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

Some people have to understand the concept behind the technological suppression. It's a conspiracy. I know some people just don't see it, and think it's a cheap/lame argument...

So some have asked: are all these people in it? Are all the media, institutions, government officials and institutions and the scientists actively run the cover up?

Yes...That's the point.

How many people are in it? Not so much...What you need to keep the cover up alive is a well organised system. What you need is to control the "mainstream". Mainstream media, mainstream science...Yes, some alternative medias disclose information from time to time...a good example of that is Coast to Coast AM...

The society needs to get information from "credible" (notice the " ") sources in order to believe something. So, all you need is to control the top of the "credible" sources of information. That is all. You don't need to corrupt every scientists...since they all report to the same "credible" institutions. In reality, they're controlled at the top. And that is the thing people can't or don't want to believe.

So to put it simply, if a technology is suppressed, it will lack peer-reviewed articles (not all the times, there are some very good examples in this thread) because...well...it's suppressed! Does a technology or a particular science NEEDS to be peer-reviewed to work? No. Peer-reviewing is rigged and very selective. It is not a weak argument, it is simply something that you have to understand.

I would say...the biggest mistake of debunkers and dis-believers is that they completely ignore the conspiracy aspect of a problem. Instead of "believing" or "debunking", people should seek the truth. Sometimes, I wonder if there are a lot of truth seeker on ATS. Having the "believe attitude" makes one blind to the "debunking", and debunkers are blind to believers' points. Fact is...both have good points. What you need to do is to take both sides' valid points, and make it fit all together. That's how you get to the truth.

Another error is to completely dismiss witnesses and testimonials. While a lot of them may be false...it seems illogical to me that all these people would be either lying, being lied to, or simply not understanding the concept and that none of them were making genuine claims.

But I am glad the thread turned out to be interesting. I was fearing it would dive in stupid debates and name calling...as we so often see.

reply to post by Gab1159

So some have asked: are all these people in it? Are all the media, institutions, government officials and institutions and the scientists actively run the cover up? Yes...That's the point.

So why did the media cover failed and/or fraudulent technologies in the past? There are plenty of news videos on Stanley Meyer and the like, and the only thing I notice from that is sloppy reporting on the people who made the story.

If it was a grand conspiracy, why did they mention it at all? Why has there been a "60 Minutes" done on cold fusion?

The society needs to get information from "credible" (notice the " ") sources in order to believe something. So, all you need is to control the top of the "credible" sources of information. That is all.

I don't think the majority of MSM news outlets are credible, but on the other hand, alternative news sources seem to be worse, because they have no standards and no regulations.

Does a technology or a particular science NEEDS to be peer-reviewed to work? No.

No, but it needs to work. Which makes it reproducible. Which makes it very easy to peer review.

Another error is to completely dismiss witnesses and testimonials. While a lot of them may be false...it seems illogical to me that all these people would be either lying, being lied to, or simply not understanding the concept and that none of them were making genuine claims.

There are plenty of reasons for producing misinformation, usually completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Gab1159
Some people have to understand the concept behind the technological suppression. It's a conspiracy. I know some people just don't see it, and think it's a cheap/lame argument...

Just about everyone that I have a conversation with these days has no problems understanding “the concept behind …technological suppression.” I don’t even have to show any sources… they have a gut feeling they’re getting taken to the cleaners. The only place I’ve seen where “some people just don't see it” are these online discussion boards where the battle lines between truth and falsehood have been drawn.

Originally posted by soleprobe
The only place I’ve seen where “some people just don't see it” are these online discussion boards where the battle lines between truth and falsehood have been drawn.

Therein lies the rub.

I worked on radar and radio systems in the USAF, I studied electronics to
work on those systems.

As well, I have studied Nikola Tesla and consider him a great genius.

But, I have followed claims of "free energy" devices, at times with some
excitement, and they simply do not work.

