Conspiracy? Stan Meyer and the Mysterious, Elusive Electrolyzer
Ever hear the name Stan Meyer? About eight thousand conspiracy theorists just nodded their heads. Stan invented a water electrolyzer - nothing new there - however, according to Stan anyway, his actually works on demand. The above video (c. 1990) shows him driving a VW-powered dune buggy running on nothing but water. Peruse YouTube for related videos, and you'll find he's been actually pretty well documented, but surprisingly unpublicized.
His method of electrolysis breaks the H2 from the O into their respective gases, both which are then sent to the modified fuel injectors and combusted in a regular old ICE. The only exhaust is more water vapor, which can be left to the atmosphere, or recycled back into the system. Of course, as I said, there have been many people to make electrolyzers that do that very thing, but not in the copious quantities that Stan's machine is said to.
When sifting through his notes and patent materials (.zip file available here), he apparently found the resonance frequency of water and tuned his electrolyzer with an oscillator to that frequency, vastly boosting the efficiency of the device, and making it an actually viable source of fuel, since you don't have to put so much more energy into it than you're getting out of it. No, this is not a free energy system, since energy from water is actually consumed, and water must be refilled, but the vastly more combustible gas produced nets much greater mpg of water than any means of burning gasoline.
Unfortunately, Mr. Meyer is no longer around to tell us about his invention - let alone sell us his proposed DIY kit for $1,500 - because he was poisoned. His brother, however, has continued his research to the best of his ability and posted Stan's notes and patent info. Stan was not a trained scientist or engineer, so his notes use terms not accepted by the scientific or engineering community, and they can be hard to decipher. I'm sure that if you can make sense of his research, prove theories correct, and build a working prototype, the world as a whole would really appreciate it. Post your comments, findings, thoughts and discussions for all to hear.
[Source: Water Powered Car, YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 13)
Joeviocoe 2:12PM (1/23/2008)
Vee, a quick (okay, not so quick) comment on your statements about "Measure the volume of gas produced for a given time". More importantly, you must be able to separate the water vapor from the HHO!
Stan's device uses the resonance frequency and the dipole properties of the water molecule to try and pull it apart. This causes what is known a "dielectric heating" and produces a lot of water vapor.
This is why I say that some REAL lab equipment is needed to measure the volume of HHO gas (compared to the H20 Vapor). And even to measure the BTU's of energy when burned.
And although the reaction is Endothermic, only 1/6 of the total energy inputed could be from ambient heat. So it does work to the advantage but only slightly and not enough to overcome the exothermic losses which is inherent in every electrochemical process. This is the general heat loss of all processes and is usually described as inefficiency.
Also,
Peavey's book, Chapter 1, he list one of the disadvantages of hydrogen as fuel: Hydrogen has the lowest energy per unit of volume "about one-third of gasoline" it is really 1/2742nd of gasoline. Also, my skepticism about the oil company's push for the new hydrogen economy makes me doubt why we should put too much money into a very expensive venture like fuel-cells. It will be far more efficient (for automobile applications) to put money into battery development. No infrastructure to worry about. Shell, BP, and others will boast about their new hydrogen highways being made from electrolysis from solar, wind, or hydro. But the truth is that they will turn back to creating cheaply from methane. The old two hand swap.
The error in hydrogen's volumetric energy density worries me about Peavey's credibility but the rest of his book seems very stable.
Reply
HammerOfGod 3:52PM (1/31/2008)
Jesus Mary & Joseph...this is SIMPLE!!! Why do you f**king humans feel the need to complicate everything with your ridiculously simplistic 3dimensional notions of reality???
You know, if it was up to me, I might just blast the lot of you out into space for being so f**king inane and bassackwards, but the galactic forces of this system deem in necessary to continue this charade in order to see if the evolutionary process will continue naturally, or if in fact, it will take some major, Earth-changing event to force you cretins to evolve. I see the latter as certainly the more likely at this point.
