It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Suppressed technologies

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:06 AM
Well Ive been following the works of Tom E Bearden and his colleages now for the last 15yrs or so (damm i feel old :@@

He is one of the main engineers who helped develop the MEG unit (motionless electromagnetic generator) which is looking to solve alot of our energy issues in the future if only the system would invest in his work.

here is a link to the MEG site

here is a link to his homepage with alot of intresting papers on energy generation and even a cure for cancer.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:22 PM
EMG(s) power UFOs, i mean think about it, our earth has a electromag field, an if u can harness that ability to create yer own EMG field then u could prolly make it the exact opposite of the earth's then would just be a matter of changing the EMG's freq. an u can glide on air.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:30 PM
Back in the 1980s I built a redesigned prototype of Pogue's 200mpg carburetor. Many people were at the time. The ads for the plans were in all the popular magazines. At 15 bucks a pop it was quite a deal!
The problem is, they worked! I got 150mpg on a 72 Ford Torino Station Wagon with a 351 Cleveland engine. No Bull!
I said "the problem is that they work" because when the oil companies got wind of this stuff they invented a new additive that would render these devices useless after a time.
I don't know what the additive does, but I think it coats the inside of the heat exchanger in some way that cuts down on the efficiency after a while.
If you can make your own ethanol it will still work though.
I sold that car for a lot of money, but after 5 years or so the guy told me it was only getting 70mpg and seemed to be getting worse.
He and I built another carb just like my original and put it on the same car. Mileage went back up to 135mpg for about 2 weeks and then started slowly falling again.
The oil companies will do all they can to stop you from doing this.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
Back in the 1980s I built a redesigned prototype of Pogue's 200mpg carburetor. Many people were at the time. The ads for the plans were in all the popular magazines. At 15 bucks a pop it was quite a deal!
The problem is, they worked! I got 150mpg on a 72 Ford Torino Station Wagon with a 351 Cleveland engine. No Bull!

I'm not trying to diss you, i'm just curious, doesn't such a high mileage indicate that less fuel is used per stroke, ie. that the air/fuel ratio is diluted proportionally to the increase in mileage? if so, you were approaching surreal values (assuming 30mp, standard ratio 1:14, -> 1:90
) of dilution, weren't you? this would indicate a significant change of fuel characterisitics, (like the use of magnets on fuel lines just much stronger in effect). This would also explain why an additive could disable the carburetor...

I'd imagine this stuff must have been used in WW2 to increase the range of piston engine fighters, even if not regularly.

wait: says that

He gives the histories of different units and relates that while giving a lecture he mentioned that a tank mechanic had told him about W W 2 use of the Pogue system and was interrupted by a ex-tank driver who confirmed the story. Later, at another lecture, another military driver claimed 50 M.P.G. using a secret box carburetor. He states also about Detroit production test super carbs that would slip out to the market. He states his fears of suppression and his hopes for the survival of this technology.

yeah, now what to do with injection engines and diesels??

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I got 150mpg on a 72 Ford Torino Station Wagon with a 351 Cleveland engine. No Bull!

I'm calling bull****. Prove your claim, rather than just coming in here and dropping an anecdote which people will repeat ("yeah, I heard about this one guy who actually built a kit back in the pre-conspiratorial-gas-additive days and it worked!").

I'll believe the scientific and automotive engineering community (each of which I have close friends in) before I believe something like this read on some conspiracy board that tells me everything I thought I knew about chemistry, thermodynamics, and engineering was wrong.

The tech for such high mileage (without fuel cells, etc) does not exist. Never attribute to conspiracy that which is more easily explained by incompetence.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:27 AM
Here's a better site for alternate energy:


and 80% efficient solar cells:


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:34 AM
I think a lot of people will agree with you, but we are not in the position to do anything about it.

Most people dont have the money & the resources to accomplish this, those that do have their own game going.

Who knows, maybe one day someone will get enlightened on how to do this and start developing an area on this earth where like minded people will also share in the vision. Can a new earth exist on the old earth?
2 energies together? (perhaps...duality seems to keep this whole game running.)

Gods peace


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:49 AM
Sophismata, that was a long time ago when I lived in Michigan. I have no proof and can't get it either. You just have to take it for what it is, or not.

Anyone with backyard mechanic skills could throw one together in a weekend, it's not secret info. Anyone that cares to could prove me right or wrong.

I've been switching my direction toward hydrogen lately, it's been a fun adventure also. Browns gas on-demand made from water right at the engine is what I'm trying to accomplish.