So let me ask you,

Is your "truth" based on knowledge these devices actually work ?
Or is your "truth" based on a desire to believe these devices work ?

reply to post by Version100


Yes, my truth is based on the fact that some of the devices present in my OP link have been proved to work, some of them being peer-reviewed.

Hmm but the way, people seem to have jumped on the free-energy part of the link. Let me remind you it deals about free energy and highly efficient finite energy.

EDIT: And you can explore other forms of free-energy/highly efficient technologies if you don't believe Tesla build a free energy device. You know, my link has about 50 examples, and I've found many more posted by other members on this thread. Don't stick only to Tesla...

reply to post by Boncho

So why did the media cover failed and/or fraudulent technologies in the past? There are plenty of news videos on Stanley Meyer and the like, and the only thing I notice from that is sloppy reporting on the people who made the story. If it was a grand conspiracy, why did they mention it at all? Why has there been a "60 Minutes" done on cold fusion?

Leaks of information happen. The medias enforce the status quo, that has always been like this. The status quo NOW is that free-energy is impossible and that their are no better forms of energy than oil/nuclear power. Anyways...I'm not sure I fully get what you mean...

I don't think the majority of MSM news outlets are credible, but on the other hand, alternative news sources seem to be worse, because they have no standards and no regulations.

They're not "worse". You just have more crap to filter, but there's a way to find truth in the alternative medias. There's just no link in saying they're worse because there is no regulations. It's better this way, because if you can use discernment, you can find more truth than in MSM.

No, but it needs to work. Which makes it reproducible. Which makes it very easy to peer review.

And you apparently didn't get a single word of my previous post...

reply to post by Gab1159


S&F............See the movie, "Chain Reaction" with Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves............not to far off the mark.

Many people have either been killed or bought off by the big power companies wanting to keep their strangle hold on the people of the planet.

reply to post by Gab1159






We have a sun that could supply all our energy needs, heck one bolt of lightening could power Las Vegas for a year.

People have been killed or bought off because the number one currency on the planet is oil and gas.

The oil companies are the biggest lobbyists in DC, read my location..........know who your real enemy is.

It is the few that control the many because the many are ignorant.

reply to post by poet1b


What a lazy response. When the burden of proof is placed on you, you move the goalposts. These credible institutions you deride have given us the very technology we are using to talk to eachother, and that's just a drop in the ocean. Instead, you redefine "credible institution" to mean sources that provide no evidence whatsoever.

Where is the evidence? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Some YouTube vids and websites is not anywhere near enough. If plans for these so-called devices are on the net, there would be tens of thousands of amateurs building and using them, not the same old cranks who sing their praises yet never seem to have built one themselves... Where's your "over unity" device?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

The electric car isn't really a good comparison. It wasn't "revolutionary" technology. As I recall, I think the movie goes a bit overboard on the conspiracy angle and definitely relies too much on celebrity babble.

Are electric vehicles being suppressed now? Are oil companies making less money?

No, because they bring out the hybrid/electric and up the price of oil/gas almost 300% so they still "stick it to us".

Hmm, technology so suppressed...
...you have a list of them?

Originally posted by Version100

Could anyone point me to evidence that Nikola Tesla ever
proposed a viable "free energy" system ??

I have been a student of Tesla for approximately 30 years
and have read every piece of material on him that was not
written by some unsourced retard and there is nothing in
his work that indicates he was creating a "free energy"
system.

The proposed wireless transmission system would have
required a power company to supply transmitters and
receivers and the system would have been metered.

Nikola Tesla was one of the greatest geniuses of all time
but the wireless transmission system at Wardenclyff was
never intended to be any kind of "free energy" system.

He did postulate that "one day" mankind would draw
power "from the very wheel works of the universe" but
saying something would happen "one day" is much
different than being able to provide "free energy".

If anyone can provide a credible source for a Tesla
designed "free energy" system I would be most
interested to see it.