Energy from Water...hmmmm...wow, that's incredibly simple. You know why you use more energy than you get? Because you're a moron who doesn't know anything about anything and is stuck in your 3rd density prison, actually believing that is all that there is. My God humans, please stop being so rigidly stupid.
And as for Tesla, ALL of his inventions worked, and ALL of the ideas were sound (despite what the GOVERNMENT and their paid minions will tell you). He tapped into what you would believe to be some mystery world, to us we simply refer to it as the 5th density, in which answers comes easy to those who allow them. This is NOT psuedo anything, and by you employing such nonsense you are showing your lack of knowledge, wisdom, spirituality, or open-mindedness.
ENERGY SURROUNDS YOU MORONS!!!!! Do you understand that? You are energy, a tree is energy, the Earth gives off energy, there is energy right in front of your ugly human face right now!!!!!!! Stop being so f**king idiotic and learn how to TAP INTO THE FREE ENERGY GOD GIVES YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You motherf**kers are so God damn lucky that I am not calling the shots around here. I would have eliminated most of you long ago and ushered in the era of Light tens of thousands of years (once again, your linear model of "time") ago.
Count your blessings troglodytes, and open your puny minds just a bit, ok? Oh yeah, AND STOP RESEARCHING GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you know that the same people you're reading in your pathetic books are the same people who told you that the world was flat at one time? That gravity could not possibly exist?? That the universe revolved around you??? Get some perspective people, God places the answers within you and all around you. Stop looking so damn hard.
Reply
Joeviocoe 2:36AM (2/01/2008)
Wow... i can't even begin...
Hammerofgod, do you have any references or sources for any of your claims? Wikipedia even? Something? Anything?
Your lack of references discredits you!
Your vulgarity discredits you!
Your violent threats discredits you! (luckily the Internet makes people bold). Your probably only 16 years old by the way you sound.
I am just as offended by your misuse of the name of God as your misuse of the name of Nikola Tesla.
(most of his ideas didn't work, but he tried and had great success with some)
Okay, I did some research into what you talk about with 5th density. Your right it is not pseudoscience, its metaphysics! Look up the definition.
To be a productive part of this (or any) forum, everyone must agree on the established definitions of basic terms (like 'energy'). If you and I differ on the definition of such simple words, we can never hope to agree. The global consensus of energy is well defined and it is not the same as you define it.
Are you linked to Holy Guardian Angel, the Huna, or any other Theosophists?
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=azgNfApE-80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_self
http://www.godlikeproductions.com
Your affiliation discredits you!
By the way, it was over-religious zealots like yourself that denied Newton's ideas of gravity.
It was over-religious zealots like yourself that believed the universe revolved around humans and earth (geocentricism).
And it was over-religious zealots like yourself that have ALWAYS been on the outskirts of reality with grand claims of enlightenment and a violent arrogance that you and less than .01% of the world knows the real truth and only because your smarter than everyone. You have to step off your high horse for a moment and ask yourself which is more likely? "That I alone am smarter than every other person in the world that has ever lived, or I am stuck in a self-perpetuating delusion that feeds my over-grown ego".
I have been in a cult before and this is how it always goes. Please! I know!
Your situation, however, is more centered around metaphysics than mine was. You were seduced by promises of a higher state of mind by believing in this crap. Whoever taught you this stuff has indoctrinated you very well. But it will end at some point. It will come crashing down. .
You have to stop listening to the few leaders that tell you that other sources of knowledge are lies. It is only to further mind-wash you. Read the great works of the Enlightenment period. Kant, Hume, Descartes, Newton, Voltaire. You will learn so much. Continue to read everything and anything you can get your hands on. Believe nothing with your whole heart. Skepticism is good.
And stop spreading lies and hate in the name of God! Please!
Get out now before you hurt yourself or others!
Reply
giuseppe 1:58AM (2/18/2008)
I read carefully all comments, and I'am suggested by the invention of Mr. Mayer.