If I had listened to all the people that say "you can't do that" over the years I would have gotten nowhere. I'm having a good time and maybe some day we'll figure this whole energy thing out.

To the nay-sayers that aren't trying to do anything but say "you can't do that!".

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I haven't seen any evidence of suppressing technology; indeed, I have first-hand experience of how the oil companies do their best to nuture it (although for their own benefit, of course)

Then you have not looked in all the places you could imo. Big business will nurture the technologies they imagine they can keep under control ( anything centralized needing a large industrial base- just check what they support) but will pay off and suppress whatever will lead to individuals being able to gain freedom. Any technology that will lead to energy production in the back yard without the raw materials perpetually coming from another continent/state will be payed off/suppressed at whatever cost.

Again, the same reason -- the oil companies knew they couldn't surpress a new technology, so they tried to deal themselves in!

Well at some point it becomes impossible to suppress it or kill everyone involved so you make sure you deal yourself in so as to at least to control enough of it to be able to manipulate it effectively.

Now as it turned out, the PV boom of the '70s and '80's was based on three bogus facts:

(1) PV production cost per watt was high, but with the breakthroughs we knew were coming, would soon below $1/watt.

Not really important as their only in it to make sure that if it can not be stopped they are already involved deeply enough to once again manipulate and profit as they used to.

(2) Gas prices were low now (1985) but by 1990 or 1995, they'd be at $3-4/gallon.

Well they failed to manipulate the oil price as well as they would haved liked to do.
Once again their not trying to make a success of something that does not run on primary resource that are 'limited' and mostly under control.

(3) the Federal tax credits generated by PURPA would last forever

The government has no more interest than big business in making people less dependent on controlled energy resources as such people do not need either big business or government for their primary needs. The credits in question would not have gone to anything that could seriously upset the balance as politicians at least agree on the fact that they all need dependent people.

Well, the cost of PV didn't go down, the price of gas didn't didn't rise that fast, and the tax credits went away. As a result, the energy companies realized that PV was throwing good money after bad, and they all pulled out, taking a big loss, but cutting a bigger one. It was a sound business decision on their part.

They realised that they no longer needed to be involved and that they did enough to ruin that particular field for some time to come. Now some people like to assume that the energy cartels/big business/government are only around to make a profit but we can see from the records during world wars that they are in fact not as much about profit as about control and changing the world to create ever more enthusiastic vapid consumers that understand ever less of the world around them.

And PV, although I love the technology dearly, is still a cost effective solution for large-scale generation of electricity.

Still not a cost effective method i presume. Well fact is the US government could probably do well in terms of creating a energy grid based on almost any energy source considering the 50 billion dollars it spends every year on just costs relating to the immediate presence of American interest in the ME. If one takes the entire defense budget into account i reckon you could process sand and power a national energy grid. How much energy will 50 billion properly audited and efficient spent Us tax dollars have bought in terms of Ethanol infrastructure investment over a term of say 30 years ( as in Brazil )?

But my point is that the oil companies simply don't have the power you might think they do. Brazil, China, Japan, and India have to import almost all their oil, and they all have brilliant scientists, engineers, and technologists.

But since governments also just plain lose when people have ever less dependence on expensive energy there is no logical reason for governments to seriously change the system. Those who try risk no amount of damage to their economies when foreign rival business and government alliances seek to destroy whoever intervened in their well oiled machine' aka Napoleon. Upsetting the 'system' gets you in serious trouble whatever your reason for trying.

You don't think that, if there really were an alternative to the hydrocarbon economy, one of those countries wouldn't have developed a cost-effective replacement by now?

No i do not think any of those governments would benefit by trying to do so even if they had the will to try go against the current systems that dictates norms around the world.

I read the site and didn't see any evidence for workable alternative energy at all. Would you care to point us to a particular technology?

I can if your interested.

I didn't see anything there that was a workable and cost-effective alternative energy source. The very first page, the author bemoans the fact that he doesn't have enough money to do any sort of research and development; but if his designs or concepts are workable and cost-effective, why aren't all the Third World and non-oil-producing countries jumping on the bandwagon?

For the reason i indicated above no politician in the world will do such a thing and risk foreign ( American/British) intervention just to save tax power money . You must remember that it's not their money, resources or life energy their wasting when their just there to enjoy the power they have been granted by their backers. Politicians are after all bought and paid for men.

Maybe there is something that works, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and neither has anyone else I've spoken with.

Well then we can start with the physics that makes such systems not only possible but logical.

It probably won't get you killed unless you short out a high-current circuit.

