Speaker 1: What if the world we live in is only a
fraction of what's possible. Imagine technology so revolutionary they could
rewrite the rules of energy, transportation, even our understanding of
gravity itself sounds like the stuff of dreams.
Speaker 2: Right, it's pure science fiction, almost almost.
Speaker 1: But what if these breakthroughs haven't just been dreamt up
but actually discovered, only to be deliberately kept from us.
Speaker 2: That's the territory we're exploring today.
Speaker 1: We've compiled a fascinating set of accounts exploring this very possibility,
Whispers of suppressed inventions sideline scientists in a world that
could have been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, get ready to question everything you thought you knew.
Speaker 1: We're diving into a collection of compelling, albeit controversial narratives today.
Speaker 2: Definitely controversial. These are stories suggesting transformative technologies, things like
engines with unheard of fuel efficiency, device is seemingly powered
by nothing free energy, essentially right, and even attempts to
manipulate gravity have been intentionally kept out of the mainstream.
Speaker 1: And these aren't just abstract ideas floating around, No.
Speaker 2: Not at all. We'll be looking at specific inventions, patents
that were actually granted and in some cases reported tests
that hinted at truly game changing potential.
Speaker 1: Exactly, We're going to explore some of the key claims
around this idea of suppressed science. We'll examine instances ranging
from well early efforts to dramatically improve how our cars
use fuel way back to the intriguing, almost unbelievable tales
of engines that could supposedly run on water.
Speaker 2: That one always gets me.
Speaker 3: We'll even touch on.
Speaker 1: The more esoteric concepts of zero point energy and anti
gravity big ones. Our goal here isn't to say whether
these claims are absolutely true or false, but to really
understand the stories themselves, the alleged fates of the people
behind these inventions, and the reasons often cited for their
disappearance from public view.
Speaker 2: Let's start maybe back when the car was still relatively new.
The hunt for better gas miilage seems to.
Speaker 1: Be a constant theme, it really does.
Speaker 2: Our sources point to an early example and Canada. This
is the early nineteen thirties, with an inventor named Charles
pog Poch. He developed a carbu rator that's the part
mixing air and fuel right that was said to vaporize
gasoline with incredible efficiency.
Speaker 1: Okay, so not just a minor improvement. This was supposedly
a fundamental.
Speaker 2: Change, that's the claim, and the reported results are well
frankly astonishing. Tests by the Breen Motor Company supposedly showed
a four V eight coup getting something like two hundred
and ten two hundred and twenty miles per gallon.
Speaker 3: Get out two hundred miles per gallon in the.
Speaker 2: Thirty that's what the sources claim for themselves reportedly tested
it and saw two hundred milibium. The Canadian Automotive magazine
apparently logged two hundred and eighteen milibariums.
Speaker 1: I mean, put that in context, even today's hybrids barely
touch what fifty sixty milibrams. These numbers are just wild,
and it makes you wonder what a secret was.
Speaker 4: Assuming it's true exactly, If those figures are even close
to accurate, the implications for the oil industry back then
would have been seismic massive, you think, and the source
material suggests there was an impact.
Speaker 2: It mentions oil company stock prices on the Toronto Stock
Exchange taking a significant hit around the time Pog's invention
was getting.
Speaker 1: Attention, which leads us to a pattern we might see
repeated today.
Speaker 3: The setback, the sudden stop.
Speaker 2: Yeah. According to the accounts, Pog's workshop was broken into
everything related to the carburetor, the device itself, tools, blueprints, notes,
all stolen and he just stopped apparently, so never rebuilt,
never spoke publicly about it. Again, just silence.
Speaker 1: It's hard not to speculate, isn't it, given the potential
threat to established industries, that someone have pressured him or worse.
Speaker 2: It's a narrative that definitely echoes through many of these stories,
the lone inventor versus powerful interests.
Speaker 3: And it ties into something that came later.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The Invention Secrecy Act in the US, that's a.
Speaker 2: Key piece of context. Passed in nineteen fifty one, This
act essentially gave the US government the power to classify patents,
to put them under wraps if their release was deemed
harmful to national security or interestinglyational economy.
Speaker 1: The economy, so not just weapons tech, something that could disrupt, say,
the energy sector.