Anyway, as engineer I would build it by myself in my spare time. Up to now, I was thinking that the efficiency was low, because the elctricity required was to high. But the idea to pulse the water is new to me.
So, if the engine really works, we can feed the battery with the electricity produced by the engine. Does the engine self sustain the cycle, like any other engine?
In this case, it will be a true breakthrough.
Moreover, I saw that there are a lot of website selling ebooks on how to build such engine. Sincerely, I do not trust them, because there are a lot of scammers.
May we build a forum where post suggestions on how to build such engine with off-the-shell materials?
Regards
Reply
Joe 12:36AM (2/18/2008)
For ALL Of you negative Jerk OFFS that are SO FAST to jump down this guys throat, and say it isnt so, it isnt possible, it takes too much energy, not enough water on planet earth. Whats up with you all?! Does it somehow shake the foundations of your little world, and create so much fear that your world will now be topsy turvy if in fact it is true? WELL IT IS POSSIBLE, and someone HAS done it successfully aside from Stan Meyers. He is currently perfecting it, and creating a hybrid car for one of the top 3 auto mfgr's.
See link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OO_WrdvvIk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas
NOW say it isnt so you morons with little tiny pea brains.
Reply
Joeviocoe 5:10PM (2/21/2008)
Joe, its been nearly 3 years since that news report on Klein. He is still in the two room office in clearwater. There is no water hybrid hummers or cars on the road. Klein's torch was invented decades ago. But a silly local FOX news station didn't bother to look it up. Brown's gas! Yes, it works well as a torch. The energy comes from the electricity. It is a better way to convert electricity to heat for the purposes of welding or cutting metals.
He is NOT working with any of the Big 3 to make a hybrid... thats a lie.
There isn't any information on Klein's hybrid either. Does he make the HHO on board the car or in the garage and store the HHO in car to be burned? The former would be hard to get the electricity needed. The latter would be similar to current hydrogen burning cars. There are many conversion kits out there that work. But you must supply the Hydrogen.
Reply
Chris M 6:55PM (2/21/2008)
I checked out the links, Joe, and was not impressed. The YouTube was a classic case of bad reporting by TV anchors that didn't understand basic physics - or even simple parlor tricks! Yes, the outside surface of the oxyhydrogen torch stays cool, but that's true of many other types of torches. If that fellow had stuck his finger in the flame, rather than grasp the outside of the torch, he would have suffered severe burns.
That we can make a flammable gas by electrolyzing water has been known for nearly 2 centuries. That this gas can fuel engines is also well known. But this is an extremely inefficient way to run engines, requiring about 18x as much electrical energy as the engine could possibly produce! Running a "Meyer cell" to fuel an IC engine to power a generator to provide electricity for the "Meyer cell" - it would quickly grind to a halt, as energy is lost at each stage. It cannot power a car, it cannot even sustain its own operation!
Reply
William C. 6:17AM (2/26/2008)
Well, I can't say much about Stan's elusive "electrolyzer", other than it seems unlikely to have worked. But, I'm still open minded enough to know not to shoot it down without investigating first. There are many instances in the past where we can look to see where people and yes, even "experts", said such-and-such can't be done, or the technology will have no use, etc., only to be proven wrong later (see quotes at end of message).
It takes more than a scientific understanding of electricity, physical laws, energy conversion, your pick here - to invent or build something. It also requires vision to apply the knowledge and ideas. It requires vision to put the required pieces together, whatever they are, to make a working device. Just because someone can quote to me from a science book about how much energy it takes to boil water doesn't mean this person is an expert, or has enough creativity, vision, or desire to do something useful with it. Such as building a boiler or boiling an egg, or even applying new and/or old ideas in unexpected ways to build a more efficient boiler, or turning out better eggs :)
I'm not looking for something for nothing (Over-Unity), but a more efficient way to generate/collect/extract hydrogen, be it from water, or some other way, would prove to be useful.
