, well, science is a process of discovery, and it uses hypothesis and this, and it's got scientific method, and we discover the secrets of nature. Yes, that's all true. But really, it's a, science is a social phenomenon.

You know, science is the sharing of information with other people. That's what we mean by science. When we say science says this, we mean the people with whom the scientific results of experiment and theory have been shared and have a discussion about it. The discussion and the sharing is the core of science. It's not just something added onto it. It is the core of science. And you can think even back in ancient times with the ancient Greeks, that there might have

have been a lot, people speculate, oh, did the ancient Greeks discover this and that? Maybe they discovered, maybe the Romans discovered how to use a steam engine and all that. Well, maybe there was a lot of stuff discovered in antiquity. But did they have science? Well, that's debatable. Were there any real scientists, as we would know them? People might have discovered things, but could they share them with the world and with other people? That sharing, publishing results in sharing, that's how you know you have science in a culture is when you have that. Not just one-off inventors coming up with things, discovering things, deriving things through theory and mathematics, but sharing it with the world that creates a civilizational discussion.

That's what science is. And so there's at least one true scientists in the ancient world that I think everybody would agree on. And that's Archimedes, who performed experiments, did mathematical theory calculations, and published them with the world. Now, publishing back then, not an easy process, right? Papyri, copying the same things. You know, not, you know, until the invention of the printing press, science was slow. The printing press allowed an acceleration of science because it allowed an acceleration of publication of things to the world. All right.

So, 1988, Pons and Fleischman come up with this idea that maybe they can create this thing called Cold Fusion. And they begin doing experiments about it. They might have been doing it earlier than 1988. But in 1980, they begin to think they have something.

They apply for a grant for experiments. The grant proposal, the person who judges their grant, by the way, one of them is Steve Jones at BYU. And so that's one of the reasons he pops up. in this story again. So, but it's going to get a little bit thicker than he. So by March of 1989, Pons and Fleischman and Jones, Pons and Fleischman think they've discovered the process of cold fusion. Jones thinks he's discovered something also that's like cold fusion, but it's a different

process that I mentioned, but also happens at room temperature. And they agree to submit a joint paper to nature, nature being like the New York Times of, it's sort of a bad analogy. of science. It's really the grand central location for all of the branches of science where you have the, you have the stage, the biggest stage to all the scientific community. And it's a rigorous peer-reviewed publication. Let's just accept that term for now, peer-reviewed. That's part of this publication process that is the core of science. And they agreed to do that. But then Pons and Fleischman, they were really sort of clumsy. They, they sort of got pushed, I don't know, was themselves or the University of Utah, and they were

concerned about priority and patents for this. So they pushed Pons and Fleischman to publish their results, which they did. They submitted it to a journal, the article that Eleanor 2000 said she'd found. And on the 13th of March, but Pons and Fleischman and Jones said, we're going to publish, we're going to do a we're going to submit a journal article to nature together all of both of our teams and that was going to be on the 24th of march and then the day before ponds and flechman pushed by the university of Utah decided to jump the gun with a press conference that was then on the cover of the newspaper Salt Lake City Tribune on the 23rd and on the 24th I mean and you know so they're just they're sort of freestyling it here in a way that's that's sort of not the way you usually do things and

tends to create a lot of hard feelings and all this, but so great was the pressure on them, I think, that they went ahead and did this. And the world took notice right away. Like I said, I remember this time. And so we're going to go through here the timeline of cold fusion. And I could call this timeline the rise and fall of cold fusion and how it flamed out and all this. So I'm going to give you first the sort of the official version of things that if you were to study it this is like out of Wikipedia and this is how cold fusion was thrown upon the world and then it was sort of proven wrong shown to be pathological science and discarded but there's more to the story than this there's more to the story including including murder okay so so the world takes notice oh my gosh

This could, this blows people's minds. This is the wildest claim. This is, this is crazy that you could have fusion at room temperature from a chemical, from a simple chemical experiment. And it would produce, you would know it was fusion because of a couple things. It would produce too much excess heat, energy that would heat up the water, that you wouldn't account for by any chemical process going on. And it would also produce artifacts of the,

the fusion process itself, physics artifacts such as neutrons, excess neutrons, the little neutron flux. I had worked in neutron physics leading up to this, so if you pay attention to these things when they cross your area of interest and experience, and excess gamma radiation, I think, and excess neutrinos, I think, if I recall correctly. So if you could find those and find excess heat, that would say, oh, we've got something here. So they thought they had found it. So a bunch of teams around the country and the world tried to duplicate this.