Speaker 2: Potentially. Yes, it provided a legal mechanism to keep certain
innovations secret.
Speaker 1: So imagine you're an inventor, you pour years into something revolutionary,
you get a patent, the official stamp of approval, and
then the government steps.
Speaker 2: In and says, Nope, too disruptive. It's secret. Now.
Speaker 1: You can't talk about it, can't sell it, can't export it,
maybe only offer it to the military, and if you
break the rules, prison or maybe worse.
Speaker 2: It definitely paints a picture of a system where world
changing ideas could be legally buried.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's jump forward a bit the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 2: Tom Ogle, Oh, yes, ogl. His story reportedly starts kind
of accidentally tinkering with a lawnmower engine.
Speaker 1: Right he noticed it running just on its own fumespaces.
Speaker 2: Something like that, and he thought, okay, can I scale
this up? He adapted the principle to his car, a
nineteen seventy Ford Galaxy, not exactly known for fuel.
Speaker 1: Efficiency, definitely not a gas guzzler.
Speaker 2: And after his modifications, he claimed around one hundred miles
per gallon.
Speaker 1: From maybe ten or eleven millipgam originally.
Speaker 3: That's incredible.
Speaker 2: What adds weight, according to the sources, is that engineers
apparently checked his car over looked for hidden tanks, any tricks,
found nothing.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't just smoking mirrors.
Speaker 2: Supposedly, that's the claim, and he reportedly demonstrated it driving
over two hundred miles on just two gallons of gas
back in seventy seven.
Speaker 1: Wow, and did big players notice?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah. Reportedly Shell Oil offer him something like twenty
five million dollars for the technology.
Speaker 3: Twenty five million in the seventies.
Speaker 1: That's huge money.
Speaker 2: But the story goes Ogle turned it down. He suspected
they just wanted to buy it to suppress it, to
keep it off the market.
Speaker 1: That fits the pattern wanting the tech to actually get
out there.
Speaker 2: He did get a patent for his fuel system, and
there was interest from the US Air Force, which again
might have put him on certain radars.
Speaker 3: But then things went south for.
Speaker 2: Him dramatically so according to the Narrator, sec investigations, IRS,
problems over back taxes, legal fights with investors, his wife
left him. It sounds like immense pressure from multiple directions.
Speaker 1: Like his life just started falling apart.
Speaker 2: And then it gets darker. He was apparently shot by
a stranger in April nineteen seventy eight, survived that, but
then just a few months later, in August seventy eight,
he died officially an accidental overdose of painkillers and alcohol,
but the sources emphasized he had no known history of
drug abuse, his friends, his family. They suspected murder.
Speaker 1: Chilling, especially given the potential disruption his invention represented.
Speaker 2: And the timing is often pointed out. His death wasn't
long before the US and Saudi Arabia solidified the Petro
dollar agreement, locking in oil's global dominance for decades. Coincidence maybe,
but it feels the speculation.
Speaker 1: Definitely has another layer. Okay, let's move into the nineties.
Stanley Meyer.
Speaker 2: Meyer the man who claimed his car could run on water,
ordinary tap water.
Speaker 1: That's the one using something he called a water fuel
cell injector. The claim was what twenty two gallons of
water for a cross country trip?
Speaker 2: Just mind boggling, isn't it? If true, it completely bypasses
fossil fuels. Water is everywhere.
Speaker 1: Unlike some earlier figures, Meyer seems to have actively sought publicity.
Speaker 2: He did, got significant media coverage, attracted interest from investors,
oil companies, even the Pentagon reportedly looked into it.
Speaker 3: You'd think that visibility might offer some safety.
Speaker 2: Apparently not. The story takes a sharp tragic turn. He
was meeting with potential Belgian investors, seemed close to a deal.
They had a celebratory toast. Immediately after drinking, Meyer reportedly
grabbed his throat, ran outside, became violently ill, and collapsed
died shortly after.
Speaker 1: What do you say?
Speaker 2: His reported last words were they poisoned me.
Speaker 1: Wow, just straight outset it.
Speaker 2: But the official death certificate cited a brain aneurysm, though intriguingly,
the sources mentioned the coroner's statement hinted at potential poisoning,
leaving it somewhat ambiguous.
Speaker 1: So official cause versus dying words and potential hints very suspicious.
