The 18 most suppressed inventions ever!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Yes, I live in the USA, unfortunately in many instances. You can't put up a windmill, even if you live in a rural, farm, at least in Wisconsin.

I hear New Zealand is beautiful and that it's very hard to emigrate there.

There are many good threads about Agenda 21 on ATS and I hope many people will learn more about it.

Walt Myers reveals his personal experiences and suppression of his invention of free energy device.

video.google.com...


www.kz1300.com...

This is a variation of Tesla's magnifying transformer.

Originally posted by Tribble
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

Point taken. I think I was drunk when I slammed your post. Im sORRY!

90% of the worlds food supply is from big business and their methods are top secret, as in very few actually know the full extent of their reckless scientific intervention.

It's unnatural and imo right next to force feeding steroids or the like to the masses. It's all about profit.

TRIBBLE Dont mention it .
i made a couple of posts in the thread about it, and there is some of each going on . It could be due to suppression of the fact that some of the techniques are so low tech , that with a small low risk investment , the 'profit-model' results are available anywhere , anytime.
At home 'profit-model' becomes an undepreciable investment offering multi-product returns .

imo anything that will disrupt the world economy in a big way will most
likely be suppressed

Why is it that believers always say it's big oil companies supress water powered cars?

Big oil doesn't manufacture cars. They sell gasoline.

Ford - Chevy - Etc manufactures cars.

Back when gas flirted with $5 a gallon any car company that had cars that would get 100 mpg would sell their entire production run at prices above sticker. No rebates. No 1% interest deals.
Even now there seems to be a race for the highest mpg cars. Each year they seem to sqeeze another mpg out of their line. That didn't happen 5 years ago.

Get your conspiracies straight.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

and there's another Pakistani has claimed to have a water powered car too - in July this year (So Ghulamn (note spelling) is not actually "the most recent" at all -

if its legit, which i seriously doubt, more than likely you will not see it happen.
a dean at a prestigious state uni confided in me in aug 2010 and said 'we have to abide by international agreements'. prolly the same applies to the pakistani govt.

Originally posted by samkent
Why is it that believers always say it's big oil companies supress water powered cars?

Big oil doesn't manufacture cars. They sell gasoline.

Ford - Chevy - Etc manufactures cars.

Back when gas flirted with $5 a gallon any car company that had cars that would get 100 mpg would sell their entire production run at prices above sticker. No rebates. No 1% interest deals.
Even now there seems to be a race for the highest mpg cars. Each year they seem to sqeeze another mpg out of their line. That didn't happen 5 years ago.

Get your conspiracies straight.

That doesn't really mesh with current offerings in the car/truck lineup. There isn't really any cars that are pushing the envelope with the Gas Mileage over here in the US. My wife's 1998 Econobox gets 35-38mpg with Max A/C. This is consistent mind you, and we're pushing 170k with no diligent maintenance on my part. The BRAND NEW 2012 Honda Civic we were looking at gets *about* the same.

14yr NEWER technology getting the same gas mileage as my old-tech car?! Explain to me how that is squeezing more MPG's? Shouldn't it at LEAST be getting 50MPG???

Sure, it has a little more HP (emphasis on little), but as far as I'm concerned, I can still do 80MPH on the Interstate and pass people in my old econobox.


I'm also curious as to where these 100MPG cars you're talking about are! Are these some super secret club-member-only offerings I wasn't aware of?!

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION


That doesn't really mesh with current offerings in the car/truck lineup. There isn't really any cars that are pushing the envelope with the Gas Mileage over here in the US. My wife's 1998 Econobox gets 35-38mpg with Max A/C. This is consistent mind you, and we're pushing 170k with no diligent maintenance on my part. The BRAND NEW 2012 Honda Civic we were looking at gets *about* the same.

14yr NEWER technology getting the same gas mileage as my old-tech car?! Explain to me how that is squeezing more MPG's? Shouldn't it at LEAST be getting 50MPG???

You don't say precisely what your econobox is, but the brand new Civic has anything from a 1.4 to a 2.4 litre engine, is probably bigger, heavier, has more accessories, etc.

Sure, it has a little more HP (emphasis on little), but as far as I'm concerned, I can still do 80MPH on the Interstate and pass people in my old econobox.

