The Washington Post, Washington Times, Richmond Times Dispatch, Potomac News, Manassas Journal Messenger and other print radio/TV media outlets will not inform you of this information. The post did respond to another letter. After you read the following information, do you wonder why they won’t inform you?
To further illustrate how information is suppressed, during September 2004, email was sent to 119 Talk show host. Neglecting automatic responses, one host responded. When I responded to that host, no response. During 2004-2005 I sent more than 600 email and letters concerning Energy Information. Most people did not respond including my Members of Congress. Several email/letters were to local Washington, D.C. Radio/TV stations; WTOP, WMAL, WJLA NBC and WTTG
Need further proof that information is suppressed? See this web site document. You might find the 1980 letter, near the bottom, to an inventor from the (U.S). Commissioner of Patents interesting. The letter prevents the inventor from proceeding with his invention on security grounds. Mr. Arthur Stopes, III, does not agree with the letter at the bottom of the page, his comments are here.
In the late 50’s, I met a retired Florida college physics professor, he had a patent for a device to run an engine on water, The government had classified his patent and this prevented him from developing his device. For a suggested workaround for the patent issue see.
If you can, please help to distribute this information.
Please send suggestions and comments to:email@example.com
(This article was on the Internet for several years until I changed Internet provider. The article was modified to link some documentation and add additional material.)
So you think we have an energy problem? No, we have a political problem.
I want to relate to you some facts concerning various suppressed energy devices and the difficulty in informing the public of these devices. I hope that you can add some additional information. Here are some additional web sites addressing these issues.
On October 1, 1990, I began to keep a list of people contacted concerning energy devices. The list is now 51 pages long (The list is no longer updated.). The list includes President Clinton and vice-president. 121 Members of Congress and other politicians. 21 government and state agencies. 215 members of the print and electronic media. 62 environmental groups. The President of United Auto Workers and 14 other UAW officials. The President of the American Automobile Association. A recent correspondence exchange with AAA is here.). Many members of the clergy, including Mr. Pat Robertson and Christian Science Monitor. Numerous other “public interest” groups. Most of the people contacted do not respond to communications.
My then Congressman, Representative Frank Wolf, will not respond to a letter and 182 pages of documentation that I put in his hand on August 25, 1993. I wonder just who he does respond to? Could it be that money talks? My current congressman, Tom Davis, also will not respond to my last letter. Mr. Davis was evidently too busy chairing the congressional baseball investigation to be concerned with energy issues.
Donna Wade has written a letter that should be sent to all “representatives”.
This site, http://www.politics1.com/, list political candidates for office and major media for a particular state. So far, candidates for federal office, except for sitting members of congress, and where possible, also media in 26 states were contacted. Approximately 25 federal candidates and only 2 media responded. Does this tell you anything?
If you want to know the affect oil has on the world, I suggest you read “The Prize” (ISBN 0-671-79932-0)
Note: In several of the following references information is followed by a (?) symbol, or a statement that the original material was stolen from me in 1986. This is because in those cases I am working from very poor copies of the original material. In 1986, I was visited by an intern reporter for the Washington Times who wanted to take my material back to the paper to make copies. What he did was steal my material and take it back to college with him. Had it not been for an Editor at the Washington Times and the Dean at this intern’s school, I would have lost a lot of my collection of energy material.
Do I believe there is a conspiracy of silence concerning decades old and current energy technology? Yes, I have experienced this for more than 25-years.
Here is the information. Please verify for yourself.
NOTE: For those wanting to verify the patents. Go to http://www.uspto.gov, you will find information for viewing patents.
1. Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine” (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia.
VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved “impossible” mpg. The author said, “I will get back to you.”. I am still waiting for his response.
2. The book “Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor” is by Allan Wallace and was available, about 198(?), from Premier Distributing, 1775 Broadway, NY, NY, 10019. Page 18 has photocopies of three 1936 tests by the Ford Motor Co. (Canada) of the Pogue carburetor, U.S. Patent # 2,026,798). The worst case test achieved about 171 MP(US)G. I can not provide any other publishing information because the book is among the material stolen from me in 1986. My copy of page 18 is very poor.] (3/08/04. I am grateful to Lee Winslett for a copy of this book and the article from Colliers.)
Collier’s magazine, in 1929, published an article “300 Miles to the gallon. The 300-MPG statement is attributed to the president of General Motors.