Speaker 2: And there's more demyer Beyond the water car There were
claims he had developed a classified electromagnetic device, supposedly donut shaped,
a toroid that could generate energy from the vacuum zero
point energy again.
Speaker 1: And the source material suggests he might have deliberately put
false information in his watercr patents.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the idea of being to protect it from being
easily stolen or classified by the government if they seized
it shows a deep level of distrust.
Speaker 1: If true, which brings us squarely into this whole idea
of zero point energy.
Speaker 2: Or ZPE right, the concept that the vacuum of space
isn't empty, but is actually teeming with energy. Theoretically, vast
amounts like.
Speaker 1: The energy in a coffee cup could boil all the
Earth's oceans.
Speaker 4: That kind of scale, that's the kind.
Speaker 2: Of analogy used to convey the theoretical potential. It really
does challenge our everyday.
Speaker 1: Physics, this idea that there's this limitless energy source all
around us.
Speaker 3: Nikola Tesla is often brought up here, isn't he?
Speaker 2: Yes? His Wardencliffe Tower project is sometimes seen as an
attempt to tap into this ambient energy field, an over
unity device, something producing more energy out than you put in.
Speaker 1: Which, of course mainstream science says is impossible, violates the
laws of thermodynamics conservation of energy.
Speaker 2: Correct, energy can't be created or destroyed, just changed, that's fundamental.
But the narratives we're looking at feature inventors who claimed
they weren't creating energy, but rather tapping into this existing
ZPE field, like.
Speaker 1: Howard Johnson in the seventies with his magnet motor, exactly.
Speaker 2: A motor supposedly running purely on permanent magnets generating continuous energy.
Reports say it worked, was demonstrated, but he couldn't get
a patent, was ignored by scientists, and his.
Speaker 1: Lab was broken into equipment stolen another echo.
Speaker 2: Yes, then there's Thomas Murray earlier in the twentieth century.
His device supposedly tapped ZPE, generating tens of thousands of
watts with no visible input, demonstrated publicly apparently just then
again patent denied government and turned into scrutiny. His lab vandalized, robbery,
even assassination attempts. According to the sources, His assistant allegedly
destroyed the work. He died, broke.
Speaker 1: It's a grim pattern promise followed by intense opposition and
personal ruin.
Speaker 2: We see with Edwin Gray too. His electromagnetic motor supposedly
had a huge energy output compared to its input, verified
by some scientists. The story say lack of government interest,
then an illegal raid on his lab, everything confiscated, later
found dead, records and inventions vanished.
Speaker 1: And Floyd's Burky Sweet in the eighties the vacuum triode
amplifier the VTA.
Speaker 2: Sweet's VTA allegedly produced incredible power from a tiny input,
hundreds of thousands of watts from milliwatts, potentially enough to
power a house. He demonstrated lighting hundreds of watts of lamps.
Speaker 3: Filed for a patent, Yes, but.
Speaker 2: Then the harassment began, threats from mysterious figures, constant phone calls,
lab break in's notes stolen, and his death collapsed suddenly
after a visit from two unidentified men. His wife reportedly
wasn't allowed in the ambulance, declared debt of a heart
attack very quickly. Then the FBI apparently confiscated everything, equipment,
research gone and wasn't.
Speaker 1: There an anti gravity claim with Sweet's device too?
Speaker 2: Yes. Supposedly in an experiment with Tom Bearden, the VTA
made a six pound device lose about ninety percent of
its weight, a potential link between ZPE and anti gravity.
Speaker 1: Which connects to other anti gravity research mentioned right.
Speaker 2: T Townsend Brown's work in the mid twentieth century using
high voltage fields to create lift his flying saucers. The
Inventioned Secrecy Act reportedly kept that from commercial use. Research
was apparently happening openly with aerospace companies in the fifties,
then it went dark, classified.
Speaker 1: And doctor Ningley in the nineties.
Speaker 2: Started an anti gravity research company, published papers, got a
significant Department of Defense grant in two thousand and one,
and then disappeared. Managed for thirteen years reappeared later, reportedly
suffering permanent brain damage after being hit by a car.
Speaker 1: The sheer number of these stories asus decades, different technologies fuel, water, zpe,
anti gravity, but the narrative arc is strikingly similar. Breakthrough interest,
then resistance, secrecy, theft, intimidation, suspicious deaths.