And if that is all you want to do then you should stick to your econobox.

But you should compare it to 2012 econoboxes - not 2012 family sedans. 2012 sedans should be compared to 1998 sedans.

I'm also curious as to where these 100MPG cars you're talking about are! Are these some super secret club-member-only offerings I wasn't aware of?!

See my posts earlier in this thread for links.

a reply to: TechUnique

I am resurrecting this 2012 thread, since this "innovation suppression" continues unabated - and has now advanced into "innovation destruction".

1) Tesla wanted an energy system that flowed thru the air. Oh no! Too much money lost in taxing must-have, everyone-wants utilities! Then, when computers and the Internet burst on the scene, we suddenly got energy-thru-the-air as Wi-Fi. Only because TPTB have found a way to tax both senders and recipients, instead of monolithic "electrical utilities." (Although both are vulnerable, as Team Obama's darker plottings hint at creating a country-wide EMP wave that would fry our entire electrical AND electronic infrastructure. And their facist dreams of never leaving the White House could finally come true.)

2) We have no more manned-exploration thru NASA, since the billions to create a shuttle replacement were diverted into the super-secret, gravity-cancelling TR-3B triangle. So now NASA has been reduced to just probe/satellite/ISS "science faire experiments." While helpful ideas like this usually go no-where:

nextbigfuture.com...
HOW TO FIX U.S. SPACE PROJECTS AND DEFENSE PROGRAMS COSTS ARE TEN TO ONE HUNDRED TIMES TOO HIGH
"James Wertz of Microcosm presented at the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group on "Reinventing Space--Why Aren't We There?"

3) And NASA and other innovations have excelled at Team Obama's key strategy for "innovation suppression": Delay, Delay, Delay. The Space Taxi seems ever farther way in reality. And glitch-a-minute SpaceX - whose once a year partial tests never work as they should ("Oh darn! Need another fifteen-bill for another three decades of "tests!") - perfectly highlight this strategy. Now the rest of society has picked up on this:

nextbigfuture.com...
ROBOT MASS EMPLOYMENT DELAYED AS A MILLION I-PHONE BUILDING ROBOTS AT FOXCONN DELAYED A DECADE OR MORE
"Foxconn is planning to install 10,000 Foxbots to produce the iPhone, and each robot can assemble an average of 30,000 devices a year. The robots, which will cost between $20,000 and $25,000 each, could turn out large savings for Foxconn, which currently employs more than 1 million workers across its various factories in China."

(NOTE: If you want to see what's going on with robotics in the U.S., check with Google. They've been quietly buying up different robotics companies for several years now.)

They forgot to mention sexbots. That would change the dating game quite a bit.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: TechUnique

I am resurrecting this 2012 thread, since this "innovation suppression" continues unabated - and has now advanced into "innovation destruction".

apparently by destroying your ability to think critically.

1) Tesla wanted an energy system that flowed thru the air. Oh no! Too much money lost in taxing must-have, everyone-wants utilities! Then, when computers and the Internet burst on the scene, we suddenly got energy-thru-the-air as Wi-Fi.

Err..no!

apart from in the trivial sense, wi fi is not a transmission of energy.

The trivial sense is that wifi is RADIO, and so transmits radio energy in miniscule amounts that are good for transferring information and f-a else - and that is because Wi-Fi IS RADIO.

2) We have no more manned-exploration thru NASA, since the billions to create a shuttle replacement were diverted into the super-secret, gravity-cancelling TR-3B triangle. So now NASA has been reduced to just probe/satellite/ISS "science faire experiments." While helpful ideas like this usually go no-where:

nextbigfuture.com...
HOW TO FIX U.S. SPACE PROJECTS AND DEFENSE PROGRAMS COSTS ARE TEN TO ONE HUNDRED TIMES TOO HIGH
"James Wertz of Microcosm presented at the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group on "Reinventing Space--Why Aren't We There?"