So April 10th, a group at Texas A&M reports excess heat production. A group at Texas Tech, Georgia Tech the same day, reports neutron production. Again, both signatures that say, oh, we've got something here. April 12th, pawns acclaimed at an 8th American Chemical Society meeting. And I would say these three days here, 10th, 11th, and 12th of April, two weeks after the original press conference, were the brief, just golden age of cold fusion enthusiasm. or for a couple days there, the world believes that we might have a new revolutionary energy source for humanity. All right. Let's make, I want to make sure I'm not missing any.

Okay, we've got $100 from, do we? Is it? Yes. I wish I had some kind of bell or something. $100 to boom diggedy. Love your shows, Matt. Would love your thoughts on thorium and how that is similar? are different than fusion.

I'm a science retard, so sorry if the question is extremely elementary. It is not extremely elementary. It's a great idea. I will do a show on that. I'm going to do a bunch of shows now. I'm going to about energy for a while, because we're, we're wartime now, are we not? And so I want to contribute to the war effort.

Did a lot of shows about cultural history and how great America is. Gonna bear down. I didn't do a bunch of shows about science for a while. I had to learn how to talk about science online on these kind of shows without sounding just like a physics professor. Because I love teaching classroom physics. I love to doing that. Both college level and also on a high school level to some degree, but high school students are crazy. So, you know, that was a little bit tougher.

And also the curriculum. I had to follow a curriculum from the school and stuff. But in the college classroom, I had such a great time doing that. But college, the way you teach about physics in a college lecture doesn't really translate over to this kind of format. Can't count on people, you know, in a classroom, I can say, oh, you got to show up every week. And I can count on people having seen previous episodes. We all got lives. We drop in and out. Maybe you miss a show or something like this.

I know you guys never miss a show. But that's the way it works. That's the reality of the real world, right? And also, using slides and things, that's the dust doesn't cut it. I have to use a chalkboard. Using a chalkboard, I'll talk about that sometime. Why chalkboards is the arena where physics really happens.

So not just in the classroom, but when physicists do their work, they use chalkboards. And without a chalkboard, it's like, it doesn't feel like I'm doing anything. I feel really hamstrung. But I think in the last couple of years, I think I've gotten comfortable enough with you guys, and you guys have made me feel good enough

that I have confidence now to dive back into these scientific subjects in a way that I think works online in a bad land context. So thank you, the boom diggedy. Thank you so much. I wish I had a clip. I've got to make a clip to play when people give money so that, you know, it's fun. We like to do that.

It's fun, right? So I would do, maybe like Spock saying pure energy, pure thought, like that. Maybe that. Maybe I'll use that. So I sort of did it on the fly right there. All right. So we have Texas A&M, sister institution to where I was about to go, University of Texas. And Georgia Tech, say, we've got it.

And then Pons is acclaimed American Chemical Society meeting. They're like, the great Pons is. has given us an energy source like Prometheus, you know? American Chemical Society, by the way. Their building in Washington, D.C. is named for a guy I worked for, and that my dad worked for for years and years, a guy named Clifford Hawk, H-A-C-H. He was a great chemist, industrial chemist,

and my dad worked for him in Iowa and Colorado, and I even worked for him for one summer in 1988, about the time all this was starting up. Okay, just had to mention that, to mention my dad and his that he worked for Cliff Hock and ACS building his name for him. It's because the Hock company gave him lots of money to build it. All right. All right.

April 13th, though, things begin to unravel the next day. Georgia Tech team retracts its claim about the neutron production. And a Caltech team reports they're unable to verify the claims. So now we've got, hmm. And the University of Utah, meanwhile, asks Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research. $25 million was a big chunk of money back then. Pons and Fleischman are scheduled to meet with President Bush,

George H.W. Bush, on May 6th. And so they have congressional hearings on the 26th, though, and Stanford University is the only one that shows up in support and says, we believe Pons and Fleischman, their results. Okay. All this is happening so fast. This is lightning speed. And like I said, I remember this playing out and how excited everybody.

I wasn't yet at graduate school, but you could see the excitement building up. And so April 30th, 1989, the New York Times, although it declares cold fusion dead because of the negative results that are coming in and the backtracking. And so the New York Times, which of course is the authoritative sort of, of truth in science. I'm joking, of course. It is, but the New York Times is the authority, the New York Times declares cold fusion dead. You know, that sounds so weird to me that they would do.

And they did it in a, they called it the Utah fusion circuits. They did it in an unsigned editorial. So it's like, okay, all right, New York Times. Thank you for being the authoritative source on science. Just like Fox News was the authoritative source on who won the Arizona. who won the Arizona electoral votes on November 3rd, 2020. It's that kind of thing.