Quotes:
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
--Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Milliken, 1923
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932
"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." -- Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.
"The atom bomb will never go off - and I speak as an expert in explosives." - U.S. Admiral William Leahy in 1945.
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." --1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.
"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." -- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926
"A rocket will never be able to leave the earth's atmosphere." --The New York Times, 1936.
"Radio has no future." "X-rays are clearly a hoax". "The aeroplane is scientifically impossible."
- Royal Society president Lord Kelvin British mathematician and physicist, 1897-9.
"Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value." --Boston Post, 1865
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy!"
--Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859
Reply
Joeviocoe 2:17PM (2/26/2008)
Thanks William C,
We are very much in agreement here. Many people DO, in fact, doubt for all the wrong reasons. But I am not doubting for the sake of doubting. I was extraordinarily excited when I first learned of devices like Stan's electrolyzer and other "over-unity" machines.
But I am a scientist first and foremost. And I must not let my desires for success cloud my judgment.
Saying "you can't get something from nothing" is not the same as doubting whether a particular technology has merit. It is more of a philosophical truth than theory of modern science.
While the possibility of Fission or Fusion is very specific and has been proven against all doubts, the very 'balance' of nature is NOT likely to be proven wrong.
But I have NO problem with, in fact I encourage, testing and experimentation of over-unity devices and the electrolyzer.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gmcr/philos.htm
I think I went to the same source as you William.
Here are some quotes that fit this forum better:
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-Carl Sagan
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny."
-Carl Sagan
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
-Carl Sagan
"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."
-Stephen Jay Gould
"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Arthur William Russell
Never try to walk across a river just because it has an average depth of four feet.
My only real problem with the "believers" on this forum is that they believe without proper evidence or scrutiny. Stan Meyer rejected the scientific community from getting near his device (but he gave the media interviews with his rhetoric). His patents are not detailed enough for anyone to reproduce his results. In fact, no one has proven that water can be split using "less energy than what is returned".
All they offer is anecdotal proof. Which is meaningless in science!
TAKE YOUR HOME BUILT DEVICES TO A CERTIFIED LAB AND PUBLISH THE RESULTS IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!
Reply
L505 3:01AM (11/21/2008)
"But I am a scientist first and foremost. And I must not let my desires for success cloud my judgment. "
I sincerely doubt that Joe V. is a scientist, considering he thinks that water only has 8 electrons, and that later 10 electrons are seen after the water is broken apart. This would explain why water blows up every time I try to make ice in the freezer!
Joeviocoe 1:15AM (3/03/2008)
BTW,
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -Einstein
He, of course, doubted in this quote. But luckily, he provided the one way it could be done. An important stipulation. And shattering the Plutonium and Uranium Isotopes with neutrons DID work.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPLITTING THE WATER MOLECULE INTO 2 INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS AND SPLITTING HEAVY ELEMENTS INTO 2 SMALLER ELEMENTS:
It is fairly simple to explain in layman's terms.
All the energy before the reaction must equal all the energy after the reaction!
Nuclear:
one Uranium-235 atom (heavy isotope) + one neutron = a certain mass.
Remember that E=MC^2 which is important in Nuclear reactions.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/nucene/u235cs.html#c1
after the split:
cesium-137 + strontium-90 + 2 neutrons = slightly less mass than the original equation.
So mass is reduced!
Where does it go? The great abyss? It is converted to energy (gamma rays mostly) Energy cannot be CREATED nor destroyed. E=MC^2! (not a factorial)
Similarly,
Electrolysis:
Remember, all the energy before the reaction must equal all the energy after the reaction!
Since no matter-energy conversions happen with this reaction, E=E
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/electrol.html#c1
2 hydrogen molecules + 1 oxygen molecule = a certain amount of internal energy.
1 water molecule (H20) = a smaller amount of internal energy than one H20 molecule.
