It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Water Car Inventor Murdered.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
Wow... all I can say is that some of you people are so narrow minded, it almost sounds like you're saying that nobody is supressing any alternative fuels and that gasoline is still our best bet. It's been more than 100 years, guys. And we're still running on the same damn thing as in the early 1900s. Whereas other technologies have improved thousands of times over, cars are still runing on stone-age fuel. There IS a cover up. I don't have proof, but ya know, look at history for your proof, ya friggin pinheads trashing everyone and not giving any evidence. God you people make me so sick. Morons like you still going "Ahilk gasoline is our only friend." I wanna shake you until all the indoctrination from all your years and years of "education" comes spilling out your nose.... How can you people be ON THIS SITE, yet be so naive and narrow minded?
Somebody close this argument before the flag waving oil addict Amerizombies spew any more garbage outta their mouths.
That's my two cents, and if you don't like it, go pray to science to come smite me.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by indierockalien]


Sorry, Sparky. Until and unless something other than fairy tales is generated to replace gasoline, it's what we have.

And fanciful tales of perpetual motion and water powered cars won't change that ugly little fact.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Stan Meyer was not murdered

An autopsy was performed on the mortal remains of Stan Meyer, and the results are public knowledge:


Stanley Meyer died at the age of 57 after eating at a restaurant on 21 March 1998.[7] An autopsy report by Franklin County coroner William R. Adrion showed the cause of death to be a cerebral aneurysm. Conspiracy theories persist, however, that he was poisoned, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.

- Wikipedia

Don't believe the coroner? Fine. Now answer the question: where's your proof that he was murdered?

From where could such proof possibly come? Did someone else dig up the old fraud's carcass and have another go at an autopsy?

The topic of this thread is just disinformation.

If you want to read a fairly intelligent discussion of this topic, go here:

Stanley Meyer autopsy report discussion



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Yes, I have heard of this guy. He had been saying for years that you can turn water into a hydrogen/oxygen gas with very little energy, then feed it into your car's engine and burn it just as if it were a gasoline/air mixture.


Supposedly he had a number of working prototypes, some international patents, and a lot of enemies back home.


It is said that he was eating at a restaurant when he jumped up and exclaimed that he had been poisoned. Then ran out of the cafe and dropped dead.



To those of you who think more energy out than in is equal to a violation of laws of physics, consider this:


Energy to initiate nuclear bomb: 5x10^6 joules.

Energy released from nuclear bomb: 2x10^20 joules.


So the device puts out one hundred trillion times the energy input.

Now, how can you say that some other source of energy can't be tapped by a device that requires little energy to run? By the definition of "more out than in" a nuclear bomb is impossible. Yet, we know they work.

So why not something else? Do we really think we understand ALL forms of energy out there, waiting to be discovered?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 


Now, I have never thought of the energy used for a nuclear explosion before. That is an interesting observation. I don't have the physics background to do anything other than oggle at it though. I am curious what people smarter than myself think about it.

Good point



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 

Not good point. Though I must admit it looks sort of impressive when you say it in numbers.

What you are really saying is:

1. Energy liberated by triggering nuclear explosion > energy required to trigger said explosion.

That is correct. Also,

2. Energy liberated by striking match > energy required to strike match

3. Energy liberated by applying said match to pile of rags soaked in petrol > energy required to apply said match to pile of rags soaked in petrol

And for that matter,

4. Energy liberated by toppling nine green bottles off wall on which they were standing > energy required to topple nine green bottle off wall in question.

The additional energy was always there. It was stored in chemical bonds inside the combustible material (Cases 2 and 3), as gravitational potential energy in the bottles (Case 4) and, of course, as nuclear energy released by fission in Case 1.

In none of these cases is the law of conservation of energy violated.

Now tell me, what sort of energy was Mr. Meyer supposed to be liberating with his process? Gravitational? Kinetic? Chemical? Nuclear? Thermonuclear? Karmic?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Response to post by Astyanax

Repeat this to yourself nine times:

"Free" energy is energy that was always there.


This energy source is simply in a form we haven't recognized and legitimized yet. Every new form of energy is a myth until people who don't believe in it eventually give up fighting or die of old age. Denying the existence of something you WON'T investigate is arrogant, ignorant, and a recipe for maintaining the status quo, not progress.

There ARE more forms of energy out there, that are part of the natural universe which we just haven't discovered or can't understand yet. If by accident some person taps into this energy source, it is the job of science to INVESTIGATE those claims, and explain the results. But instead, scientists all rush in to say what is being observed is impossible, and go home.

"Scientists" too often act like jealous hermits who try and maintain their relative intellectual position in society, rather than admit that one not among them may have discovered some part of the truth.


"At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past"


[edit on 2-12-2007 by dionysius9]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
Stan Meyer, the man who invented an economical way to produce hydrogen from everyday tap water was found dead in his home.

I just wonder if he was killed to keep him silent


please change the title of the thread to "man dies a natural death, paranoids jump to conclusions"

why haven't the evil old white men who control oil and don't want this technology bombing the flex-fuel plant GM built in Brazil ?

they make fuel out of sugar for crying out loud, they must all die !!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
why haven't the evil old white men who control oil and don't want this technology bombing the flex-fuel plant GM built in Brazil ?

they make fuel out of sugar for crying out loud, they must all die !!!!