All right. The next day, the Boston Herald ridicules Cold Fusion. Then there's an American Physics Society. So the chemists had their meeting. Now the American Physics Society has a meeting in Baltimore, and they have a special session about Cold Fusion. They're nine leading speakers, and eight of them stated that they considered

the initial Fleischman in Ponds claim dead. Caltech researcher Coonan, who would later go on to work in the Obama administration Department of Energy and be a well work for a British petroleum the competence and delusion because the incompetence and delusion of pawns and flechman so really harsh words about fellow scientists really common and one of the CERN researchers on the panels not CUNIN I should have changed the name they said call it was the first to call it pathological science that's why I talked about that at the beginning so and then on the Fourth, the meetings with the various representatives from Washington are canceled.

I presume that means the meeting with President Bush was canceled, too. All of a sudden, everybody wants to, based on all this negative stuff, all of a sudden, everybody's, oh, this is dead, and they're running from it now. May 6th, May 6th, Time Magazine had had a cover that I think you can see there about fusion or illusion, okay? So now, now it's, you know, now the trend is down, you know, just six weeks after this all started. And then May 8th, only Texas A&M results are still being asserted as being validating the results. And the Texas A&M team would hold on for a while. Throughout the summer and fall then of 1989, negative journal articles appear in nature saying

cold fusion doesn't work based on the results they're finding. But meanwhile, in August, the University of Utah, which had asked Congress for money, establishes the National Cold Fusion Institute with $4.5 million, so a lesser amount of money than they asked Congress for. So the NCFI, National Cold Fusion Research Institute. And then in November, the Department of Energy has a special panel report on it, says there's no compelling evidence for cold fusion. fusion. So the trend is definitely down. And then throughout 1990, by the, by, so I'm, by now I'm in graduate school and now I'm getting, I can take the temperature, so to speak, no pun intended, of the people around me and the, and by then it, cold fusion really had, it was like, oh, well, it was a nice

idea, but clearly it didn't work. There'd been a couple guys at UT who'd been tabled with it, but really it was our sister institution at A&M who'd really taken the lead. And by then, by 1990, fall of 1989, and it's a spring of 1990, it was sort of like, ooh, how embarrassing for them that they fell for this hoax. You know, that was sort of the attitude. So in March, though, Michael Salomon, a physicist from the University of Utah, so this is at Utah now, and nine co-authors reported negative results. University faculty were then stunned when a lawyer representing Pons and Fleishman. So Pons and Fleischman really stirred up, you know, they really brought a lot of stuff on themselves. Demanded that the Solomon paper be retracted under threat of a lawsuit.

The lawyer later apologized. Fleischman defended the threat as a legitimate reaction to the alleged bias displayed by the cold fusion critics. So critics within the same department as Pons and Fleischman are attacking them, and they're threatened to sue them, which is, you know, that's just crazy in the scientific community to think of that. In May, then, of 1990, one of the two A&M researchers, so now we're back to Texas A&M, Kevin Wolfe, acknowledged the possibility of spiking. In other words, you know, something bad experiment, but said that the most likely explanation was tritium contamination in the palladium electrodes are simply contamination due to sloppy work.

So basically saying, well, you know what? results made a bit bogus. So now things are really crumbling. You know, they'd crumbled by then, but now the last little legs of support are being kicked out from under the whole process. June article in science by science writer Gary Taubes destroyed the public credibility of A&M Tridium Research when he accused its group leader, John Botches, Bokris, and one of his graduate students of spiking the cells with Tridium.

In other words, just salting the results, faking it. That's just the highest level of fraud. Talms, by the way, is the author of this book. I don't know if you can see it. This is Nobel Dreams. He actually goes against, takes apart a Nobel Prize winner at CERN. So he's that kind of journalist. He's a scientific journalist.

So he attacked the Texas A&M team as for faking their results, which is that serious accusation. And by the way, science that he published that in, that's like nature. Those are both sort of the big, all the sciences, the prestige journal. All right. September, National Cold Fusion Research Institute, so the one at Utah, list 92 groups of researchers from 10 countries that had reported corroborating evidence of excess heat. So they say, no, there's 92 groups.

in 10 countries that say they found it, but they refused to provide any evidence of their own, arguing that it could endanger their patents. Again, the patent issue is, it was a big issue in all this. By this point, however, academic consensus had moved decidedly towards labeling cold fusion as a kind of pathological science. Yeah, that's definitely, I would say, is correct from my experience recollection. By the, by 1990, it was so over by fall of 1990.

1990. But again, that's just, I'm just giving you the, on the surface story. Wolf finally said that the results were explained by tritium. So this is the guy at Texas A&M. So he finally said, you know what? I think it was contamination. He didn't say we faked it, but he said it was contaminated. An A&M cold fusion review panel found the tritium evidence was not convincing and that, well, they couldn't rule out spiking. So tridium is something you would expect to find if it were valid. It should have been. mention that. It's basically a form of helium, but that's not important. Contamination and measurement problems were more likely explanations, and Bacchrist never got support from his faculty to resume his research. Okay. Well, so now the roof is caved in. 1991 then, Pons leaves the University of Utah and goes to Europe. In June, June 30th, 1991, the National Cold Fusion Institute, the one at Utah closes after it runs out of funds. So now, you know, now it's all over but the cry in. It found no excess heat and its reports of tritium production were met with indifference.