The reaction:
When you add a small spark to HHO gas (2 hydrogen molecules + 1 oxygen molecule) it forms a water molecule and gives off energy (thermal).
This is why it can be burned in a car engine or used for cutting torches.
HHO simply has MORE ENERGY than the same amount of H20. H20, when compared to HHO, is called a lesser energy state.
More to follow on Resonance, stay tuned...
Reply
L505 3:50AM (11/21/2008)
"1 water molecule (H20) = a smaller amount of internal energy than one H20 molecule."
As opposed to external energy of the molecule? As opposed to extraterrestrial energy of the molecule?
What the hell are you talking about JoeViocoe?
Please stop your babbling and rambling on these forums. You post way too much dribble that is more pseudoscientific than who you are arguing with.
One water molecule does not equal one water molecule, according to Joe's pseudoscience. One water molecule is actually different than one water molecule. One, does not equal one. Always remember that!
1 1
1 != 1
The number 1, is actually NOT the number 1! The two numbers, 1 and 1, are different numbers! I learned it from something called "JoeViocoe Science" on the internet! And Joe is a real scientist ! Also, water molecules, according to JoeViocoe, have 8 electrons.. not 10! You only get 10 when you split water! That is why for example ice blows up in the freezer when you add spearmint gum to it!
L505 3:54AM (11/21/2008)
"HHO simply has MORE ENERGY than the same amount of H20. H20, when compared to HHO, is called a lesser energy state."
There is no such thing as HHO.
There is also no such thing as "H20". It is not H two Zero. It is H two Oh.
Your posts are composed of so much pseudoscience that it is not even funny. Your pseudoscience adds little creditability to your name, JoeViocoe.
Joeviocoe 1:48AM (3/03/2008)
On resonance frequency for the Layman:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/sound/reson.html#resdef
Imagine pushing a child on a playground swing... I'll wait........
If you push when the child is at the apex (top) of the swing, it requires very little energy by you to keep the child swinging at that speed or maybe swing faster.
If you push at any other time, either too early or too late, you will not be effective.
If you push too early, you will be removing energy from the swing because you will be slowing down the child as he or she approaches. And possibly hurt somebody.
If you push too late, most of your energy will not transfer to the child.
The water dipole is similar. It has a natural frequency (like a child on a swing) when it is within a electromagnetic field.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "Natural resonance frequency"! It is either, a "Natural frequency" or "Resonance frequency" They mean the same thing! And "Natural resonance frequency" is a redundant term used primarily as baffle gab to sound like a breakthrough.
Science has known for a long time the natural frequencies (usually more than one) for the water dipole. Stan Meyer didn't discover that.
Anyway, back to the lesson.
The electrolyzers that use resonance simply apply voltage only when it would be effective and not when it would impede the energy transfered to the molecule. So it becomes a very specific frequency in which the maximum energy can be transfered from the voltage source to the H20.
This maximum has a limit of course!
Nothing can be more than 100% efficient!
Even if you successfully transfer 100% of the electric energy to the water molecules, it will only return the same amount when burned back into water inside the engine.
So now think about it. When it is burned in the engine. All that energy turns into rotational force which drives the wheels.
If some percentage of that energy gets turned back into electricity (via the alternator) ONLY THAT PERCENTAGE will be available to turn the next batch of water into HHO. So even with 100% efficiency, the law of diminishing returns remains.
Even if you built an engine without any losses, that never got hot, and never has any friction. The amount of energy returned from the alternator would still be missing the energy used to move the car (E=1/2Mv^2).
So essentially. The motion of the car has to equal the missing energy. That is why fuel is consumed.
This article contradicts itself because it says that, "No, this is not a free energy system, since energy from water is actually consumed, and water must be refilled"
When it said just a few sentences before, "The only exhaust is more water vapor, which can be left to the atmosphere, or recycled back into the system."
WTF?!