And why should NASA be the be-all and end-all of US space programmes??

there's bucket loads of innovation in space flight going on in the US right now - much of it funded through NASA - such as the Spaceship Company and Orbital sciences Corporation

3) And NASA and other innovations have excelled at Team Obama's key strategy for "innovation suppression": Delay, Delay, Delay. The Space Taxi seems ever farther way in reality. And glitch-a-minute SpaceX - whose once a year partial tests never work as they should ("Oh darn! Need another fifteen-bill for another three decades of "tests!") - perfectly highlight this strategy.

huh?? SpaceX is doing very well thank you - and was only one of several companies contracted by NASA to develop the next manned capsule - see here. This is now down to 2 such companies - Siera Nevada having dropped out.

SpaceX has a $2.6 billion contract to develop it's manned Dragon capsule - to be ready by 2017. Boeing's contact allows up to $4.2 billion for development of its craft.

SpaceX is a low cost launchers who's prices undercut all other commercial launchers who are now scrambling to compete.

congratulations on demonstrating pretty much total ignorance on your selected subject matter - or possibly deliberate disinformation??

I have to agree its seems pretty clear to me

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Nice of you to cherry-pick the parts of my post you would deign to respond to. Which ended up one long advertisement for Elon Musk/SpaceX. And you accused ME of "deliberate disinformation." (Uh, No. Quite the opposite.)

www.zpenergy.com...
(2008) SUPPRESSION OF NEW IDEAS AND INNOVATION
"Human history is riddled with examples of innovations and research that had been suppressed and derogated by the leading science community and the accepted scientific conventions of the time. Throughout human history, many innovators became the victims of the insults of the skeptical scientific, governmental and corporate power elites.

"Many scientists and scholars know that disagreeing with the dominant view is risky, especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. When someone presents a new research, unconventional or unpopular scientific view, or comes out with a new way of doing things that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body, representatives of that group attack the innovator's ideas and the innovator personally.

"Such attacks are carried out by censoring writing, blocking publications, withdrawing or denying grants, taking legal actions, or spreading rumors."

P.S. to Alexball
Some people believe that as soon as we have "sexbots," human prostitution and sex trafficking will cease. No word on the blow-up-doll or video porn industries ...

a reply to: MKMoniker

If your idea of a credible source is an article on www.zpenergy.com... then I have to agree that it is your critical thinking skills that are the true victim of supression here.

I'll tell you what my findings equate to...

If I can buy any/all components necessary to fulfill my desire to live off-the-grid, (solar panels/battery bank/inverter array; for numerous circuits) and that stuff is highly expensive/nearly unobtainable if you carry my wallet...but it is available to those who are liberated enough to afford such a luxury.

I would be using them components, once paid in full; just like anyone else living off-the-grid.
Would think of myself as self-reliant...too.

Have we knowledge that the majority of products we utilize in our homes actually use inverted electrical current/AC from the wall inverted to DC current, people might put two and two together?

That is the sound of a tree falling in the woods where noone is in range of hearing it.

Where does Lockheed's announcement of the development of a small-scale/big output portable fusion device fit in with this rampant conspiracy mongering? Where's the suppression there?

a reply to: Blue Shift

The level of "suppression" is inversely proportional to the level of plausibility.

a reply to: Jedite

Why should we still be working so hard?
We have the bulk of women in the workforce since the 1980s (Bush I's recession)

If we were allowed to be independent from energy, phone, gas, power and everything that comes from having a BC and SSN the US would be a better place.

I want my 4 hour workweek and my flying car.

originally posted by: Jedite
A lot of it isn't even repressed, the common man doesn't think about the repercussions from some of those inventions. Many of them would put hundreds, maybe thousands if not more out of work. Which in turn would start a downward spiral, because they would be spending less if at all, losing many things. Which would force other jobs to lay people off etc etc.

Thousands of people........come on. If you are going to make a point make it a good one. So should we keep fighting endless wars so the military industrial complex can keep chugging along? I am sure 100 maybe even a 1000 jobs might be at stake......LOL


I am sorry kinda grumpy today.........

a reply to: MKMoniker

Nice of you to make no point at all to refute any of my actual comments.

If you base an argument on a wide ranging premise then it DOES only take 1 cherry picked example of it being wrong to debunk it.

You have a silly premise for which you have no actual supporting evidence, and there is a great deal of evidence that debunks it - of which I presented just a few cases.

That's your problem - not mine.