When someone arrives at your house and tells you that you will either stop doing what you are doing, and take the paid for life-long vacation they have in mind for you, or be dead when they leave what will you say? How many people does not have family to protect if they do not mind pointlessly throwing their own lives away? To kill is hardly ever required towards discouraging this scientific field.

Godservant, I certainly share your frustration with the state of energy technology today. We are poisoning ourselves -- and quite possibly the Earth itself -- by burning hydrocarbons, and the money that we pay those thugs for oil is funnelled to the hands of islamofacist terrorists and other thugs, which drives up our defense costs, and ruins our economy and standing in the world.

And the system is set up for exactly that purpose it seems. Without enemies everywhere people start focusing on enemies at home and they will eventually discover those if you do not create worse one's elsewhere. The oil is bought from where it is ( America could supply in it's own needs for centuries to come even if only relying on continental oil) to fund terrorist and enemies abroad for without enemies there could be not be the large scale theft of American tax payer money that is normally called the defense budget.
Enemies are created as that is the only way the system can prevent itself from becoming totally redundant. Without war and endlessly competition ever more centralized control is simply not required after all.

And we should be looking at all possible sources of alternatives to burning hydrocarbons, whether it's nuclear power, PV, hydro, wind turbines, tidal bore turbines, or even stirling-cycle engines working off the temperature delta in the ocean.

And all of these system are essentially the same in that they do not contribute a single watt to the energy grid in themselves. All these fossil fuels have ever done is rotate the shaft of the generator to create the magnetic field energy that force the charges apart and thus reform the dipole from which energy will flow as it has always done. We pay them to keep destroying the power source ( any dipole in the universe) only to reform it with fossil fuels time and time again thus perpetually required fossil fuels instead of just preserving the thing that actually transduces energy from the active vacuum.

Just as importantly, we should be embarking on a Manhattan- Projet-scale effort to conserve our existing stocke and maximize the effectiveness of domestic oil production.

Or we could just stop believing the hopelessly ignorant science community that keeps telling us that some things are impossible when they have rarely ( if ever) been right in the long run.

But looking for conspiracies where none exist, and talking about energy sources for which there is no evidence, is detracting us from the very real task of developing and sustaining a common-sense energy strategy for the future of our planet.

Well the evidence is there if you care to look at some of the threads on this forum and on the internet in general.

I will try address the questions you have about why scientist in general say this is against the principles they are currently defending.


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Long Lance
I strongly disagree with the notion of energy out of nothing, tell me why such a thing should exist, pls.

Well no one is suggesting energy out of nothing. Find me any place in the universe where there is truly nothing and we get to have a really interesting discussion.

Anything uses some kind of fuel, if it's abundant, it may appear as an infintely available resource, but it ISN'T, it just takes ages to deplete, that's all.

Energy can not be created of destroyed as far as we know so we are not in fact using up anything as much as changing it into forms less useful to us.

Energy is available in many shapes and forms, do you know the so called 'killer lakes' choke-full of CO2? just put a pipe into it and suck the water out, it'll then deflate all by itself under great pressure difference (harvestable energy) sometimes, it's methane, so you can get fuel + and pressure, a very valuable resource IF you see it as such.

Sounds like a plan to me even if i, and many others, have far better ideas.

PS: a final word on 'zero point' (or whatever) machines, if they work, you're tapping into something you don't understand at first, that's akin to probing a gas pipeline with a blowtorch, folks.

Well we have known about the non diverged energy( whatever energy from the source dipole is not diverged into the circuit) flow since Maxwell's time and we know that energy not intercepted is not energy lost to the universe.
There is no excuse to behave as if energy that we do not intercept is not in fact there.


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Yarium
Some things I'm going to say:

1. I don't believe in Free Energy. From a physics standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING as free energy. Energy systems are closed. Matter systems are closed. You cannot create nor destroy energy or matter - simply convert them into other forms.

Well i am glad your willing to state that you do not 'believe' in free energy as that's all it really is.
The only closed system we may be able to still prove is the universe itself but i think the jury is still out on that one. The claim that devices on your table can not extract energy from 'somewhere' is thus completely invalidated as the only truly closed we can prove at this stage is completely theoretical.

There is actually a very funny referance. Compare the idea of Energy to a game. Here's the rules:

Seen these before and their pretty good.

1. You MUST play the game (everything that exists has energy in some form or another).

No issue with this rule i have.