Thanks to Paul Andrew Mitchell, (http://www.supremelaw.org, for furnishing additional material from Pea Research concerning Pogue and other devices.
3. Argosy Magazine, August 1977, has a five-page article (Text copy here.) about Tom Ogle and the media witnessed test of the “Oglemobile”. Tom Ogle, on that test run, achieved more than 100 MPG in a 4,600 pound 1970 Ford Galaxie. When I attempted to find a copy of that Argosy Magazine, it was missing from LOC files in 1980. Argosy ceased publication, I was informed, a short time after the Ogle article was published. I could not find a copy of that Argosy issue at any library within 200 miles of my home. An Editor at the company that purchased Argosy found and mailed a copy to me. While attempting to verify statements in the article, I spoke with Doug Lenzini (SP?) with the EL Paso Times. Mr. Lenzini informed me that he knew Tom Ogle, and the Oglemobile achieved more than 200 MPG. When I contacted the El Paso NBC affiliate that filmed the test run described in the Argosy article, I was informed that the person who had filmed the test had left the station and taken all the records with him.]
A. The Ogle U.S. Patent, #4,177,779, has this statement “I have been able to obtain extremely high gas mileages with the system of the present invention installed on a V-8 engine of a conventional 1971 American made automobile. In fact, mileage rates in excess of one hundred miles per gallon have been achieved with the present invention.” According to the Argosy article, a Shell Oil Co. representative asked Ogle what he would do if someone offered him $25 Million for the system. Ogle responded “I would not be interested” He later said, “I’ve always wanted to be rich, and I suspect I will be when this system gets into distribution. But I’m not going to have my system bought up and put on the shelf. I’m going to see this thing through–that I promise.” According to an article in The Washington Post Parade Magazine, March 4, 1984, Tom Ogle died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 1981. Other articles concerning Tom Ogle can be found in the El Paso Journal, January 16, 1980, and also, The Hamilton Spectator, June 24, 1978.
B. The Oglemobile, in simplification, ran on fumes extracted from a heated tank in the trunk (See the Ogle patent.) A very simple method of extracting gasoline fumes is described in a book, published in 1900, “Gas Engine Construction”. This book was reprinted by Lindsay in 1986, ISBN 0-917914-46-5.
An article received from AAA has additional information.
4. There are many U.S. Patents granted for vaporizing gasoline. Some are: NASA Patent 3,640,256, General Electric Co. Patent 3,926,150, Robinson Patent 4,003,969, Harpman Patent 4,023,538, Butler Patent 4,068,638 and Totten Patent 4,106,457. Pete, “The Tree Man”, was researching the Fish carburetor while staying in my home during the early 80’s. He later sent me a 6 page list with more than 240 U.S. Patent numbers for vaporizing gasoline, other fuels and water. Another patent, 5,782,225 has a different approach. The patent owner was put in prison while trying to develop his device; he moved to China for manufacturing, the story is here.
5. During the mid 70’s, physicist Don Novak traveled all over the U.S. lecturing and teaching in his seminars how to achieve 100 MPG. He also testified, October 15, 1979, before a Wichita, KS, Congressional Committee on “Reinventing the Automobile”. I have known Don for many years. Once he brought to my home, in the late 70’s, two carburetors; one got more than 200 MPG and the other more than 100 MPG. I contacted a local politician, who lives in my town, and was on the Virginia Energy Subcommittee. I tried to have this politician meet Don and see the carburetors. The politician was not interested.
Chevron Oil, 1986, offers to purchase large quantities of carburetors from a manufacturer. A West Virginia man, in 1990, achieves 58 mpg with an 8 cylinder 1968 Chrysler that used to get 12 mpg.
6. In the London, England, Daily Telegraph, 10/20/83, on page 9, there is an advertisement for a production Peugeot Diesel that gets 52.3 MPG in urban driving. The model 205 Diesel gets 72 mpg at 56 mph. In the Washington Post, 9/19/83, page 37(?) is the 1983 U.S. EPA fuel economy list of various vehicles. The Peugeot USA models get between 21 and 27 MPG. The Washington Times, 8/9/91, published an article, “Gas saving engines hit streets in fall.”. This article is about two engines, the Mitsubishi MVV engine, and the Honda VTEC-E. According to the company spokesmen, the Mitsubishi will get up to 50 MPG; the Honda, up to 88 MPG.
