Suppressed Technology...

[Kunja]

After all the encouragement from Gene and Chris to join the community and participate on the forums, I decided to jump in. I would like to hear a discussion about what I believe is an obvious suppression of technology. Any thoughts on the subject?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

After all the encouragement from Gene and Chris to join the community and participate on the forums, I decided to jump in. I would like to hear a discussion about what I believe is an obvious suppression of technology. Any thoughts on the subject?

Welcome to the Forum! May your journeys here be fun, informative and entertaining!
Money and power fund many (if not most?) cutting-edge technology development projects. The have's don't need to disclose to the have nots. We unwashed masses don't have a need-to-know and are superfluous unless, of course, they need crash test dummies or unwitting experimental subjects.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Like technology that the government keeps secret for reasons of weapons security? What do you mean by suppressed technology? That's a new one for me.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Perhaps my greatest interest in direct and associated parallel to UFOs and Fortean goodness in general *is* suppressed technology. I am certain that there are few better examples than the famed Tesla/Edison suppression. Chris is of course exactly on the money with his money/power reference. In the golden age of industry, it was all about money and power. I'm thinking that things haven't changed much. Are you aware of Tesla's many suppressed technologies applications? If not, it's a wonderful place to start.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Welcome indeed!

I have zero problem believing in surpressed tech. It's simple, our way of life depends on hydrocarbons and if some great mind finds an easy way to say split water or tap into the almost limitless energy predicted to exist in the tiniest space of a vacuum (don't know if it's actually/can be measured yet), then of course big money interests (oil) or governments may at the least buy patents and at the worst, 'take out' anyone likely to cause such a problem. In fact, I think it's the technology/energy question that is probably at the core of all reasons for UFO secrecy, if UFO's are actually advanced craft built by sentient aliens etc.

Problem is, it's hard to discuss surpressed tech, cos we don't know what it could be -it's being surpressed.

 

[mike]

We did some talking about this a while back

Dolan: The Secret Space Program - Who is Responsible? | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

I still maintain that while "free energy" is a great idea. Its introduction will have really bad knock on effects

 

[Goggs Mackay]

We did some talking about this a while back

Dolan: The Secret Space Program - Who is Responsible? | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

I still maintain that while "free energy" is a great idea. Its introduction will have really bad knock on effects

Yes I remember the thread Mike. And I also agree that the implications are extremely far-reaching. But having said that, sometimes to advance and improve life, a painful period has to be endured - like recovering from a painful operation on the knee to be able to walk the rest of one's life etc.

Personally I hate any kind of roadworks, but if they resurface a road I use regularly, I am always glad once the work is over.

So, in my own mind, sudden near-free energy generation might well cause all sorts of financial problems and social problems etc but there would come a day when all that is behind us and we could be left with a fairer and improved society.

A bothersome aspect of all this is routinely getting hints from a-holes like Greer who claim they know people with over-unity energy generation tech etc but we never see any of it connected to meters to prove more energy is coming out than going in. I'd love to see that but I've not seen evidence that humans have achieved that in big labs, let alone lone inventor types. Shame really, it would be great to believe in some of the stuff Greer says but I just don't so far.

 

[Kunja]

Like technology that the government keeps secret for reasons of weapons security? What do you mean by suppressed technology? That's a new one for me.

the easiest way I can explain what I'm talking about it... it took only 68 years from the first powered flight till we landed on the moon, and we're still driving cars with the same basic engine design for over 100 years. I find something very wrong with that!

 

[Mortlach]

Greetings from Scotland peoples! I'm fascinated with this topic! Some of the greatest examples being The DePalma N-Machine and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell and Tesla's system for wireless free energy. The promise of these technologies could be earth shattering but it looks like the financial powers of the world continue today what they have been secretly doing for over a hundred years. Supressing the little guy, the idealist who can see a more advanced, cleaner world where energy is free and non polluting. J.P. Morgan couldn't put a meter on Tesla's wireless energy so he ruined him and today's billion dollar energy corporations are no different. I could easily believe these corporations would stop at nothing to prevent these devices and technologies entering the public market place. Also, has anyone tried getting a patent for a free energy device? Give it a go and see what happens!

 

[exo_doc]

I have an August 1984 issue of Omni magazine with an article about the French implementing a vaccine for tooth decay, aka cavities, with apparent great success. The article staes that the FDA here in the States would not approve it because it could be harmful to the E.Coli bacteria in our intestines. This was disputed by the French because in 4 years of vaccines they had the average cases of side effects for any vaccine, with nothing involving the intestines.

