Division 03 · Research & Publishing
The claims at the edge of what science can prove or disprove — examined with primary sources, explicit confidence levels, and no agenda. No cheerleading. No reflexive debunking.
How We Research
We investigate topics where there's a meaningful gap between what the public understands and what the peer-reviewed literature actually says. That gap is usually created by overclaiming enthusiasts (who exaggerate what the data shows) and reflexive skeptics (who dismiss real research because it sounds unusual). We go to the primary sources first.
Every factual claim needs a primary source — a peer-reviewed paper with DOI, a patent with filing number, a direct researcher statement on record, or a regulatory document. We map every claim to its primary source before writing begins. Secondary sources (news, Wikipedia, YouTube) are used only to understand the popular narrative, never as factual authority.
Each claim gets a status: Verified (primary source confirms), Unverified (plausible but no primary source found), Disputed (primary sources contradict each other), or Fabricated (claim has no traceable origin). We don't drop unverified claims — we publish them with their status, because the gap itself is data.
We read what researchers in the field have said publicly — interviews, academic talks, conference proceedings, and published rebuttals. Where researchers disagree, we present both positions with the evidence each side cites. We don't pick winners in active scientific debates; we map the terrain.
The draft is written for a reader who is smart but not a physicist. No jargon without immediate definition. Every equation gets a sentence explaining what it means physically. Analogies are chosen for accuracy first, memorability second. If an analogy is misleading, it doesn't appear.
The finished draft goes through a final fact-check pass: every number, every name, every date, every claim checked against its cited source. Errors from the draft that don't match sources are corrected. The document is then published with a version history so corrections are visible, not buried.
What Makes This Different
Every factual claim is cited to a peer-reviewed paper, patent, or direct on-record statement. No Wikipedia. No secondary journalism as authority.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't amplify what researchers hope to be true. We report what the data actually shows.
Real peer-reviewed research isn't dismissed because it sounds unusual. Moddel's PRR 2021 results are reported as what they are — not as fraud, not as proven.
Verified claims, unverified claims, and disputed claims are labeled as such. The reader knows what is settled and what is open.
Active Research
Flagship Investigation
Zero Point Energy Explained
The most complete plain-English investigation of zero point energy harvesting available online. Covers Harold White's Casimir chip, Garrett Moddel's PRR 2021 peer-reviewed results, why DIY coil circuits fail (frequency gap of 10 billion times), 30 FAQs, interactive Casimir force calculator, and a bibliography of 40+ primary sources.
Read the investigation at mrmontoya.com →Read the Research
All published investigations are available free at mrmontoya.com. Subscribe for new publication announcements.