I visited a local Honda dealer and got a brochure on the production automobile with the VTEC-E engine, the specified MPG, as I recall, was 53 MPG. I know of no produced Honda that gets 88 MPG. I have no information on the production Mitsubishi MVV engine. I wonder if there is something that happens to fuel economy when an automobile is transported to the USA. Is it possible that these engines “un-tweak” themselves during transit? In 2002 an English newspaper article reported a 104-mpg Toyota and 94-mpg VW/Audi vehicles. In 2003 another English newspaper tested a 75-mpg Toyota diesel. Do you wonder why these vehicles are not available in the USA? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation.
7. The U.S. Government supported (Grant No. DTNH22-91-Z-06014) a study of automobile fuel economy by the National Academy of Sciences. This study, “Automotive Fuel Economy–How Far Should We Go?” (ISBN 0-309-04530-4), was used by the staff of my then Congressman George Allen, to refute documentation proving that an automobile had exceeded 376 MPG. Nowhere in this “fuel economy study” is there any reference to the work of Shell Oil Co. or any other reference that could refute the conclusion of this report.
The report concluded, Page 4, that a subcompact car might achieve between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006. This is a difficult position to defend since Peugeot, in 1983, advertised a 72-mpg vehicle. Many committee meetings were held from May 15, 1991 to December 14, 1991, prior to the April 1992 publication of this report. Prior to publication of this report, I previously sent documentation to several participants of these meetings. The documentation proved that automobile fuel economies of between 49 and 376 MPG were achieved. None of the participants responded to my letters.
Documentation was sent to: Jerry R. Curry, Administrator, National Highway Safety Administration, on 3/16/91; Senator Richard H. Bryan, on 3/7/91; Congressman Philip R. Sharp, on 2/18/91; Steve Plotkin, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, on 4/4/91; Charles Mendler, Energy Conservation Collation, on 11/2/90; Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute, on 4/16/91; Brian O’Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, on 10/31/93; Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety, on 1/6/92.
Previous documentation was also sent to members of organizations participating in these meetings, they are: John Koenig, Product planning Manager, Toyota Motor Co., on 3/18/91; Peter Clausen, Union of Concerned Scientist, on 10/28/90; John Morrill, American Council for Energy Efficiency, on 10/4/90.
None of these people responded to my letters. I know that at least one of my letters was received. The Union of Concerned Scientist keeps asking me to financially support their organization.
8. An article “Automakers Move Toward New Generation Of Greener Vehicles” was published in “Chemical & Engineering News”, August 1, 1994. This article is about “The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles”, a partnership between the U.S. Government and the auto industry that has a goal of an 80 MPG automobile by 2002. In 1992 a government-funded study concluded that a subcompact car might get between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006 (See #7 above). In 1994 the goal is 80 MPG by 2002. ( Toyota and VW/Audi exceeded this goal in 2002.) Is it possible that someone read the Shell Oil book? Or could someone have actually read my February 13, 1992 letter, and 95 pages of documentation, sent to then Candidate Clinton.
I wrote, September 8, 1994, to Deborah L. Illman, the author of the article, and to the editor, Michael Heylin of Chemical & Engineering News, on September 11, 1994 . No response was received from them. On September 11, 1994, I also wrote to Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology, (USA) Department of Commerce. I received a response from Ms. Good. It was an undated, unaddressed, form letter. I guess the fact that a vehicle could get 376 MPG or burn water for fuel would not be a politically correct finding. How could someone explain to the American people that it was necessary to send more than 600,000 of our citizens to the Mid-east to defend oil wells if this information was public knowledge?
9. Hybrid Diesel/Electric automobiles (A Diesel/Electric locomotive uses the same principle.) The Manassas Journal Messenger, April 4, 1981, has an article about a MG sports car converted by San Diego State University. The car gets 110 MPG. The Steven R. Reed Automobile Manufacturing Corp., Newport Beach, CA, issued a press release dated February 14, 1983. This release announces the February 23, 1983 showing of the 200-MPG, two-passenger, II Millennium Cruiser at the Ambassador Hotel.
The press release also states that the company will file “…a major class-action lawsuit involving a considerable number of giant American corporations within the automotive and petroleum industries, plus numerous branches and agencies of the U.S. Government responsible for regulating these companies.” Don Novak informed me that when none of the major news media attended the Millennium show, the company drove the car to CBS Television, Los Angeles, and parked it on the lawn. No one came out of the building to inspect the car. Don also stated that the president of the Steven R. Reed Corp. has been in hiding for some years.