2. You can never win the game (you can never reach above 100% efficiency - since energy cannot be created)

What does 100% efficiency mean if no system is in fact ever closed to energy transfer with the active vacuum as we know happens? If we can in fact preserve all the energy the system contains currently but keep feeding in more we will have a interesting situation. There is models that proves there is nothing invalid about this so a system can in fact operate with more than 100% efficiency.

3. Hell, you can't even break even (you can never reach 100% - some energy is always lost)

Only if your design allows for energy loss which it really does not have to. These very same scientist are so easily convinced to believe in closed systems but it seems that only suits them when it comes to COP > 1 systems;they apparently have no objections when it comes to energy losses. Is that strange or not?

4. You can't quit the game, except on a very cold day (you can never reduce energy to 0, except at Absolute Zero)

I don't see how you can ever reduce energy to zero as the action itself-, i'm too ignorant to currently go there.

5. It never gets that cold (the moment you try to do something to something at Absolute Zero, you introduce energy, and it's no longer Absolute Zero)

True for this case as well.

There will always be a by-product to any energy we create.

Why and what logic leads you to this conclusion?

Hydrogen Fuel cells combine Oxygen and Hydrogen. The outcome is water and energy. That's great, and we all love water. But that also means we have to produce Hydrogen (whilst it does make almost all of the visible universe, it's so light that it doesn't like being on earth very long) - which, tada, costs energy... more energy than we get out of the Hydrogen Fuel cell.

Well then that is clearly a bad way to proceed so why are we talking about it? Isn't it like debating how we can genetically engineer dinosaurs/whatevers so that we can have more oil a few million years?

The goal is to make the conversion rate of Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then back from Hydrogen and Oxygen back into Water again, as close to 100% efficiency as we can, so that we're wasting very little energy.

Since we have better ideas i think we can keep that one on ice.

So now, Telsa's use of the earth's magnetic field as a power source. What will this do to the earth's magnetic field? Will it weaken it? What kind of by-product, except energy, is there? How do we do it exactly? What's the best way to do it? None of these have been answered.

Tesla were speculating about the energy source as he was apparently ( from looking at what little we can find) not 100% sure what powered his devices. All he was sure of is that there was no apparent cost involved and that humanity could employ it ( as he did) without much any observable side effects. Since we now know that the energy actually comes from the vacuum particle flux we know that he had it right all along.

So yes, we may be able to reach something close to 100% efficiency on energy, but we'll never get there, and there'll always be a byproduct of some kind, even if it's miniscule.

Why should a machine that does nothing but 'gate' energy from the vacuum suffer losses anyways? Since we did not have to 'produce' any of the energy we are tapping into losses are not that big a deal imo and we can in fact prove that as all our energy already comes from that very source. We 'waste' energy not in the losses from tapping the vacuum with dipoles but in the manner in which we create and try preserve those dipoles.

Even Wind power has a byproduct - that being that there's less wind. Sure it's not much of a byproduct, but we're reducing the energy in the wind, and changing it into electricity.

I am glad you bring this up as wind power are in effect 'free' considering it's furnished mostly by the Sun. What is the problem with 'free' energy in this form and just erecting a machine that taps it from another source? What's the big hangup?

Finally, corporations are not "evil". Governments are not "evil". They're doing what they do. The problem is that at the points where they're inefficient, they do things in a manner that is evil.

Corporations and government is all about control ( called profit by most) and since control is never a great thing when your the one it's aimed it ( your opinion/assumptions/perspective) all profit is in fact 'bad' for someone or something. When the Dow Jones/NYMEX/DAQ goes up it's in fact , funnily, proof that we have less and less control over our world and they ever more. The richer they get the more it says about how much control they have over their surroundings.

Corporations, and governments, are not seeking world domination - it's just that the goal of a company is to grow, since growth equals profit, and profit equals good.

Profit = control and control is something that you always want more of. Globalisation is the expression of that aim and we should take them at their word when they say they stand for a new world order ( singular).

As said earlier, when an oil company backs out of a subsidy for some brand new technology, it's not because they're trying to stop it from usurping their company (since they'd get profits from the technology as part of the agreement for subsidising it) -

Control is control and don't confuse the pure profit notion with it. The moment there is alternatives they have more defenses to man to control you so they will kill choices as far as they can manage it.

but because they're making a business move because the technology doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The money they've invested would be BETTER spent elsewhere to make more money sooner AND later.

It's not about making money if you lose control in the long run. Profit in terms of money is useless if you are giving up any control over the means of future profit/control with it.

