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.

 

A Big List Of Suppressed Technologies Related To Energy. We Are Being Deceived Once More...

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

That's rather presumptuous of You, to state They are "ALL frauds."

Actually, I didn't say they were ALL frauds, I said some were delusional.


I know for a fact that electrogravitics was being worked on in the 1950's and went into black ops in late 1959 or early 1960. My father, a CalTech grad and Electrical Engineer, worked for one of the leading aerospace contractors involved in electrogravitics (EG). He would come home and try to teach His toddler (Me) how EG worked and described the future EG would bring:

EG creates antigravity AND overunity. Dad described floating cars, houses and cities. He told Me of abundant energy. And then one night He came home and woke Me up to tell Me We couldn't talk about it anymore - "They want it secret for now."

That was 50+ years ago. I am sure black ops has some awesome R&D relative to EG.

If You believe ALL such work is fraud, You have bought the lie They sell Us.

Again, more unsubstantiated rumour. Where's the science? Where's the evidence? So we're just supposed to take your outlandish claims posted on a conspiracy board on the internet as truth without a shred of evidence? Like everyone else who swears blind they've achieved "over unity" with magnets and so on? My dad told me he saw the Loch Ness monster, that doesn't make it so. In fact, google "Loch Ness monster sightings" or even "fairy sightings" and you'll have a whole list of people who sincerely believe they've seen them. That doesn't make it true.
edit on 31-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


that vid [ dragons den ] was uploaded on 14th december 2008 - where is it now ?

Quick, someone add it to the OP's list!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
reply to post by Shadowalker
 


Well it's the same thing with everything you buy. Everything breaks down, but that's part of another economic conspiracy (make fragile products so people have to buy back. In fact, a product that lasts forever isn't profitable for the companies). A car, which runs on oil (explosion engine), still has to be replaced every 10-15 years.

Yes, free-energy will never be free, but it can be a lot better than our current technologies!


Actually... Free energy will create free everything. I offer my novella, The Abundance Paradigm, here on ATS: media.abovetopsecret.com... as well as a method to handle the changes in society that the freedom overunity would bring:

The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because money is merely a representation of meaningful energy expended, adding effectively infinite energy would dissipate the need for money.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anything an actual profit can be made of, you can be sure it wont be suppressed for long. Thats human nature. Thats why I quit believing in all this suppressed science stuff. The world is an extremely competitive place and if something comes along that is better, it will be used.


Profit can't be made out of free energy...

EDIT: Or should I say...the profits made with free-energy would be a tiny tiny fraction of the profits made with oil
edit on 30-5-2011 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)




Yeah, because an energy source that cost next to nothing has less profit potential than an energy source that costs billions in infrastructure development, operation and maintenance....





posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho


Yeah, because an energy source that cost next to nothing has less profit potential than an energy source that costs billions in infrastructure development, operation and maintenance....



I think it's just an ongoing lie that they just won't stop now to not lose face. I wouldn't mind still paying for energy if that energy was "free". We would still have to pay the infrastructures and the people working there.

Those oils companies have so much money, I don't see why they are so afraid to invest in "free" energy.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Bla bla bla. to the debunkers.....

To the OP, KEEP going...Dont listen to the ones saying "Oh, now that can never be done,
Oh hes a fraud, Oh you are no techie so you cant understand" bla bla bla.....

Just keep the information flowing, wether its real, wishful thinking or evene
hoaxes...Just keep the flow up...

One day, ONE day...It´ll be us saying......."TOLD U SO"!!!!!


Its not the actaul facts that are interesting...Its the INFORMATION.....
THE WHOLE PICTURE.....

Debunkers, DisInfos and whatever...Bla bla bla



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Its not the actaul facts that are interesting...Its the INFORMATION.....
THE WHOLE PICTURE.....
Did you really just say that? It's not about the facts?


Unfortunately, I can't replace the electric company with information, I need a gadget that actually works to do that.

It is entertaining to see how many years hoaxers and delusional people can keep their scams going, without ever making anything that actually works...some people are still waiting for the Keely motor to work and Keely died over a century ago. There's apparently no end to the patience of people who don't want to face facts.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Lets assume that they do have free energy devices. It doesn’t mean it will destroy the economy.

These devices need to be built, installed and maintained. If they are installed in your auto you will still need brakes and tires.

Have solar panels put people out of work?
Did nuclear power plants put people out of work?

Do you expect these devices to work forever? Has man ever made anything that runs forever? I see new business opportunities.

The most likely first uses would be to replace power plants. If you look at the current state of your utility company you will find they have far fewer employees than years ago.
Gone are the rooms of people preparing your bills. Computers.
On the way out are the meter readers. Our local meters are being replaced with transmitters as I type. The local job loss will be nil.