10. Mother Earth News, November/December 1977, has an article “Can This Transmission Really Double Your Car’s Mileage?”. This article is about a Ford Granada modified by Vincent Carman of Portland, Oregon. In simplification, Mr. Carman removed the transmission and drive shaft from the car and bolted a hydraulic motor to the differential. He then bolted a hydraulic pump to the engine to pressurize a storage tank. The storage tank is also pressurized when the car brakes or slows down. The article states that the U.S. Post Office is interested in a whole fleet of vehicles using this principle.
In 1990, after reading an article in “Federal Times”, I contacted Mr. Robert St.Francis, U.S. Postal Service, who was searching for alternative fuels for use by the Post Office. Mr. St.Francis said that he had never heard of Mr. Carman. I wrote two letters, October 18 & 21, 1990, to Mr. St.Francis concerning Mr. Carman’s vehicle. I received no response. Another article in Mother Earth News, March/April 1976,8(?), titled “This Car Travels 75 Miles on a Single Gallon Of Gas”, is about a project by the Minneapolis Minnesota’s Hennepin Vocational Technical Center that converted a Volkswagen to a system similar to that of Mr. Carman. The idea for the conversion came from a 1920 magazine article. The car, with a Bradley GT body and a 16 horsepower Tecumseh engine (The original VW engine was too powerful), achieved more than 75 MPG at 70 MPH. Could we combine the technology of Tom Ogle, 200 MPG, and the hydraulic drive cars and have a 400 MPG 4,600 pound car?
On a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site, they write of achievements and patents concerning a hydraulic drive truck. This site does not mention the more than 28-year old achievements of others.
11. The St. Paul Pioneer News, August 22, 1990, has an article about a group that 11 years previously modified a Dodge half-ton pickup furnished by a local dealer. This modified truck got more than 35 MPG. Test stopped on this modification when a member of the group was told that he would receive a pair of cement boots if testing continued.
12. Hydrogen fuel. There are many U.S. and foreign patents for extracting hydrogen and oxygen gasses from water for use as a fuel. Some Patents are: July 2, 1935, Garrett, # 2,006,676; April 3, 1945, Klein, # 2,373,032; February 25, 1975, Chambrin, French Patent Request # 75 06619; July 6, 1976, Papineau, # 3,967,589 (This is a patent for an electrical power generator that burns water); 1976, Horvath, # 3,980,053. This statement is on the Horvath patent, “This invention relates to internal combustion engines. More particularly it is concerned with a fuel supply apparatus by means of which an internal combustion engine can be run on a fuel comprised of hydrogen and oxygen gasses generated on demand by electrolysis of water”.; June 28, 1983, Meyer, # 4,389,981. Mr. Meyer has at least eight other patents relating to hydrogen and oxygen gasses extracted from water for fuel. Awake magazine 4/6/1980 has two small articles concerning Hydrogen fuel for aircraft. According to one article an optimistic date for this use is 1985.
A. Popular Science, about 1978,9(?), published an article “Hydrogen bus- could also heat its own garage”. This article is about the work of Dr. Helmut Buchner of Mercedes-Benz. He is quoted “We are ready now. We could save our city of Stuttgart over one million gallons of petroleum fuel a year by converting its fleet of 300 urban busses to run on hydrogen. Heating–and air conditioning–would be free spin-offs, consuming no extra energy.”
B. Popular Science, March 1978(?), published an article “Hydrogen -demonstrates fuel of the future”. This article is about the work of Dr. Billings, Billings Energy Corp., Provo, Utah. and others. The article states that a home, all the appliances, and vehicles, can be run on hydrogen. Dr. Billings converted a Cadillac Seville for duel fuel use. This Cadillac, burning hydrogen, was in President Carter’s inaugural parade. I had a photograph of Dr. Billings drinking the exhaust, water, from one of his engines.
C. A Japanese inventor, with more than 2000 prior patents, plans to run automobile engine on water. A Gulf Oil advertisement in Discover magazine, Feb.19??, concerning Hydrogen fuel. Note the statements concerning Hydrogen energy content by Gulf oil in the advertisement and an article in the same magazine issue. Ballard Power Systems has demonstrated Hydrogen fuel cell technology for vehicles since 1997. Patents for decomposing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use as fuel are not new. See the Boisen Patent 1,380,183 granted in 1921 and a 106-year old patent for another process to extract fuel gas from water. A google search for Aquafuel will list many sites for processes to extract a fuel from water.