He demonstrated it in an electric car at one time though he would say nothing of how it worked. It accord in New York, I will see if I can find the newspaper article on iyt. That's the best I can do, like you I haven't seen anything either, other than an excerpt pf the article.

Originally posted by samkent
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?

Why pick a proven fraud to get your point across, why not us one of the suppressed technologies?

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by poet1b

People who dismiss this information off hand without every doing any research choose ignorance.

Evidence. Credible evidence. Peer-reviewed science, independent laboratory tests from credible institutions. The burden of proof is on those who claim to break the known laws of physics. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Anything less is simply insufficient as you are no longer preaching to the choir. Claims are ten a penny, evidence is hard to come by. If the evidence is so compelling, where is it?

1. When something is suppressed, it is very difficult to obtain evidence.
2. Peer review is biased in what They consider to review to begin with
3. Overunity does NOT break the known laws of physics - energy is NOT created out of "thin air." The plenum is seething with energy and there are ways of extracting that energy in useful form.
4. Hardly "extraordinary." Nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source.
5. Evidence is "hard to come by" because it is suppressed.

A friend of Mine worked for an inventor that was using magnets and the Earth's field to draw energy - the inventor was demonstrating it and garnering interest for investment. The FBI showed up and arrested the guy for "patent infringement (!)," and confiscated His equipment (leaving My friend out of a job).

Now, the inventor had arrived at His invention on His own - He had no clue of patents and though His work was unique. IF there is a patent that draws energy from magnetics like that...where the f# is it?

Oh, there's suppression alright.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
1. When something is suppressed, it is very difficult to obtain evidence.

So... there isn't any evidence? If there is, where is it?.

2. Peer review is biased in what They consider to review to begin with

*Sigh* Moving the goalposts again. I've addressed this point many times in this thread, I'm not going to repeat myself (again).

3. Overunity does NOT break the known laws of physics - energy is NOT created out of "thin air." The plenum is seething with energy and there are ways of extracting that energy in useful form.

Now I'd hate to think you were trying to out-jargon me by parroting sciency-sounding words you've read on one of these "alternative energy" websites, so back up your assertion with the appropriate academic paper(s) that support your position else you are making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Oh but of course, peer-reviewed science is inadmissible

4. Hardly "extraordinary." Nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source.

If it's so "ordinary", where is your "over unity" power generator? If they're so mundane, I'm assuming you have one, right? And yes, "over unity" does violate the laws of physics. Thus, the claims are extraordinary and require extraordinary proof. Or at least some proof...

5. Evidence is "hard to come by" because it is suppressed.

But the plans for theses "ordinary" devices are all over the internet, so why haven't you built one? Also, you are implicitly admitting there is no evidence because it is "suppressed". Thus, none of your wild claims can be substantiated as by even your own admission there is no evidence. And round we go...

A friend of Mine worked for an inventor that was using magnets and the Earth's field to draw energy - the inventor was demonstrating it and garnering interest for investment. The FBI showed up and arrested the guy for "patent infringement (!)," and confiscated His equipment (leaving My friend out of a job).

An FBI raid... to thwart patent infringement? Yet another wild, unsubstantiated claim...

Now, the inventor had arrived at His invention on His own - He had no clue of patents and though His work was unique. IF there is a patent that draws energy from magnetics like that...where the f# is it?

So, instead of evidence you present MORE unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence (this time in the form of "the gub'ment come took mah lab-you-tory!"). There is a pattern emerging here...

Oh, there's suppression alright.

Suppression of critical thinking, yes.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Amaterasu
1. When something is suppressed, it is very difficult to obtain evidence.

So... there isn't any evidence? If there is, where is it?.

Yes, there is. Black ops.

2. Peer review is biased in what They consider to review to begin with

*Sigh* Moving the goalposts again. I've addressed this point many times in this thread, I'm not going to repeat myself (again).

Whatever.