Eugene Malov, okay, there's another thing. A guy named Eugene Malib at MIT, this is the guy at MIT, a physicist at MIT, publishes fire and ice defending cold fusion. We're going to get to him in a moment. 1990s there's multiple books published, most of them critical of Cold Fusion. A few are defend it like Malov, the book I've just mentioned. 1992 Pons and Fleischman resume research in France with Toyota's I-M-R-A lab. So they're over in France trying to do it, what they did in Utah.

Fleischman leaves for England in 1995, and the contract with Ponds is not renewed. in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results. So they continue churning away for a couple years, but without results they can show. 1997, Japan cuts off research and closes its own lab after spending $20 million. In 1998, the University of Utah no longer conducting cold fusion research at all. The Toyota Lab in France stopped cold fusion research after spending 12 million pounds. Pons makes no public declaration since then, since 1998.

But Fleischman continues giving talks and publishing papers saying, we actually found it. He keeps saying we found this. In the 2000s, there's been multiple attempts to revive research by private research groups, including Google. We'll get to that. Okay. So let's go back to this now.

Let's go back to this email here of, oh, this is not the one I wanted. Let's see. There we go. This is the one I wanted. So let's go back now and look at this email from Jeffrey Epstein, which was 2009, where he says, I killed pawns. I killed this whole idea. I think he means to say he's stifled cold fusion research.

What does that mean? Well, let's put it, there are a couple messages. There's one from Al Seckle before that, and then there's one follow up. Part of a longer chain, I couldn't find other emails. I'd love to. But as part of the previous email, there's just been, I think, a few minutes before that based on time zones, Al Seckle, the spokesman for science, skeptic, et cetera, had said, as in passing, in an email about disinformation in science, he said, by the way, Jeffrey, for your amusement, I spent part of the last month investigating a new cold fusion device. So this is 2009.

For our billionaire engineer pals on the West Coast, who were about to. sink millions of dollars into this thing. I initially sent the free letter of be careful, be very careful, et cetera, but got in response to a long letter filled with claims on how this was going to solve the various energy problems, et cetera. The material was good enough to fool an educated layman, but not an expert. They hired me and I sorted out. No surprise. So he's an expert. He didn't even, he doesn't even have a degree. He's just a self-appointed ex one of those guys. Not an expert. I hired me to sort it out.

No surprise, it was less efficient, not more efficient. Junk science throughout. And then that's when Epstein replies, regarding cold fusion, I killed pawns years ago. And then the Seckle replies, don't leave me hanging, Jeff. I want to know your relationship to pawns and cold fusion, smiley emoji. So when I read this, I got some clarity

about what they might have meant then, which is a little bit less lurid than it sounds. Which is that to me this sounds like Al Seckle being his sort of skeptic, like, I'm an expert and these guys at Google, we're gonna spend this money and I told him not to because I'm the expert. And then Epstein comes back and he's basically,

he's basically dunking on Seckle here maybe saying, hey, I killed Pons. years ago. Like, you think you have any sway? Well, I, let me tell you. So he's sort of jacking it up on Seckle, maybe. And then, you know, and Seckle's like, Seckle's clearly the guy who wants to write more to Epstein than Epstein's willing to write back. And he's like, oh, tell me, Jeff, tell me. You know, so it sounds like that. It sounds like, you know, Seckles trying to brag about how he, he's this great scientific expert and he's defending a, you know, against the falsity of cold fusion.

And Epstein apparently is like saying, hey, you're talking to the OG cold fusion debunker here. So come on. That's one interpretation. That's one interpretation. But it's sort of vague, isn't it? Maybe it means something else. So, okay.

Later, on the 14th of that same year, Seckle writes to Epstein, about evaluating the confusion device for Google. It's probably the same thing as the other email. I'm saving their asses from investing millions in the junk science. Lately, there's been an outbreak of energy devices promising clean, renewable energy, but they are crackpot. And they look scientific, have enough scientific and technical jargon to fool the educated layperson,

but not the expert. At least I am getting paid doing this type of physics. So, okay, whatever, dude. All right. Is that, maybe that's all there is to it. Maybe that's all, but maybe not. All right. So where are we at?

704. Okay, so we got a little bit more time. So I want to, I want to, well, first of all, let's say tonight's episode of Spell Breakers is brought to you in part by, who's our next sponsor? What is? Oh, oh, yeah. It's, our next sponsor is, oh, soft disclosure. Get you some of that beard oil. Now that I'm alone at the close up, do you see how awesome my beard looks right now?