D. Do you remember the NASA 1998 Moon probe that was looking for water? The plan was to separate some water into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen would be used as fuel. Yet in 2004, the government is developing a fuel cell that will extract hydrogen from diesel fuel carried by navy ships. Does this make any sense when the ship is floating in a mixture of 66% hydrogen? Why not use the method that NASA was going to use to extract hydrogen from Moon water? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation. My members of Congress will not respond.
E. A company, AEC Technology, has developed a process to extract hydrogen from water that requires no input of power. This company has partnered with UTC Fuel Cell that will use this process to run devices. One device, per the web site, will have a reciprocating engine, similar to the one in your car, generating electricity for your home. UTC Fuel Cell has furnished fuel cells to NASA since the 60’s.
F. Approximately ten years ago, I received a video tape from a company in Florida making Aquafuel. This tape, among other things, shows 3 people in a closed room breathing the exhaust from a generator burning Aquafuel. This site, www.gasgouging.com/video/aquafuel_0001.wmv, has a copy. A recent google search for Aquafuel returned 812 “hits”.
13. Completely sealed reciprocating engines. I visited the patent office years ago, when they still had the open stacks of “shoe boxes”. While there, I read the application files for the Papp patent, #3,670,494. Papp applied for a patent on his engine, and the patent office, after consultation with the old Atomic Energy Commission, refused to give him a patent because his device could not possibly work. Papp responded with test results, photographs and depositions from, I think, 16 people. Papp said that maybe the patent office didn’t know how his device worked, and that they also didn’t know how the atomic bomb worked, but used it anyway. This statement is on his patent “…2. To provide a two-cycle reciprocating engine which does not use fuel intake valves or exhaust valves, does not require an air supply and does not emit gasses. 3. To provide a precharged engine of the character stated in item 2 capable of generating power for a period of from 2,000 to over 10,000 hours continuously or until mechanical breakdown without the addition of fuel injection of air or discharge of gasses…”
Papp has a similar Patent 4,428,193 granted in 1984
Britt, August 31, 1976, has a patent, # 3,977,191, for a similar sealed engine. In the patent application file, Britt accuses the Patent Office of deliberately delaying his application to give a major manufacturer time to file on top of him.
14. Permanent Magnet Motor. Howard Johnson was granted U.S. Patent # 4,151,431, for a motor that is powered only by permanent magnets. An interesting thing about the first page of this patent is the chart of a magnetic field VS electromechanical coupling. The chart is from U.S. Patent # 4,151,432 which has nothing to do with the Johnson patent. Science and Mechanics, Spring 1980, published an article ” Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor” about the Johnson patent. The article tells of his difficulties in having the device patented. The patent problem was solved when Johnson took working models of his device to the patent office. The magazine Science 83, May, published an article ridiculing perpetual motion machines, one of them was the Johnson motor. The Science article purports to quote from the prior Science and Mechanics article about Johnson. Because had both articles, I compared them, then called the author of the Science 83 article. When I stated that the information that he quoted was not in the prior article, he hung up saying “I will not be interrogated by you.”. The editor of Science 83 also declined to speak with me. Others have informed me that there is three other permanent magnet motor patents.
A Japanese electrical generator, driven by a magnet assisted motor, has an efficiency of more than 300%. An Australian company, Lutec, offers to build to your specifications, an electric generator also more than 300% efficient. Do you think the electric power companies would be happy if these devices were common knowledge?
15. The Moray device. Tom Moray, in the late 20s, had a device that could sit on a kitchen table and produce 50,000 Watts of power from a field that surrounds the earth. The operation of this device was endorsed by many people. Moray’s son, John, after the only copy of his father’s book was stolen, wrote a book “The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats”. See the statement concerning a meeting between Moray and a Soviet Agent in General Electric office after closing hours.) The book is about his father’s work. During the early 80s, I visited many congressional offices in an unsuccessful attempt to have any Member of Congress do something about the technology hidden from the American people. When I visited Congressman Ron Paul’s office, a staffer said to me “I have something that you should read, come to my residence on Saturday.” This staffer gave me a letter to Congressman Paul from Tom Bearden, and the 40-page document attached to the letter. The document is a book that Mr. Bearden has written. In this book, Mr. Bearden states that the Moray device could produce 1.5 megawatts of power. Also that the Russians had adapted the Moray device to power a weapon. The weapon statement is supported by a drawing from “Aviation Week and Space Technology”, July 28, 1980. Do you think that the local Power Company could justify a price increase if the power came from a field around the earth? This book was also missing from the LOC in 1990.]