Governments try to get people behind them so that the party remains in power. If the party remains in power, then the senators/MPs/whatever also remain in power, which means they get paid, which means they can continue living the good life.

Business funds whoever gets into government and then the government changes policy to be more business friendly and so forth. A few generations of that and you have a system where people want ( well they have been convinced to think they do) what big business and governments wants anyways.

Remember this about ALL corporations and ALL governments; they are badly chopped up bodies, running around without a real head, rapidly losing blood.

Don't confuse the perpetual power struggles of individuals in various countries and business with each other with the notion that they are not in fact first and foremost fighting against the individuality that endangers all their control mechanisms. You will notice that big business and government keep growing with time ( the welfare state) so how can it be argued that they are not successful and wrestling control of our lives from us?

Everyone's working in their own worlds, and no one really has ANY clue what is really going on.

Then look around you and observe or multinational and government influence grows everywhere in the world around you. Tell me that you really believe that is all a accident of some nature and that there is not a deliberate policy ( no one says they agree on everything - we have world wars after all- but they are surely spending most of their energy against us) to build empires and take control on a global scale. They might very well kill each other in the process but we the people always seem to lose more in the process.

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to accidental opinion of the day; but a Series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations) plainly PROVES a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. "
- Thomas Jefferson


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:24 PM
StellarX, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Nice post.

I've been into this energy stuff since I was 16 years old. Not just studying, actually getting my hands dirty and building things. I just hang my head when someone points out that the law of thermodynamics says that I can't do something. I think there are many many things in physics and in nature that we just aren't aware of yet and the law of thermodynamics is "mostly" right, but not completely right.
Sidestep the science for a bit, imagine, dream,,,,, then build, you just might learn something. (not directed at anyone in particular)

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by StellarXNo i do not think any of those governments would benefit by trying to do so even if they had the will to try go against the current systems

Why? Why then advance the construction of nuclear power plants over a 20-30 year time frame? Why invest in the first commericial fusion power plant in France? Why give money to universities to research alternative energy sources?

The US navy is now nuclear because it saw distinct advantages. If the US could end its dependence on Middle East oil, this would offer a distinct advantage.

Even when/if oil is replaced, it does not mean in anyway that the new means of energy production will be in the hands of the proletariat. People may still rely upon energy comapanies to supply their energy needs. THe only people who do not rely upon oil companies now, directly, are those people who feed their horses, mules, cammels or whatever animal with whatever food they can buy. Even then, they are still dependent on the farmer, as are all humans.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:28 AM

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Long Lance

Energy is available in many shapes and forms, do you know the so called 'killer lakes' choke-full of CO2? just put a pipe into it and suck the water out, it'll then deflate all by itself under great pressure difference (harvestable energy) sometimes, it's methane, so you can get fuel + and pressure, a very valuable resource IF you see it as such.

Sounds like a plan to me even if i, and many others, have far better ideas.

Just one example, not very useful, intended to show that there are alternatives which are not readily visible.

Well we have known about the non diverged energy( whatever energy from the source dipole is not diverged into the circuit) flow since Maxwell's time and we know that energy not intercepted is not energy lost to the universe.
There is no excuse to behave as if energy that we do not intercept is not in fact there.


..So just because a current induces a surrounding field you think that there's many times more energy in the flow than you originally put in? ?

Poynting flow may be there, but make no mistake, the energy transfer in the field is already linked to your wire, negating the entire notion. or am i being stupid? ! ?

you may or may not find this link useful: , which incidentially deals with exactly the same problem, in a very different way, though, consider yourself forewarned.


Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I just hang my head when someone points out that the law of thermodynamics says that I can't do something. I think there are many many things in physics and in nature that we just aren't aware of yet and the law of thermodynamics is "mostly" right, but not completely right.

Not required for your super-carb, imho, there's plenty of energy in fuel, quoted engine efficiency is probably alsways optimal and therefore next to never achieved. I'd say there is more to know about these carbs, but it's probably not related to a violation of any thermodynamic laws.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:59 AM
Long Lance, I agree. That statement wasn't really referring to the carbs, it was more of a general observation about the people that are too quick to say that something can't be done.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:35 AM
Well, after reading some great posts, I would like to know why there is STILL no one getting free energy for their homes with any of these new claims. Aside from solar panels, wind or moving water, I am finding no one with their own electricity generator.

I do think there are some ways to generate electricity from zero point, or magnetism, ect, but they are not available to us.