3. Overunity does NOT break the known laws of physics - energy is NOT created out of "thin air." The plenum is seething with energy and there are ways of extracting that energy in useful form.

Now I'd hate to think you were trying to out-jargon me by parroting sciency-sounding words you've read on one of these "alternative energy" websites, so back up your assertion with the appropriate academic paper(s) that support your position else you are making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Oh but of course, peer-reviewed science is inadmissible

Nothing in "peer-reviewed" science conflicts with plenum energy - oh, wait. You think I use "sciency-sounding words..." Guess You need help. Lessee... Plenum: The opposite of vacuum. The root of vacuum means "empty." The root of plenum means "full." The plenum is all space between particles, which seethes with "virtual" particles which add energy to Our universe. This is well established in science. Do I really have to show You the papers on this? It's well known. (And don't think I have no scientific training, love. That would be a poor assumption. I have studied quantum mechanics and cosmology extensively.)

Oh, what the heck:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Overunity: getting more energy out than is put in. If We build an energy extraction interface (whatever it might be) that extracts this plenum energy, then the energy We put in to do this will be less than what We are extracting - overunity.

4. Hardly "extraordinary." Nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source.

If it's so "ordinary", where is your "over unity" power generator? If they're so mundane, I'm assuming you have one, right? And yes, "over unity" does violate the laws of physics. Thus, the claims are extraordinary and require extraordinary proof. Or at least some proof...

[sigh] No. Overunity does NOT violate the laws of physics - unless One assumes that there is no source of energy. I did not say the methods One might use to draw on the plenum energy are "ordinary." I said there is nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source. Perhaps Your reading comprehension is impaired...

5. Evidence is "hard to come by" because it is suppressed.

But the plans for theses "ordinary" devices are all over the internet, so why haven't you built one? Also, you are implicitly admitting there is no evidence because it is "suppressed". Thus, none of your wild claims can be substantiated as by even your own admission there is no evidence. And round we go...

It isn't "wild" to claim the existence of something that One knows exists, methinks. I did not say the devices were "ordinary" - that was Your word. In fact, My husband and I are working on building an invention of His which will draw on the plenum energy - but We are quite poor at the moment and funding for the project often runs into a wall. He expects to have it built within the next month or so, though.

I did NOT say there was "no evidence." Let's quit putting words in My "mouth," eh? I said there IS evidence, in the form of declassified documents (I provided links in my earlier post that You failed to respond to...), in the form of My memories, and hidden in black ops. That *I* can't access what is in black ops does not follow that there is nothing there supporting what I know.

A friend of Mine worked for an inventor that was using magnets and the Earth's field to draw energy - the inventor was demonstrating it and garnering interest for investment. The FBI showed up and arrested the guy for "patent infringement (!)," and confiscated His equipment (leaving My friend out of a job).

An FBI raid... to thwart patent infringement? Yet another wild, unsubstantiated claim...

I am telling what I know. Take it or leave it. I have little vestment in enlightening You.

Now, the inventor had arrived at His invention on His own - He had no clue of patents and though His work was unique. IF there is a patent that draws energy from magnetics like that...where the f# is it?

So, instead of evidence you present MORE unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence (this time in the form of "the gub'ment come took mah lab-you-tory!"). There is a pattern emerging here...

Um... I provided a bunch of evidence in that post You (I'll be generous here) missed. Perhaps You should go back and see what I provided, eh?

Oh, there's suppression alright.

Suppression of critical thinking, yes.

Hmmmm.... On whose part, I wonder. (Hint: I have near certainty it is not me - *I*'m going on experience, knowledge, study, declassified documents, industry comments, and only a sparse addition of deduction.)

reply to post by Gab1159

Leaks of information happen. The medias enforce the status quo, that has always been like this. The status quo NOW is that free-energy is impossible and that their are no better forms of energy than oil/nuclear power. Anyways...I'm not sure I fully get what you mean...