I use the beard oil every single day. First thing, comes out feeling all silky smooth. I take the dropper and I manually apply the oil directly to my mustache. Nice and, oh man, I love it. And then I do drops all throughout the hair and then I just rub it all in. And then I top it off with the tallow stick on the face. I feel like I have to grow a beard just to try this beer oil. It's not amazing.

It's all from Soft Disclosure.com, and the best part about it is you will be supporting Badlands Media, Annie from Willowen Farms and basically three of Annie's neighbors. So that's five total American companies that you'd be supporting with one purchase. I have been using the Soft Disclosure, scentless beard oil every day after the shower. It looks unkempt, but it can't. but it feels silky smooth. I want to look a little wild and unapproachable, but for the woman I trust, she'll be like, oh, it's actually kind of soft.

He is approachable after all. Otherwise, stay away. And soft disclosure will help you too with that, if that's the very specific vibe you're going for. That is very specific, yes. You guys are supporting American businesses when you do that. It's absolutely incredible, and you get a great, great product. And we're also sponsored by, well, of course, by Gart.

Patriots, the fight for truth doesn't stop at the screen. It's hitting the road again. Badlands Media is rolling into Nashville on April 9th through 12th for the next stop on the Great American Restoration Tour. Join your favorite Badlands hosts and like-minded Americans for three powerful days. packed with unfiltered discussions, deep dive panels, and real debate. Hear the raw truth, ask the tough questions. No topic too hot, no question too bold. Guard is where our community comes alive.

Tickets are on sale now at badlandsmedia.tv slash guard, where you can also grab a virtual pass and watch from home. Join us to question narratives and fight for America's future. Nashville is calling. The restoration continues. Get your passes today. See you in Music City. All right.

And we're back. Back? Good to see you all. I noticed the special said, A&M is not Texas's sister school. There are our little brother. An annoying one you try to forget. Yeah, you know, it's, it was, you know,

once, the fraternity of science sort of supersedes some of that to some degree. I know what you're talking about. I mean, I get, when Texas plays A&M every year, I, you know, I'm there burnt orange all the way, you know. But when among scientists, you know, it's not like, it's not like we're sitting over here in Austin looking at A&M floundering in the cold fusion debacle, which that's what we thought at the time at least.

and it's going, ah, ha, ha, A-N-M, you know, there but for the grace of God could have been, could have been Texas, right? But, you know, it's not like that, you know, because everybody knows each other. It's a small world. So among the physics department, there was a sense of, oh, those guys, poor guys, you know, they got, they got suckered into this. Because I just want to mention, stop here at this point, and say, this whole thing I just went through with you that timeline but the rise a quick rise and flame out of cold fusion and then

the long tail of the pathetic grinding down of the last shreds of validity of it over the next years and the sad end of the research programs and all this well most of that i did not follow the later part of that past say 90 91 the stuff in 89 and 90 90 the stuff in 89 and 90s I did follow. It was just part of the news. You sort of did follow it. And it was part of being, especially in graduate school when you're talking to everybody and your big eye and you're trying to find your way to your own research and all this. That's all that stuff is stuff I sort of knew about and followed at the time. And I can tell you that sort of captures the essence of what it was like. But that's only maybe part of the story. It's only part of the story. There's more to the

story. And this is what I learned about. First of all, first of all, I'm going to go through a bunch of slides really quickly here. Now, we're going to get into some weeds, into some weeds, but we're going to go through the weeds quickly. Not into the weeds. We're going to get into some tall grass, some tall grass. Because the thing is, the way I heard it at the time, and the way most people thought of at the time, was that cold fusion is something that just sort of came out of nowhere. It came out of nowhere. The flight flight from the ponds came up with this unprecedented crazy idea in this crazy lab experiment that there could be fusion at room temperature that could produce energy. That's the way I understood it at the time. And but that's not true at all. It turns out

there was a whole history going back a hundred years about this idea. So let's, I just want to, I was going to go through this quickly so you can get a, sense of context. Now, you don't have to follow this closely. I'm just going to go through it just to give you a frame of reference. The Fleishman and Ponds didn't come out of nowhere. This was an idea of people that kicked around. So the, and so the, here are we? Can we go back to our slides, please? Here we go. Back in 1866 is when a guy named Thomas Graham discovered that the palladium, the metal that the Fleischman and Ponds used, could absorb. orb hydrogen in this way. That's a key part of the cold fusion thing. Well, this had been known

since 1866. All right. Next slide. And then in 1926, so 100 years ago this year, listen to this. Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, Germans, publish a article in Naturvision Shoften, which was a which was part of Springer Verlog, which would become owned by the Maxwells. And we went through that last week. They published an article, and we'll just coincidence at this point, because this is before all that, reported, they reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room to.

temperature. Wait a minute. That's what Fleischman and Ponds were doing. However, the authors later retracted that report saying that the helium they measured was due to background from the air. Hmm. That's interesting, though, isn't it? That he did the same thing and thought he found something? I think that's really interesting. And then in 1927, there was a Swedish guy who thought he found pretty much the same thing, John Tanberg. Very similar to, he used heavy water, which is a form of water with deuterium in it, as I mentioned last week. This is almost exactly what Fleischman and Pons were doing.