Tom Bearden, with others, obtained U.S. Patent 6,362,718 for an Electric generator with no moving parts. Michael Faraday’s findings, in 1831, do not agree with current school teachings concerning generation of electricity. He found it is not necessary to rotate a magnet or wire against the other to generate electricity.
16. The Energy Machine of Joe Newman. I have spoken with Joe many times over several years. He has recently published the seventh edition of “The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman” (ISBN 0-9613855-7-7) The book is available from: Joseph Westly Newman, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, Mississippi, 39452, Phone # (601)-947-7174. I have no doubts that his machine works as he describes it. To learn of the problems that this man has had with “The Establishment” read his book. Joe filed suit against the U.S. Patent office because they would not grant him a patent. According to Joe’s book, pages 274 to 279, the Court appointed a Special Master, Mr. William E. Schuyler, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, to advise the Court. The findings of the Special Master were that Mr. Newman had invented a machine that had more output than input. The Court refused to accept the findings. I urge you to read this 471-page book. This machine is not “bogus” as stated by others. On February 5, 1996, I was one of several hundred people, in Mobile, AL, to see the Newman Energy Machine in operation. The machine was pumping water while running a power meter, similar to the one on your house, backwards.
17. Cold Fusion. Despite the rejection of some in the USA, cold fusion is a going operation in other places. The monthly magazine “New Energy News”, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-8639, has information on many successful results in cold fusion. The magazine also has information on “free energy devices”.
18. “The Energy Non-Crisis”, published in 1980 by Worth Publishing Co., P.O. Box, 1243,Wheatridge, CO 80033, is written by Chaplain Lindsey Williams. (This is only one of the books he has written) Chaplain Williams was on the Alaska Pipeline during the construction and got so fed-up with the deliberate lies of the media, he came back to tour the “lower 48”, and tell the truth. According to Chaplain Williams, Gull Island has a pool of oil as big as, and maybe bigger, than Purdhoe Bay. Our Government ordered ARCO “…to seal the documents, withdraw the rig, cap the well, and not release the information about the Gull Island find.” A video tape of a speech that Chaplain Williams gave to a group at Salt Lake City, about 1980, is possibly available from: The National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1-800-388-4512. Chaplain Williams stated, in a recent two-hour broadcast, there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S.A. 200-years. The broadcast is on the Republic Broadcasting Network site http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Rick/0508/20050824_Wed_Rick.m3u. Additional book information is here. You can read parts of his book on this site http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/environment/energy/.. His books and tapes may be ordered here: http://survivalcenter.com/lw.html<http://survivalcenter.com/lw.html. One videotape “The Energy Non-Crisis” is worth the approximate $136.00 cost of the complete set. If you want documented proof that “our” government has lied to us about oil availability, see the Williams material.
I sent a previous,90s, Williams tape and a lot of other information to a previous Secretary of Energy. The response received, after a second letter, was essentially, no response. I also wrote to Dr. Bodman, our current (2005) Secretary of Energy. A response was received, no response, except acknowledgement, was received for that email. If you wonder how your state legislators receive information see this document. I emailed the authors of the document, no response.
I hope that this information will raise questions as to why we are dependent on foreign oil. All our government has to do, to take more money from our pockets, is to have an energy crisis or raise the cost of energy. The only financial interest that I have in any of above information is that of a concerned consumer who is tired of the deliberate lies and cover-ups.
Please do not ask for building plans for any of the above devices, I do not have any plans. However, this site claims to have plans for over unity devices. Your research might locate the information you are seeking.
Byron Wine firstname.lastname@example.org
May 24, 1996. (Modified September 23, 2005)
The following is not related to energy. However, you might be interested in findings concerning the Federal Reserve System (FED). The FED is not a part of the U.S. government. Your telephone book, as does a prior C&P telephone book, will list the FED in the business section, not the government section. For a legal opinion see Lewis v. United States. For information concerning the operation of the FED see Congressman McFadden’s 1934 remarks. Articles by Skousen, 1980, and Larson, 1982, provide further information.
I am grateful for an email bringing to my attention the “Act of 1871”. This document requires very careful study.
An organization “Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate” (FREE) published a listing of congressional, military and corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TC). I wonder if it is possible that the people, and corporate members, listed might be responsible for our “energy problem”.