Because they own the materials and are selling the product at a profit. How is that any different from oil?

Fuel from sugar is no threat to oil whatsoever. Fuel from WATER is.


They can't sell water for $3.00 a gallon.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
wow, another innovation stopped in it's tracks. another step towards progress witheld. could of been the step to free the future generation of our sins, our burden, and our apathy. who knows where we would be today if such ideas were protected and nurished. what a world it could of been. a world with a lifted veil and an unlimited tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This has to be invented and used some where outside united states first, away from the corporate eyes, some where in some small country, then other small countries need to begin and use it, they only control what go's in their backyard, once people start using it they can't really do anything about it and it will catch in united states also, afrer a period of time.
Some guy that build's it , has to go to a small manufacturing car company, like a local brand, other small car manufacturing guys will want it.
That is about it, it's not imposible.


[edit on 2-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Or, let's just say someone figures out how to build this thing again. The first thing they should do is xerox the blueprints and mail out 10,000 copies, simultaneously email every list of email addresses they can get their hands on, and post videos of its construction on every video site in every country of the world.


Forget patents. The powers that be will never let a single person sell an idea like that.


It must be spread like a virus, quickly, and through as many channels as possible.


Only an act like this can preserve the idea.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   



Or, let's just say someone figures out how to build this thing again. The first thing they should do is xerox the blueprints and mail out 10,000 copies, simultaneously email every list of email addresses they can get their hands on, and post videos of its construction on every video site in every country of the world.

There are plans out already, with detail specification.



Forget patents. The powers that be will never let a single person sell an idea like that.

Well if a country like china , rusia, or another countries more neutral manages to build this then they can't do anything about it.
They only control their backyard, once the news is out that cars in some places of the world are running on the streets on water then people from their backyard are going to want them too, then they would not be able to do antything because the product is already out and exists.





[edit on 2-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dionysius9
Repeat this to yourself nine times: "Free" energy is energy that was always there.

Sounds like a waste of energy, repeating what I already know: energy can never be created or destroyed.


This energy source is simply in a form we haven't recognized and legitimized yet.

But in this instance there is no energy unaccounted for! Just a raft of untested claims from a man who didn't know what he was talking about.


Denying the existence of something you WON'T investigate is arrogant, ignorant, and a recipe for maintaining the status quo, not progress.

Denying the existence of something that shows no evidence of being there, however, is a legitimate use of human intelligence. Insisting that something exists when there is not trace of evidence to suggest it does is a sorry misapplication of it.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Before we knew nuclear energy existed, people assumed the sun BURNED. Therefore it could not be more than 10,000 years old.


This information was used for a brief period as evidence that mankind was less than 10,000 years old, and that evolution couldn't be how living things came to be, because the sun and earth did not exist together for enough time for evolution to take place.


Once nuclear energy was discovered, the age of the sun was then put at a number of around 4.5 billion years, which is 450,000 times older.


Is nuclear energy the end of the line? Who knows? Just because you got your PhD in physics in 2007 doesn't mean that you know everything we will know in 300 years.


Think of how fast our knowledge has been expanding during the last 100 years! New information and theories come to light so fast that the basis of science is hardly on a foundation anymore as much as a flying carpet.


Every question we answer in science gives rise to two more questions. How can we assume that we exist, in terms of knowledge, at the high end of a number line when the point we occupy is arbitrary and the line goes on forever in both directions?


Nuclear energy is not the last thing we will discover. There ARE other forms, perhaps too subtle, exotic, or mathematical for us to understand at this point in time. But it doesn't mean they aren't there.


I believe that within a glass of water exists an amount of energy massive enough to take care of all mankind's energy needs. The only problem is that today we are not clever enough to devise a machine that taps into it.


Or perhaps we are too stubborn to try... ?




[edit on 3-12-2007 by dionysius9]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
it doesn't matter how wonderful ur discovery is...if 'THEY' can't make $ from it or if it threatens their monopoly....it won't happen.....GB



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I cannot believe how anybody who seen the FOX news clip can believe death of Stanley Meyers is nothing but a murder by those who make lot of profit with fossil fuels.

For example, Exxon Mobile's profit of 10.7 billiion dollars was the record profit EVER by an U.S. company:



DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.


AP news at MSNBC on Exxon's record profit of 10.5 billion dollars

These kind of things make me really lose my faith in the system.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The release of this technology would not only affect the consumption of fuel in all vehicles making them run much more efficiently saving resources & money & putting at risk the monopoly & greed orientated riches the oil companies have, but also the uses of this technology could easily be spread to many other applications such as powering the average domestic home to large factories. With this in mind, one can understand, but not condone, the actions taken to keep him & his invention quiet.


Thanks



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Meh. Stanley Meyers was your average dime-a-dozen over unity, run your car on water huckster, who is only of any interest because he died.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Aelita
 


You would be right if water didn't contain two highly volatile gases. He found the right frequency to apply electric charge to separate the gas more efficiently. Case closed



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
You know, its difficult to say if his invention worked or not by looking at the video however, what happend to his equipment after his death? Who has it? I doubt there is any quick answer to this question but I would think someone has it and it could be looked at.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join