Now, but there's no evidence Fleshman and Ponds knew about this stuff, but it's interesting this is an idea that's been around a while, isn't it? This is another big clue, I think. And then we have something called muon-catalyzed fusion. So this is another form of room temperature fusion. And this is accepted by the scientific community. This was hypothesized and later discovered late 40s, throughout the 50s, up to 1957.

So muons, those are heavy electrons. That's all you need to think about it for right now. And this actually does give you fusion at room temperature. But the problem is you don't, you, you, and it might be a power source. This is what Steve Jones at PYU would be working on, by the way. This is real. So why don't we use it?

What's the deal? The problem is, is, um, mouons are not something you can buy off the shelf. You have to make them. They live for a couple microseconds, which is actually long in the scale of nuclear reactions. And it would be plenty of time to do a cascading fusion reaction. It sounds short, but it's not. But the problem is. to create muons is a lot of work, and it takes more energy to create these muons and to supply them

than you would get back out there. So that's the part that's the problem. And that's pretty much considered an unsurmountable barrier. Since 1957 by a guy named J.D. Jackson, every, at the time when Cold Fusion was playing out, I was taking a course where the textbook was written by J.D. Jackson. Where is my copy of Jackson? Jackson's classical, ElectroDynamics. If you've ever, if you're, if you're a physicist and you went through graduate school at any time recently, you use this book. I used it so much the cover came off of my copy of J.D. Jackson's of classical electrodynamics. He does not discuss muon catalyzed fusion in there. But it's real, but it just is not practical. So Fleischman and Pond supposedly found a different way to make it. But Steve Jones, that's what he was working on with this alternate thing. He coined the term cold fusion. Again, it would be nice if it could be done, but it's not practical at all. Now, I wanted to mention Steve Jones.

One thing about it, you may have heard of this guy. He is one of the guys that promoted early on the idea that the Twin Towers were destroyed by nanothermite. Yes, believe it or not, that's Steve Jones, same Steve and E. Jones. So there's that. Just throw that in. This is weird.

This subject is just a rabbit hole that this is so weird. Okay. But again, there's the cold fusion research goes on. There have been attempts to revive it. We're not going to be able to talk about it tonight, but we'll get to those next week as we move forward. By next week we're going to talk about more like, is, we want to get to the idea, is this real after all? And can it be found?

What's going on? What's the state of the current research? We're going to do that next week. for now we just have to finish up with some some lured things all right so at 2026 there's still people trying to do muon catalyzed fusion and make it practical there's a lab that that specializes in this all right there's people doing that trying that there's attempts that here's national geographic cold fusion remains elusive but these scientists may revive the quest this was 2019 all right more articles attempts to do this so we're going to get into that but mainly that you know this is the

1989 New York Times saying, fusion in a jar, recklessness and brilliance. That's still where science officially is at. But now, let's get to this. Eugene Malov, this is going to be the, this is, we'll get to this. We've got to get to this at the last tonight. So I didn't even know about this guy, but I read a tweet about him, an ex post about him just a couple days ago that had popped up. So Gene Franklin Malov, aerospace engineer from MIT, PhD.

in environmental engineering from Harvard. In 1989, the chemistry doctors, Fleishman and Stanley Pons, announced that they had achieved cold fusion. Months later, MIT stated the experiment was erroneous, okay? But Malo's at MIT, and he says, not so fast. In Malab, who was the editor-in-chief of MIT Technology Review magazine, resigned from his position denouncing the data had been manipulated against Fleischman and Ponds.

and that the Fleischman-Pond's experiment was correct. So a voice of dissent saying there's fraud going on. He founded a scientific magazine, Infinite Energy, dedicated to exploring alternative energy sources. So, by the way, please give a thumbs up if you're liking the show. Please do give a thumbs up. We really like that, a like. And like I said, in 1991, he published one of the most definitive early books on Cold Fusion

called Fire and Ice, which I've since bought. Right? But his story, unfortunately, has a twist. So here's Infinite Energy. This was a website he curated for a while. So this guy with a lot of chops. This guy with a lot of chops. July 2004, scientists violent death shocks Cold Fusion Research Network. So basically, in May 2004, he was brutally murdered, Eugene Malo. Eugene Malav, one of Cold Fusion's most ardent advocates, was overjoyed in April when the U.S. Department of Energy agreed to give the scorned subject in another review. To him, it was a breakthrough.