The only problem is these devices exist only..
In the minds of the less knowledgeable people.
Those who have no college education.
Those who have low skill jobs.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

The most likely first uses would be to replace power plants. If you look at the current state of your utility company you will find they have far fewer employees than years ago.
Gone are the rooms of people preparing your bills. Computers.
On the way out are the meter readers. Our local meters are being replaced with transmitters as I type. The local job loss will be nil.


Take it a step further, if they had access to free energy devices they
would just hook them up and keep charging us by the kilowatt hour.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anything an actual profit can be made of, you can be sure it wont be suppressed for long. Thats human nature. Thats why I quit believing in all this suppressed science stuff. The world is an extremely competitive place and if something comes along that is better, it will be used.


Not if the new "better" technology is actually cheaper and virtually impossible to make money off of. You contradict yourself in your own statement.

"Anything an actual profit can be made of" mmhmm, but free energy is profitless.

See that big glaring word.... FREE?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anything an actual profit can be made of, you can be sure it wont be suppressed for long. Thats human nature. Thats why I quit believing in all this suppressed science stuff. The world is an extremely competitive place and if something comes along that is better, it will be used.


Not if the new "better" technology is actually cheaper and virtually impossible to make money off of. You contradict yourself in your own statement.

"Anything an actual profit can be made of" mmhmm, but free energy is profitless.

See that big glaring word.... FREE?

In principle, anyone with a bit of handiwork can construct their own motor. Yet hardly anyone does so for their cars, motorbikes and lawnmowers. Why?Because it takes time, skill, resources and discipline. You seem to think that if a "free energy" machine came onto the market, all 300 million in America alone would construct one themselves. Ain't gonna happen. More to the point, if everyone is going to go down the DIY route as you say, why aren't the manufacturers of the parts and materials needed to construct such a device getting behind it? They stand to make a killing! But of course, such logical holes are not enough the sink the ship of ignorance.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I know for a fact that electrogravitics was being worked on in the 1950's and went into black ops in late 1959 or early 1960. My father, a CalTech grad and Electrical Engineer, worked for one of the leading aerospace contractors involved in electrogravitics (EG). He would come home and try to teach His toddler (Me) how EG worked and described the future EG would bring:

EG creates antigravity AND overunity. Dad described floating cars, houses and cities. He told Me of abundant energy. And then one night He came home and woke Me up to tell Me We couldn't talk about it anymore - "They want it secret for now."

That was 50+ years ago. I am sure black ops has some awesome R&D relative to EG.

If You believe ALL such work is fraud, You have bought the lie They sell Us.

Again, more unsubstantiated rumour. Where's the science? Where's the evidence? So we're just supposed to take your outlandish claims posted on a conspiracy board on the internet as truth without a shred of evidence?


Where's the science... Lessee... It went into black ops over 50 years ago. My guess is that it's still there. Call it "outlandish" if You will, whether You choose to believe it or not is up to You. And as for evidence, read a book called Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. In there is documentation of EG being studied in the early and mid 1950's. My father's company is mentioned several times.


Like everyone else who swears blind they've achieved "over unity" with magnets and so on?


EG is only peripherally related to magnets - insofar as EG is an electromagnetic/gravitic phenomenon.


My dad told me he saw the Loch Ness monster, that doesn't make it so. In fact, google "Loch Ness monster sightings" or even "fairy sightings" and you'll have a whole list of people who sincerely believe they've seen them. That doesn't make it true.


If Your dad had tried to teach You about the anatomy of the Loch Ness Monster, described the implications of the monster's existence, and then one day came home to tell you He couldn't talk about the Monster because it was secret, then Your analogy would be close. What You say above , however, is NOT a good analogy at all.

(And, I might point out that the list of sighting does not make them FALSE, either.)
edit on 5/31/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Do you have anything other to say than conjecture? No? Then you're just another voice making outlandish claims amongst the many thousands posting on conspiracy boards such as these.




(And, I might point out that the list of sighting does not make them FALSE, either.)

You're quite right, it's the lack of any objective evidence that makes them inadmissible.
edit on 31-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Gab1159

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anything an actual profit can be made of, you can be sure it wont be suppressed for long. Thats human nature. Thats why I quit believing in all this suppressed science stuff. The world is an extremely competitive place and if something comes along that is better, it will be used.


Profit can't be made out of free energy...

The manufacturing and maintenance of said device can, let alone a whole slew of axillary industries that would crop up. To date, not one single "free energy" (over unity) device has been demonstrated objectively under controlled conditions. Not one. All you get is the usual shady characters and the same snake oil for the gullible.
edit on 30-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


You think, eh. Theres been quite a few and since based on basic momentum of earth and its electro magnetic field its acually basic science.

The actual patents granted are of "working" devices.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

You think, eh. Theres been quite a few and since based on basic momentum of earth and its electro magnetic field its acually basic science.

Show me the peer-reviewed papers from credible journals or independent lab results from credible institutions that provide evidence of over unity. That is all I ask.


The actual patents granted are of "working" devices.