I want to know what happened to this vaccine. Why was this the only article written about it that I have ever seen? If you do a google on it, all you get are experimental stuff or" in the future" articles.

Other things:
The Ford Model T got 25 miles per gallon in 1908..........the average for cars in 2008 was 21 miler per gallon........with todays tech any idiot could see we should be driving at least 50+ miles per gallon, and that's conservatively. Check out this article:
Car Mileage - 1908 Ford Model T Gas Mileage: 25, 2004 Average All Cars: 21 Miles Per Gallon

.
.
.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

the easiest way I can explain what I'm talking about it... it took only 68 years from the first powered flight till we landed on the moon, and we're still driving cars with the same basic engine design for over 100 years. I find something very wrong with that!

I guess I get where you're coming from. In my brain, though, it seems like that's drawing unfair parallels.

You bundle all of flight, including aeronautics and aerospace engineering, into one category, despite the vast differences between the fields, but cut all of land travel up into pieces, even dismissing the fact that engines of 100 years ago are nothing like engines of today. A fairer parallel would be to say that the first rocket, as we know them, was launched in 1926, then nearly 40 years later we were in space, and compare that to the evolution of the original automobile engine and the modern combustion engine/electric engines. Or, combine aeronautics and aerospace, as you had done originally, but be just as fair to land travel, by combining the technological development of the original, steam-powered locomotive and the electrically powered bullet trains of today and/or the ThrustSSC "supersonic car." The distinction your comparison gives the technology of the civilian automobile seems somewhat arbitrary; especially considering the fact that aerospace engineering doesn't apply to civilian vehicles and the advancements in civilian (personal), automotive technology are no more understated than advancements in civilian (personal), aeronautics technology.

I guess I have to sit this one out.

 

[Mortlach]

I guess I get where you're coming from. In my brain, though, it seems like that's drawing unfair parallels.

You bundle all of flight, including aeronautics and aerospace engineering, into one category, despite the vast differences between the fields, but cut all of land travel up into pieces, even dismissing the fact that engines of 100 years ago are nothing like engines of today. A fairer parallel would be to say that the first rocket, as we know them, was launched in 1926, then nearly 40 years later we were in space, and compare that to the evolution of the original automobile engine and the modern combustion engine/electric engines. Or, combine aeronautics and aerospace, as you had done originally, but be just as fair to land travel, by combining the technological development of the original, steam-powered locomotive and the electrically powered bullet trains of today and/or the ThrustSSC "supersonic car." The distinction your comparison gives the technology of the civilian automobile seems somewhat arbitrary; especially considering the fact that aerospace engineering doesn't apply to civilian vehicles and the advancements in civilian (personal), automotive technology are no more understated than advancements in civilian (personal), aeronautics technology.

I guess I have to sit this one out.

While Kunja's statement may be a rather "broad brush" I totally agree, especially regarding cars, I saw a documentary a few years ago that I really wish I could find now. It featured a tuning company that had managed to tune a corvette to produce 800bhp and yet they could get 80mpg out of it at the same time! I have a 1997 Citroen which returns an average of 68mpg, a figure that their brand new cars aren't achieving! Something in the automotive world is indeed very wrong and my gut tells me it has something to do with the oil companies. Considering how quickly other technological sectors advance, the motor industry leaves a lot to be desired as far as efficiency is concerned. Prime example is the Bugatti Veyron, the pinnacle of road going automotive engineering! It's 16.4 litre engine doesn't produce 1001 horsepower as stated, it produces 3000 horsepower! 1999 of that however is wasted as heat, so much heat that during testing, it set fire to the ventilation equipment on the roof of the testing facility. This gave rise to the requirement of no less than ten radiators. Energy waste through heat loss has been known about for over a century, you would think the industry would've come up with a way to harness that energy by now!

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Was your Citroen a diesel?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I think most of the people in the industry know that electric is the future, at this point. The car of the year in a few magazines was an electric car. The problem with electric, originally, was that the engines and the technology required to run them were all very expensive. research has brought the costs down, quite a bit. There are $15,000 electrics, now. Even at the top of the electric car class, the Tesla cars, things are becoming more affordable. There's a fully loaded Roadster that i see in my area from time to time.

Trying to manipulate mpg in the cars we have now is basically a waste of time. Building longer and longer distance electric batteries is the future. Most of the automotive companies are putting money into achieving this. Toyota was even in talks with Tesla to use a battery of their design in a new line of fully electric RAV 4's. Tesla has the best battery on the market, the last time I read about it.