Years of work trying to get mainstream science to pay attention to Cold Fusion seemed to be paying off. But a month later, a month later, oh, I got a rumble rant. Reverhart 29. $10, thank you. Matt, you're just way too smart for this general science biology BS. mindset. I can follow in my I can follow an understanding is limited but you're good at explaining it. Yeah, so long as you can follow at the time, then that I feel like I've done my job because it takes me a while to absorb all this. This is you got to let it sink in. So hopefully if

even if all this is new to you and go and buy in a blur, believe me, it'll sink in at some point because you'll hear it again and it'll make sense the next time. That's how it works. All right, trust me. Trust me. So this guy thought, oh, it's real he in in april the department of energy was going to going to give it a shot years of work trying to get mainstream science to pay attention to cold fusion seemed to be paying off but a month later on may 14th maloff was dead brutally murdered at his childhood home in norwich connecticut so they didn't make an arrest it took him years to make an arrest we'll see uh so maloff 56 a massachusetts mit graduate with chief scientist writer at mit when the cold fusion debacle exploded

in 1989, skeptical at first, he soon became a believer and grew increasingly frustrated with the scientific establishment's refusal to re-examine Cold Fusion. Finally, in 1991, he quit, disgusted with what he saw his mainstream scientist unwillingness to look seriously at Cold Fusion. So he wrote the book in 91. He's murdered in 2004, right when he thinks the Department of Energy is going to resume research on it. And we could read the whole thing, but But it's basically, it talks about him here. So 2005, a couple of men are arrested, but then the case goes nowhere and they're let go in 2008. The case is dismissed.

State of Connecticut is a reward. Finally, they arrest some other people in 2011. There's charges filed in 2012. In 2016, someone's finally convicted of it. and a 41-year-old Moselle Brown, so years later, they convict somebody for this murder, saying basically, oh, he was angry because this guy, his parents were being thrown out. They were living in the house where Malov's parents owned. And Malov was there to clean it out, and this guy came and murdered him.

That's the official story, at least. There was a plea bargain, et cetera. So it's like, oh, case closed, I guess, right? Case closed, I guess. That's, you know, but, you know, and then there's, you know, there's that. Then there's, of course, we had just three months ago, MIT professor and fusion scientists shot dead at his home. So this was the case of that Portuguese scientist, Nuro Lureiro, who was killed in his house. Another fusion researcher, not a cold fusion guy per se, but a fusion researcher.

And this was, eventually they think it was the guy. remember the Brown University thing where that guy barged into the lab and killed somebody? And he was not on camera. And it was all confusing. How could they not be on camera? And then they later tracked him down. And they said, oh, then he went and shot this fusion researcher at MIT. And they pinned it on him.

And he committed suicide at a storage unit in New Hampshire. So, okay. in New York Times, big along article about him. He basically went to, he, it's like, he went to Brown in 2000, 2001, and they basically dropped out of contact with society. And then he pops back up again, 25 years later in this murder.

Like, what the heck? You know, and he's Portuguese, so there's that connection with the Portuguese researcher at MIT. Do we buy all this? Is this something making sense? This is sounding really weird, right? And that's only one of a bunch of weird, like maybe six or seven strange murders of people connected to defense research of scientists.

There was the guy at Caltech, too, killed at his home. All of them supposedly, oh, it was an intruder, et cetera. But it sounds sort of weird, doesn't it? All right. So we have Epstein. I killed Pons years ago. Pons was not murdered. but we did have a couple fusion researchers were murdered.

Malov in 2004 and La Rairo just in December of 2005. And, oh, and there's one more little twist, too. One more twist. And then we're going to call it a night and pick up again next week. Well, we're going to try to figure out if they're a little, we're going to dive deeper into this. So I got a hold of Malov's book, Fire and Ice. I have it on Kindle.

I started reading it. I might read part of it next week. It's really good because he sort of says, this is real. Not Israel, but this is real. And he writes well, and I'm going to try to read it, Fire and Ice, and read it for next week. So I'm not like general quest where I give homework, but, you know, if you want to read along, there's that. Okay. So right before Malov was murdered, he wrote his open letter to the world.

So Richard Hoagland received Gene Malov's open letters to the world, less than 24 hours before Dr. Malov was brutally murdered in May 14th, 2004. He sets a go. So I read it over. There's nothing too shocking in it. And by the way, that's wrong. There's one of the editors says, no, he didn't write it the day before this letter. It was written about a couple months before.

