Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Talk:Directory:Dennis Lee

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:30 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Dennis Lee.

Image:Dennis Lee and Machine 95x95.jpg

Exploring the enigma that is Dennis Lee -- perhaps the most controversial figure in the field of free energy, bar none. Some consider him an energy savior, others, a shyster. While his free energy technology might be dubious, the sincerity of Lee and his followers is a force to be reckoned with.


Dennis Lee v. Eric Krieg

On Dec. 13, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:

I have a hard time listening to Dennis. Mixing religion and

science/business is a red herring, distracting people from the new

technology issue by associating it with something they feel obliged

religiously to believe, if the are a Christian. If they are not Christian,

then it becomes an obnoxious distraction from the message they came to hear:


That aside, I did tune in to the March 19 show.

"dropped National Union American Families -- that is a lie"

To accuse something as being a "lie" he has to show that Eric knew

otherwise, had been told otherwise, and said this anyone, knowing better.

Otherwise it's just a misunderstanding or a misstatement, which is not the

same thing as a lie. I didn't catch enough of the context to know Krieg's


A lie is knowing something to be true, and making a statement that is

blatantly contrary.

"Krieg says: 'Dennis' former partner, Paul Pantone, is in jail.' I've never

been a partner of Pantone. That's a lie."

It's dishonest of Dennis to paint that as a "lie." Dennis got his PICC

technology from Pantone from some kind of former relationship with Pantone.

Call it what you want, but a simplistic word to describe that relationship

would be "partner," and is not a stretch. It is a stretch for Dennis to

call that a "lie." Krieg's statement specified "former" and "partner" would

imply a tight relationship, which was accurate. Dennis is messing with

semantics by calling it a "lie" because he wasn't a "partner." That is

lame, in my opinion.

Then Dennis quote Krieg: "Dennis broke his promise of free energy delivery

of March, July, Dec. 28, 2002." Again in the defense, Dennis gets into

semantics, saying he didn't "promise" yet he even admits that he did say:

"We announced that we were going to do it, because we had, in writing, from

the unions, the fact the they were indeed going to join our program. That

turned out that they betrayed us. I did say something and do something I

said 'I'm going to do this on Dec. 28 I'm absolutely going to do it.' I

should never have done that." In the next sentence, he contradicts himself,

"But I've never promised with a date and a time that I'm going to show free

electricity, ever." (ending 35:36 on the recording).

He then has the audacity to say that Krieg is guilty of a "bold face lie" by

saying that Dennis "promised to do it." I think Dennis is more the liar

than Krieg here, if we are calling a "lie" a misrepresentation of the true

intent of what took place (which is not the dictionary definition of the

word, by the way).

I've spend enough time listening to this alleged defense by Dennis of

himself from the statements of Krieg.

>From what I heard to this point in the recording, I see Dennis as far more

dishonest, even if I didn't know anything about Krieg. Dennis hangs


Now that doesn't mean that I believe I have enough evidence to disbelieve

the 50%+ claim of your ad, but it does make me more dubious.

I am not convinced that Krieg is the liar. To the contrary, I see Dennis

Lee as the wordsmith full of contradictions that are dishonest and twist the

truth. That doesn't mean he doesn't have legitimate technology, but it does

cast a dark shadow on the legitimacy of his claims, and it heightens the

need for independent corroboration.

- - - -

On Dec. 27, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:


To understand Dennis Lee, you need to know something.

I really do not believe that he thinks of himself as a scammer or a charlatan.

He honestly believes his stuff, including his mistruths. He paints things in whatever way is needed to sooth his conscience and maintain his self-image as a man of God on a mission.

His mind is impervious to someone pointing out to him mistakes he has made. Rather, he goes into auto-spin mode to turn every negative into a positive, reflecting well on his intentions and methods.

He's a man of God, in his mind.

It isn't a matter of facts. It's a matter of belief.

And it is that very religious paradigm that makes him a lousy scientist. It's not about science, it's about moving forward in faith in what God told him to do (or so he thinks).

Once you understand that, I think you'll be able to have more leverage in wording things in a less offensive way.

In saying he's a "liar", you must prove that he knew one thing and intentionally said another, with the intent to deceive.

I don't think "liar" is ever an operative word with Dennis Lee so you'll not get much mileage in trying to prove that he is a liar.

I think the words "untrue", "false", "incorrect" would be more useful. They don't reflect on moral intention, but only reflect on the bottom line: is the claim true or is it not?

Furthermore, your arguments about Lee tend to come across as "his technology does not work". However, they usually do work to some extent -- just not as well as he typically claims it does. It's a matter of degrees, not all or nothing. As long as you portray it in extremes, you're going to be viewed with as much of a jaundiced eye as Dennis is viewed.

I recommend that you tone down your rhetoric to more closely reflect these realities, and I think you'll get more mileage out of your admonitions to caution.

Hope that helps.