Hydropower is the most important and widely-used renewable source of energy.
Hydropower represents 19% of total electricity production.
China is the largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil, and the United States (Source: Energy Information Administration).
Approximately two-thirds of the economically feasible potential remains to be developed. Untapped hydro resources are still abundant in Latin America, Central Africa, India and China.

ga.water.usgs.gov...



The suppression you are claiming is just not there, nor is the "status quo". The funny thing, is that the free energy crowd never addresses the problems that come with alternative energies.

Confirmed: Biofuels Better Than Fossil Fuels in Jet Engines - Scaling Them Up is the Major Problem

Hydroelectric power is not perfect, though, and does have some disadvantages:/p>

High investment costs
Hydrology dependent (precipitation)
In some cases, inundation of land and wildlife habitat
In some cases, loss or modification of fish habitat
Fish entrainment or passage restriction
In some cases, changes in reservoir and stream water quality
In some cases, displacement of local populations

Solar

. For example, in 2007 and 2008, demand for manufacturing-quality silicon from the solar energy and semiconductor industries led to shortages that temporarily increased PV costs.14

1

Geothermal energy

People living near a geothermal drilling project in fault-riddled northern California are worried about more earthquakes after a similar project triggered a major jolt in Switzerland. A seismologist explains the forces at work

www.scientificamerican.com... othermal-drilling-earthquakes








Wind

In the U.K. (population 60 million), 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002, according to the Department of Trade and Industry. The government hopes to increase the use of renewables to 10.4% by 2010 and 20.4% by 2020, requiring many tens of thousands more towers. As demand will have grown, however, even more turbines will be required. In California (population 35 million), according to the state energy commission, 14,000 turbines (about 1,800 MW capacity) produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2000. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, and without accounting for an increase in energy demand, well over 100,000 1.5-MW wind towers (costing $150-300 billion) would be necessary to meet the DOE's goal of a mere 5% of the country's electricity from wind by 2010.

a

And for every negative article you find about alternative energies, you can find a positive one as well, or at least find papers from scientists and engineers that are trying to overcome the problems they are facing.

And in regards to actual electricity production in the US, people should stop saying "big oil" and perhaps start using :big coal" as the tin foil hat nemesis that is suppressing "free energy".Electricity Production

Originally posted by Version100

Originally posted by soleprobe
The only place I’ve seen where “some people just don't see it” are these online discussion boards where the battle lines between truth and falsehood have been drawn.

Therein lies the rub.

I worked on radar and radio systems in the USAF, I studied electronics to work on those systems.

Just curious if You are aware that the "Maxwell's Equations" taught in school are just half the picture Maxwell actually described in His quaternions...

What the schools teach today is the Heaviside/Briggs truncation of the quaternions which threw out half of what Maxwell offered.

But, I have followed claims of "free energy" devices, at times with some excitement, and they simply do not work.

Or... Some don't - and You are TOLD the ones that do don't. If there is suppression, in forms such as patent buyout-and-bury, money in exchange for silence, threats to self and family, and murder ("accidents," "heart attacks," etc.). There is a lot of evidence that this is SOP by TPTB to suppress any threat to Their power structure. They do it with cures for diseases, too. (e.g., Royal Rife was a prime such target.)

Is your "truth" based on knowledge these devices actually work ?
Or is your "truth" based on a desire to believe these devices work ?

Though this question was directed to another, I will say I KNOW that electrogravitics (EG) was seeing antigravity and overunity in the 1950's. My father would come home, hyped up about the work He was doing in EG and tried to explain how it worked and what it did. I grasped the "what it did" better than "how it worked" - I was a toddler at the time (but have memories back to about age one). What it did was create antigravity and overunity.

I even have a memory of Him beaming at Me for saying quite well (for about 22 months) "electrogravitics."

One night, My dad came home late and woke Me up, explaining that We could not talk about EG anymore because "They want it secret for now." EG went into black ops in late 1959/early 1960.