Unless the water actually disappears? The missing energy shows that people don't see the accounting mistake.
Only a nuclear reaction (weak force reactions included) can convert the mass of H20 or HHO into energy.
Do the energy accounting like you balance your checkbook! You will see how Stan Meyer's device just DOESN'T ADD UP!
Reply
L505 4:01AM (11/21/2008)
JoeViocoe, where does the energy come from that allows water molecules to move and spin around. Oh, water is a perpetual motion machine remember - water is actually going to jail soon.
Bill Aspin 10:57AM (3/22/2008)
I find it hard to believe that there are so many people that believe that the current laws of physics are absolute...Our schools are just teaching all the new scientists the same old theories, and when someone comes along that hasn't had these old theories drummed into his head and makes a discovery that the scientific community has been taught is not possible, they will not even consider that he may be right.. And it is down right ignorant to think that multi-billion dollar oil companies and other big businesses would not remove any threat to their millions of dollars in revenue and much more important the power that goes along with that kind of money...I think that these companies have eliminated many of the inovative ideas of many people by one method or another...
Reply
callmecrazy 9:15PM (3/16/2008)
what happened to his dune buggy? Seems to have fallen off of the face of the earth. Perhaps is with the Arc of the Covenant (from Indiana Jones fables) in some gumint warehouse?
That would answer a lot of questions!!
Reply
Joeviocoe 1:56AM (3/17/2008)
"What happened to his dune buggy?"
We have top men working on it now.
Who?
Top... men.
Reply
Joeviocoe 6:39PM (3/22/2008)
And its down right ignorant to think that some guy wouldn't propose the same perpetual motion machine that has been debunked a thousand times before, but just redesigned and reworded to impress people.
Ask yourself which is more likely, a massive government/big business conspiracy... or just another free energy scam driven by a guy wanting to make $1500 a pop on the gullible people. In this case, Meyer stole thousands of dollars in other peoples investments.
Don't think of physics class like you think of art class. It is not "the latest fad in physics" (although time will test string theory).
***In order to prove something that is different than known LAWS of Physics, you must DISPROVE those laws and show how they do not work.
But people like Meyer (and his fanboys) think that Laws are made to be broken.
True progress in science has NEVER been about disproving the older laws... only finding new ways to work around those laws.
Einstein didn't disprove Newton... he just showed how particles didn't behave in the Newtonian way when the went very fast because there mass also changed. Nothing broken but progress was made.
People like Meyer (and his fanboys) don't actually try to disprove or even prove anything... they just build fancy devices and say "the laws don't apply here" and never give a reason why.
Reply
L505 3:37AM (11/21/2008)
"Ask yourself which is more likely, a massive government/big business conspiracy... or just another free energy scam driven by a guy wanting to make $1500 a pop on the gullible people. In this case, Meyer stole thousands of dollars in other peoples investments."
You know what sounds like a conspiracy theory?
Someone starts making up nonsense about how maybe an investor killed Stan, or maybe Stan had all sorts of hidden power supplies and fake fuel sources in his car. That, is a conspiracy theory..and that is a very complex system that Stan must have had to fool so many people. What is more simpler, that a device works, or that it is powered by HIDDEN GAS TANKS IN THE CEMENT UNDERNEATH THE CAR!!
Conspiracy theories, eh? It can go both ways.
I am not a Stan Meyer believer or non-believer by the way. I have a neutral stance until I do more actual research on electrons. Just saying that some of YOUR conspiracies about how Stan was defrauding everyone, are just as much conspiracy as "he was poisoned".
Another conspiracy is to actually suggest that oil companies are not worried about their bottom line. Hey folks, I have a conspiracy for you! Did you know that oil companies are all good, out to help humanity? none of them are money oriented! They are all good and honest companies. Monsanto, and oil companies, and even cigarette companies are all good. Anyone who claims that there is a bit of "bad" or "evil" is a liar!
Now that is a conspiracy.