Speaker 2: It does make you wonder is it all just a
series of unrelated misfortunes and exaggerations, or is there a
connecting thread.
Speaker 1: The Invention Secrecy Act keeps coming up as a potential mechanism.
Speaker 2: It seems central to the suppression narrative. You hear about
people like doctor Tom Foum, supposedly a patent office employee
who saw world changing patents getting secrecy orders slapped on them.
He blew the whistle got fired.
Speaker 3: And there are numbers put on this.
Speaker 2: The Federation of American Scientists back in twenty ten reportedly
estimated over fifty one hundred inventions got secrecy orders just
that year, many related to energy propulsion, anti gravity.
Speaker 3: Fifty one hundred and one year.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of secrets.
Speaker 2: And there's mention of a declassified document from the seventies
that specifically listed energy systems over seventy eighty percent efficient
or solar panels over twenty percent efficient as candidates for secrecy.
Speaker 1: So a twenty percent efficient solar panel patented in nineteen
seventy one was made secret when even today commercial panels
aren't dramatically better than that, that's the implication.
Speaker 2: It really makes you question the pace of progress, or
lack thereof in some areas. What else might have been shelved?
Speaker 1: This all feeds into the more conspiratorial idea of a
shadow government, doesn't it It does.
Speaker 2: The theory posits this powerful, unelected group operating behind the scenes,
controlling these suppressed technologies.
Speaker 4: For what purpose?
Speaker 2: Money and power fundamental? Maintaining control by enforcing scarcity, particularly
of energy, free abundant energy would completely undermine their power base,
according to this theory.
Speaker 1: And this group supposedly has its own resources, operates outside
normal checks and balances.
Speaker 2: That's the idea, its own funding, maybe even its own
military or technological capabilities hidden from public view.
Speaker 1: And those weird patents the Salvator pez ones owned by
the US Navy, faster than light travel, asteroid defense, clean
energy exactly?
Speaker 2: They fuel speculation? Are these just theoretical exercises or proof
of concepts? The public isn't meant to know about stuff
that's actually being developed in secret.
Speaker 1: Within this framework, even the current push for green energy
gets questioned.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Some argue that things like current solar, wind, evs,
even nuclear are presented as solutions but are maybe inefficient,
have their own environmental costs, or just keep us dependent
on large corporations and grids.
Speaker 1: The argument being that they're a kind of controlled opposition,
a distraction.
Speaker 2: Or perhaps a way to profit from the transition while
the real game changing, truly clean energy technologies remain suppressed.
That's the claim presented in some of these sources.
Speaker 1: So if you did invent something truly revolutionary, like a
working free energy device, what's the advice given in these narratives.
Speaker 2: It's radical, don't patent it, avoid the system that might
lead to suppression or harm.
Speaker 1: So what then?
Speaker 2: Publish it anonymously? Maybe put the plans, the schematics, everything
out on the internet for free. Make it open source,
available to everyone everywhere simultaneously. The idea is that widespread
knowledge makes suppression impossible.
Speaker 3: Interesting flood the zone.
Speaker 2: Basically, yeah, make it too big dyed.
Speaker 1: Well, We've definitely journeyed through a compelling and often unsettling
landscape today.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, from those early carburetors promising incredible mileage to claims
of zero point energy devices and anti gravity breakthroughs, it's
a narrative full of what ifs.
Speaker 1: The sources paint this picture of revolutionary tech being sidelined,
often with dire consequences for the inventors. It raises huge
questions about innovation, corporate power, government secrecy, and the.
Speaker 2: Kind of future we might have had or could still have.
Speaker 1: So the thought to leave you with is this, considering
these stories, these recurring patterns, what are the implications if
even a fraction of these claims holds some truth?
Speaker 2: How might our world look today? How different could energy
transport our entire sistas?
Speaker 1: And maybe what responsibility do we have to look critically
at the information we get to question the status quo,
the official narratives.
Speaker 2: This whole dive into killer patents in secret science is
a potent reminder, isn't it that the search for knowledge
for progress can be complex, even dangerous.
Speaker 1: It leaves you wondering what other breakthroughs might be out there,
just waiting, hidden, just beyond what we currently think is possible,