For whatever value You might place on that.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Gab1159

 

The suppression you are claiming is just not there, nor is the "status quo". The funny thing, is that the free energy crowd never addresses the problems that come with alternative energies.

Solar power development was slower than it could have been, fighting an uphill battle with other forms of energy production, and because They can still meter much of solar power production - at least that which is produced and offered on the Grid - They are less worried about it than some form that can be extracted anywhere, anytime by anybody... Plenum energy scares Them silly. So They suppress knowledge of it.

But I should know better than to engage You, bonch... Heh. Well, You do make Me chuckle, so I have that to look forward to.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Yes, there is. Black ops.

Saying the words "Black Ops" is not evidence. Where is the evidence?

Nothing in "peer-reviewed" science conflicts with plenum energy - oh, wait. You think I use "sciency-sounding words..." Guess You need help. Lessee... Plenum: The opposite of vacuum. The root of vacuum means "empty." The root of plenum means "full." The plenum is all space between particles, which seethes with "virtual" particles which add energy to Our universe. This is well established in science. Do I really have to show You the papers on this? It's well known. (And don't think I have no scientific training, love. That would be a poor assumption. I have studied quantum mechanics and cosmology extensively.)

Hang on a minute... I thought peer-reviewed science was not admissible as evidence? Make up your mind, cite the academic papers to back up your "over unity" claims if it's accepted science. If it's so well known, "show me the money".

Oh, what the heck:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Your link is dead, but the hyperlink is clearly an article about virtual particles. Thanks, but that has nothing to do with over unity devices. You stated that "there are ways of extracting that energy in useful form". Show me the science to support the idea that such energy can be extracted, then show me the evidence that this is being done. Do NOT link me to speculative websites, link me to academic papers. You choose to cherry pick scientific concepts to support your argument, then you shall play the game using ONLY credible, peer-reviewed sources from reputable journals (aka real science). Otherwise, leave legitimate science well alone, it is not to be distorted to suite your agenda.

..twisting scientific concepts, yet dismissing peer-reviewed science... unbelievable.

Overunity: getting more energy out than is put in. If We build an energy extraction interface (whatever it might be) that extracts this plenum energy, then the energy We put in to do this will be less than what We are extracting - overunity.

Citation needed.

No. Overunity does NOT violate the laws of physics - unless One assumes that there is no source of energy. I did not say the methods One might use to draw on the plenum energy are "ordinary." I said there is nothing extraordinary in drawing energy from a source. Perhaps Your reading comprehension is impaired...

It certainly is extraordinary, since contemporary science does not agree with you. Unless you can cite some peer-reviewed, academic papers from relevant, credible journals? After all, you want to play the science game by using it to support your argument, then you shall play by the rules by only citing proper scientific papers. Otherwise, leave the science alone.

It isn't "wild" to claim the existence of something that One knows exists, methinks. I did not say the devices were "ordinary" - that was Your word. In fact, My husband and I are working on building an invention of His which will draw on the plenum energy - but We are quite poor at the moment and funding for the project often runs into a wall. He expects to have it built within the next month or so, though.

More conjecture. See my previous replies.

I did NOT say there was "no evidence." Let's quit putting words in My "mouth," eh? I said there IS evidence, in the form of declassified documents (I provided links in my earlier post that You failed to respond to...), in the form of My memories, and hidden in black ops. That *I* can't access what is in black ops does not follow that there is nothing there supporting what I know.

Then show me the evidence, then! Surely it cannot be that hard? All you have done is retorted with conjecture.

I am telling what I know. Take it or leave it. I have little vestment in enlightening You.

I'll leave it thanks, by belly is full from all this conjecture for the time being.

[Um... I provided a bunch of evidence in that post You (I'll be generous here) missed. Perhaps You should go back and see what I provided, eh?

You have not posted a single shred of evidence in any of your responses. All you have posted is conjecture.