But it's an interesting, it basically lays out. about, you know, what, so there's his book, Fire and Ice, get into that, we're pivoting to more general energy topics, some of these other things. But he talks about some of the things, mentioned zero point energy if some of you heard of that. And we're going to branch out and explore some of these things. Because everything's about energy right now, isn't it? Universal Abil for Support by Dr. Gene F. Malov, President, New Energy Foundation Incorporated, editor-in-chief Infinite Energy Magazine. To all the people of the world.

Okay, so it's an open letter. I posted the link to his open letter in the Rumble chat because it's from the Wayback Machine. And I didn't even know about it. I never heard of this. But I found it. So maybe it's all just a coincidence. Maybe he was murdered by somebody who had a grudge of beef against his parents

and all this. Maybe it has nothing to do with anything. Maybe cold fusion is junk science. Maybe it's pathological science. But there's something, there's, there feels like there's something weird going on, doesn't it? Okay. So spellbreakers. So we're going to, we're going to wrap up here with 725.

And we're going to, I'm going to jump over to only lands, only fans, only lands here in a minute. We'll do a raid. But I just wanted to say, yeah, let's see. Oh, you know what? I haven't been paying to the YouTube chat. Can I do that? Can I say, anybody been just check for, okay, for that. Okay, comments in YouTube. All right. Hello. Okay. Hello people in YouTube. Give the show a like. Yeah, please do give the show a like in YouTube too. All right. Thank you. If you're impelled, I can't see what's going on over in pill. Okay. All right. So, Yeah, and as promised, this will probably break the copyright thing, but I'm going to do it anyway. I'm going to do it anyway.

We're going to do it live. Yeah, I won't swear. But yeah, we're going to do it live. I'm so glad this to just to have. Okay. Carol, maybe we'll do longer next time, but we're trying to sneak by copyright rights now. That'll probably get copyright hit right there. But, hey, this is an experiment.

It's all an experiment. So I'm going to send you over to OnlyLands. I'm just going to check the chat one more time here on Rumble. Thank you all for coming tonight. Thank you all. Thank you, Sammy, for your excess heat. Boomdiggity posted a link. Going to check that out.

Going to check that out, definitely. Carol, yes, Carol's back. Eleanor 2000, thank you. Onlylans. Thank you, Spetzel, for the link, as usual. We're going to jump over there. Thank you all. EC was here.

I suggest excess heat. Alas, it's out of print. Okay, I'll check that out too. Yeah. Tesla, John Trump, and Baron Trump should be the number one research item now. Do not underestimate the existence and information that he has, McLean.

Okay. You know, there's a lot of stuff that I have not looked into. There's a lot of stuff that you guys probably know more about it than I do. But I'm going to try to be the guy, use my training that I got years ago, to bring the bear on it to make some, some judgments about it. So, all right. The boom digity. The guy looks like a black virgin of him.

I see what you mean. I don't think too hard when I'm listening. I actually grasp it better. Big picture versus tiny details. I appreciate you, Matt. It's Katie Rose 23. Thank you. That's the way I like to teach. I like to teach in a way. Well, I just teach. I left to I liked to teach. I don't I don't teach in the classroom anymore. But when I did, I like to all my, all my, all my, students were not physics majors. All my students at the University of Texas were, it was for a, they were non-science majors and they were taken my class as a, as, as their science requirement. So they were usually either freshmen or they were in their last semester before they graduated and

they put it off. And I loved, loved, loved the idea, I loved where I could get my students to be surprised at how much they understood. I hate it. I never wanted to get up there and just flap my gums and say, this is what physics is. Aren't you impressed by this knowledge? And then go, and the people walk out going, you know what, I'm just as confused as I was when I walked in. I never wanted that to happen. I always wanted to make people feel like they had, they had learned more than they thought they could. It's taken me a while to get back to this, that here on streaming. because it's a different medium altogether.

But tonight you guys made me feel like I'm a little bit back to that. I really, I really appreciate you. I thank you for all that. Okay, now let's go over and raid. Let's go over and raid only land. So we're going to pop over there. Do I need, let's me think. Do I need to do anything else?

I'm going to play the outro, the Badlands Outro, and then when it's over, we'll hop over there. So I'll see you guys all next week. We'll continue on with this subject. And we're going to set up that in some ways we're going to do some stuff so the people get really We can talk about a lot of the alternative energy things going on because it's really exciting We want to close we want the closing thing Where is it? Here we go

Thank you so much for joining us and don't forget to hit the thumbs up on this video and a special thank you to all of our advertising partners Please remember to shift your dollars to support those businesses that support badlands media Okay, I can't raid I'm getting an error trying to do the raid for some reason tried in the URL is correct so hop on over to only lands we'll publish it right here through it in again and I'll see you over there if you like so bye-bye