A device does not need to work in order to be patented. Patents are not proof of anything, other than the subversiveness of the applicant in getting a perpetual motion device patented (as they are not allowed to be patented).



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 



Because they have to find more conventional form of energy since those really exotic ones (such as "energy from the vacuum" posted by Hawkiye) are suppressed.


Do you have any proof that this method of energy production actually works? Has it been scientifically verified? Has it been independently tested to see if it is valid? What is it's mechanism of operation?


There are several reports from military officials stating the military complex has been using free-energy in some of the most top-secret bases.


Anecdotal evidence is not reliable


What is the purpose of investing billions of dollars in technology research when we have discovered free-energy, you ask? Good question, the answer is not easily found. We can only speculate at this one, but there must be a reason, right? Maybe they are trying to produce new forms of energy in which they could make a reasonable amount of profit? I don't know...just speculating here...but there has to be a good reason.


Or, you know, they could actually be interested in providing cheap, reliable, clean fuel that is accessible to everyone


Anyways, if you look at the link about Victor Klimov I posted in one of my comments, you'll see that energy from the vacuum is possible, exploitable, and that we have ways of exploiting it RIGHT NOW as we speak.


Well, until I see some real evidence that this is possible (refer to my first mini paragraph) then I don't think that this is a real thing.

I will however have a look at the link anyway



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Do you have anything other to say than conjecture? No? Then you're just another voice making outlandish claims amongst the many thousands posting on conspiracy boards such as these.


Memories and documentation are hardly "conjecture," sweetheart. So, yes. I have personal experience and documentation. What else can One have when the tech is kept tightly under wraps and One has no other access?



(And, I might point out that the list of sighting does not make them FALSE, either.)

You're quite right, it's the lack of any objective evidence that makes them inadmissible.


No lack of evidence that electrogravitics was being studied in the 1950's. (Again, read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.) Ergo, it is admissible.
edit on 5/31/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Show me the peer-reviewed papers from credible journals or independent lab results from credible institutions that provide evidence of over unity. That is all I ask.


I am unsure why things MUST be "peer reviewed." Since the system of peer review is biased towards a set world view, new and/or disruptive technology will NOT get positive peer review no matter how valid the work is.

Frankly, I have little faith at all in peer review.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Memories and documentation are hardly "conjecture," sweetheart. So, yes. I have personal experience and documentation. What else can One have when the tech is kept tightly under wraps and One has no other access?


Actually, it is conjecture:


con·jec·ture    /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/ Show Spelled [kuhn-jek-cher]
noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens. –verb (used with object)
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability. –verb (used without object)
5. to form conjectures.





No lack of evidence that electrogravitics was being studied in the 1950's. (Again, read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.) Ergo, it is admissible.
edit on 5/31/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags



Electrogravitics is a failed hypothesis proposed by Thomas Townsend Brown and Brown's subsequent extensive experimentation and demonstrations of the effect. The term was in widespread use by 1956.[1] The effects of electrogravity have been searched for extensively in countless experiments since the beginning of the 20th century; to date, other than Brown's experiments and the more recent ones reported by R. L. Talley,[2] Eugene Podkletnov, and Giovanni Modanese, no conclusive evidence of electrogravitic signatures has been found. Recently, some investigation has begun in electrohydrodynamics (EHD) or sometimes electro-fluid-dynamics, a counterpart to the well-known magnetohydrodynamics, but these do not seem a priori to be related to Brown's "electrogravitics" .

Failed hypothesis.



I am unsure why things MUST be "peer reviewed." Since the system of peer review is biased towards a set world view, new and/or disruptive technology will NOT get positive peer review no matter how valid the work is.

Frankly, I have little faith at all in peer review.

*Sigh* yet again, someone rubbishing peer-review when they have no knowledge or experience of it. Peer-review gave you the computer you are using right now, they internetwork that we are communicating through, the very medicine which has most likely saved you from various fatal diseases, put the satellites into space that allow you to talk on your mobile etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The old line of "they keep out anything that goes against the status quo" has absolutely no basis whatsoever. Time and time again the status quo has been overthrown by new discoveries that can and have been independently verified (i.e. not internet board conjecture).
edit on 31-5-2011 by john_bmth because: formatting



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
A patent does not stop someone from making the device in their own back yard.
And yet no one has done it. I wonder why?

Where are all these water powered cars the web is a buzz about? Wouldn’t a few on them show up in the local news stories? Or are all the news outlets in on it too? I guess Big oil is paying all six of our local tv stations not to broadcast those segments. Are they also paying the two local news papers hush money? What about our neighborhood papers? Where do the payments stop?

How much of BIG OIL profits go into KEEPING THE SECRET?

There are 21,446 tv and radio stations in the US. How much money would it take to silence them all? My guess is close to a billion just for the US. And that’s just the US.

Bill Clinton couldn’t even get a BJ in the oval office in total secrecy and yet not a peep from 21,446 stations. How many disgruntled employees get fired from these stations each year?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join