 

[nameless]

The first cars to be invented were electric. until some dude found petroleum in Texas(babylon) and mass marketed the much out of petrol cars. ngggghhhh

 

[Randall]

Not all suppressed technology is exotic technology. Perhaps some of the most suppressed technologies that would make the biggest impact in modern society are the various technologies surrounding the specific use of hemp, which according to the famous rant by Jello Biafra is a more efficient and faster renewable source of methanol energy for fuel than corn, a cheaper, less polluting and more easily renewed source for paper than trees, a renewable cheap source of fibers for clothing and rope, a much less damaging source of smoking pleasure than tobacco, an easy home remedy for various kinds of pain, a higher source of protein than soybeans ... and more. At last some breakthroughs are finally being made in some states.

 

[Mortlach]

Yes my car is a 1.9 litre diesel. The closest current equivalent is probably the Citroen C5 1.6 diesel which will manage about 60 mpg. I don't think further development with combustion is a wate of time at all, we had cars in the 80's that were achieving over 80mpg! If that's what was being done then, Im sure we could do better now if only the motivation was there. I have a couple of issues with electric cars at the moment. A: Where does the vast majority of the electricity for your electric car come from? B: The environmental impact of large scale electric car production is shocking, mainly due to the heavy metal recovery. Some very interesting studies have been conducted regarding the Co2/per unit cost of producing an electric vehicle vs a conventional vehicle. From an environmental standpoint the best option is hydrogen fuel cells. No toxic, heavy metals are required in their manufacture and the only emmissions from the system are water and heat. I don't really see the downside of it. In my opinion, the only reason it hasn't been getting as much attention as conventional electric cars have is because as soon as you start getting your energy from a less controlled source, the big energy corporations of the world start to loose control of you. Conventional electric cars play right into their hands, the only impac they have on the energy corporations is that they end up sending more hydrocarbons to the power plants to generate all those lovely watts for your electric car and less to the gas station pumps. Then they'll have to upgrade the power grid to cope with the increased demand for electricity and how will they pay for the upgraded infrastructure? More than likely by increasing your elecctricity rates. Either way, they've got you by the balls. Look into Stanley Meyer's case, the guy wound up dead after refusing a billion dollar offer to buy out his tecnology, if that doesn't show a motivation by these huge corporate powers to supress a great idea I don't know what does!

 

[ProphetofOccam]

A: Where does the vast majority of the electricity for your electric car come from? B: The environmental impact of large scale electric car production is shocking, mainly due to the heavy metal recovery. Some very interesting studies have been conducted regarding the Co2/per unit cost of producing an electric vehicle vs a conventional vehicle.

If progressives are allowed to progress, from renewable sources. The technology used to produce electric car batteries has gotten, and can continue to get, cleaner and more efficient, as the technology is allowed to develop. Aside from that, electric cars consume far less energy to run on a full charge per unit than gasoline powered cars. What that means is, the ammount of "extra" electricity that will be needed to fuel the car is much smaller than the amount of gas being burnt to run a standard car. Removing the gasoline burning from the environment is beneficial, even if it means an insignificant fraction more coal has to be burned as a consequence.

From an environmental standpoint the best option is hydrogen fuel cells. No toxic, heavy metals are required in their manufacture and the only emmissions from the system are water and heat. I don't really see the downside of it. In my opinion, the only reason it hasn't been getting as much attention as conventional electric cars have is because as soon as you start getting your energy from a less controlled source, the big energy corporations of the world start to loose control of you.

Or they monopolize the hydrogen industry, secure all relevant patents, and block production of patented technology by smaller competitors. Besides, hydrogen cars use electricity to make electricity, and also require some plugging. They aren't dynamos.

They all have their potential problems. Until money gets put into cleaner electricity, none of it can be solved completely.

 

[exo_doc]

I know of one technology that was very deliberately suppressed in front of everyone.
Remember the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"..... Who Killed the Electric Car? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A very successful electric car design loved by the drivers, and the cars were confiscated and destroyed by the maunfacturer.
This is a must see video!

And what about the pharmaceutical industry? Do you think they would withold cheap one time cures for expensive ongoing medicinal treatments? I know they hard sell drugs of dubious benefits with horrific side effects even worse than what the meds are supposedly treating.

 

[exo_doc]

Speaking of the "Big Pharma"...............See what you think about this article. A cure for cancer found 70 years ago? It's a good article.
Cancer Cures