Also, I have seen the high milage carb. The one I knew, and saw work, got around 70 mpg. It is sad that this is not on ALL cars.


posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:37 AM
godservant, I agree totally! Imagine if you will that these carbs were on all cars in the world and maybe they only boosted mileage by 50%, that would still be millions of gallons of gas saved. Billions over a few years......

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:40 AM
I read today about thermoelectrics in a magazine. The idea is to use semiconductors to turn heat into electrical power. Now the idea has been around for nearly 200 years, but because it is currently not used on a commercial level or used very much at all due to its high cost related to its effectiveness with the conversion, does not mean that the technology has been suppressed.

I think some people do not realize researchers are not hybrid human beings who spend 24 hours a day trying to solve the world's energy problems. There are many researchers, especially at the academic level, whose research has no commercial application or very little (think a majority of the fields in physics). Research within private companies can be limited and science is often underrepresented. So do not think that all scientists and all engineers are working to solve your and the world's energy problems. They are not, not only because of the effort put forth on the behalf of private companies to do such research and the lack of researchers, but because not all researchers want to solve these problems.

I think it is a bit ignorant and arogant of some members to assume that various technologies have been suppressed by governments and company hire-ups simply because of greed or because there isn't a 100% pollution free, renewable form of energy that exist. And I definitely think the semantics that goes on display the maturity of some members. I have to beg, what have you done? Why, if you, so brilliant an engineer, are able to see what thousands of others have missed, have you not taken it upon yourself to engineer these technologies and manufacture them for the consumer?

This often reminds me of my debates with the Aline&UFO crowd. Now here was a group of people, who for no other reson than some fear or paranoia held towards the federal government, believed that aliens have visited earth, made crop circles, shared their technology and abducted humans. The its all the government's fault does not cut it. We are not children (I hope). We are adults, and I at least need something other than 'well, the government supressed it, killed everyone and no other world government wants to pursue this because they stand to make nothing from it'.

I won't deny that the federal government (of the US) and companies (in the US) at times put forth little effort to do relevant research, but that does not give grounds to assume that all energy problems can be traced to these entities soley and attribute to them the phenomena of '0technology suppression'.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:40 PM
I am not a scientist nor do I have a very scientific mind but I did see an amazing video regarding a water powered car. Someone was talking about a similar concept but I don't know if it was the same thing. In the 1970's a man by the name of Stanley Myers invented a converter or chamber that would slpit the water atoms into their component parts and produce energy. He claimed that he drove his car from the west coast usa to the east on 20 gal. of h2o. The story goes on to say that there was great interest in his product and that the pentagon came @ and offered Stanley a job which he accepted. Shortly thereafter there was some kind of ocassion and while toasting Stanley was poisoned and died. Having lived through the 70's I do not recall anything about this in the news. So it will take more digging to actually determine the truth of this claim. Watch the video at this site The site did go off yesterday and has not come back on yet. I have almost no idea why. Be patient I'll repost when the site comes back up.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by polanksi]

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by wadefrazier3
Somebody who has borne the brunt of what the Above Top Secret world dishes out addresses a forum supposedly devoted to the subject, and not one response even acknowledged that such a world exists. This will be my last post here. I was not pleasantly surprised.

Okay, there is a point at which experimental technology is "guarded" by the government(s), and big business mostly because of national security issues. And protecting one's national security is all about competition. The country or ideology that can provide the best lives for its citizens wins the competition. Yes, all that stuff exists.

However... there is also something called a marketing economy in action out there that requires free and open access of products (including those possessing advanced technology) to an open market. At another point, the technology will provide a greater advantage to the population if it is made readily available to the marketplace. Like jet engines, for example. Strictly military in the beginning. Pretty secret. But eventually the advantages of having it out in the open were more important than keeping it secret.

IF... the government or the cabal or whoever has a zero-point Tesla generator stashed away in their basement somewhere, when do you think would be a good time to bring it out into the open? And why haven't they done so already?

A lot of times the answer is that the technology maybe works but it can't be used on a small enough (or large enough) scale to compete with existing systems. Hey, we can make fuel out of just about anything, from coal to donut grease. But it can't compete with regular gas -- yet. And maybe if they were squirreling away some other kind of exotic technology that breaks all the known laws of physics, I imagine even then they'd give it to some smart people in universities who might be able to make it work and be competitive.

Anyway, I guess the points I was trying to make were these: 1) maybe technology isn't so much "suppressed" as it is inefficent an unable to compete in the marketplace, and 2) it may only be suppressed because YOU don't know about it.

Now, go on with your story about how your 150-mile carburetor was stolen by MIBs. I love those stories!

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Enkidu]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in