NOTEPAD for RANDOM IDEAS

[Mark Culpepper]

You can guess that I would vote for the self organizing situation.
Watching this forum operate the way it has, bringing up information right left and sideways. Almost as if it had a mind of its own. I wouldn't be inclined to tell this " inspiration force" where to go or how to get there. Not the way that it works. <g> But give it some open places and I'll just bet they will get filled with fascinating information. MarkC

[FM No Static At All]

I think as Crowley himself said about that quote, it was taken out of context and given to mean as you stated Mr. Trickfox, evil. But dig deeper into Crowley and you will discover that he was rebellious and against the elitists and the very Christian Brethren which he was raised with. His inner circle of "friends" would read like the who's who in American and British political and financial "elite", and I feel that he was working with British and US intelligence even before the war begin. Just as Dr. Brown set about to discredit himself, Crowley did also. He was about experience and truth, not about lies and deceit. That was his cover story and it is to this day very effective. I remember L. Ron Hubbard being mentioned along with those same names you mentioned in regards to US and GB intelligence, but that's not why we are here really is it?

Mr. Trickfox and Ms. Brown, I have been following the science of Dr. Brown for most of my life dating back to when I first discovered the Franklin Institute. Instead of the Scouts, I joined the Civil Air Patrol because they met at the Franklin Institute. Col Alberts took over the Communications Squadron and I went with him to a new headquarters at the Philadelphia International Airport.

When I first realized that there are two "Philadelphia" experiments that involved high energy and high frequency physics, it occurred to me that T. Townsend Brown WAS involved in a Philadelphia experiment, just not the infamous one involving the Eldridge. And I did find it ironic or perhaps synchronistic that when I came to read Defying Gravity" you throw out the Eldridge as unsubstantiated because of the references to Dr. Brown.

As I said, I knew of a close family friend who was there. When I mentioned the ship to him he freaked out. So I do know that some of the myths carry truths, only I am still sorting out the fact from the fantasy.

Linda, another reason I believe the "story" about your father is I too felt that based on what I read and feel about him, he was a man of honor and would not have participated in the types of control games Von Neumann was into. The Duncan Cameron and Al Bieilek story aside, the Montauk people themselves tell of such happenings, I didn't get my info from the Borderlands Research publications.

Mr AM, I am from mixed religious stock, my family name traces back to the Conte di Marsico in miost Italian documents, but I have found references to a "crusade" that led to the defeat of the Saracens in Calabria, This was during the late 800s.

My maternal grandfather was a physician who came here at age two. His father was a Cantor and they were Orthodox Hebrew. His wife was from Riga, Latvia and was also Orthodox Hebrew. I was raised with a healthy dose of Torah and Bible,, took Latin in high school, and speak English somewhat better than most non-American immigrants. I have struggled with the God thing for long enough and have decided that it's all myth. Man created God in his own image to put blame on and shirk responsibility.

I feel that I reasonably intelligent enough to know that many of the stories in the bible can be open to interpretations that do not require divine intervention. I also don't feel that Darwin was correct beyond survival f the fittest. And while I cannot speak for all humans, I am certain that we didn't evolve from apes or any simian creatures.

If it works for you, if you get peace and joy from it, if it supports you in being all that you are and share love with all of humanity, then by all means go for it. I choose to love and be supportive of others without the mysticism.

My "source" is a source because I maintain that anonymity per request. We have a trusting relationship and consider each other friends. Who else but a good friend would fly from the Pacific Northwest to Phoenix in 110 degree heat to drive your car back to Oregon? I did it, and would do it again if he asked. Who would show you documents and photos and notebooks that would shock and horrify most people or get killed if it got out? I cannot even tell yo what I saw, but I could agree with a true or false assessment when it is mentioned.

Most of what I put out is not meant for publication but then there is bits among the bytes that may be supportive of Paul's efforts or enlightening at least to others. Sometimes we all need to step back and look at the whole, and not just focus on the parts. Each member contributes from diverse experience and expertise. And our individual beliefs and experiences is how we formulate our perspectives. Yes Linda I do agree that you are coming from your love and defense of your Daddy, and that is a great thing too. But as you have pointed out, there weer many things he felt that "Linda needs not to know" and therefore all of us that contribute something positive to your knowing now, may help you understand why he didn't feel so at the time.

What I was writing about Von Neumann and his own personality issues was certainly not a slight against your father, to the contrary it was meant as a compliment that he was being noticed by Von Neumann, etc. As far as Montauk itself goes, I have been out that way and would someday like to return if only to feel the energy there again. I read that Borderlands book but also the one by K. B. Wells. He like Paul, does not consider much of the rumors and stories as being credible or at least verifiable. But also there is much to be said about dead ends, and many of them tell tales as much as some sources do.

I take most of of those books with a grain of salt. And I am probably refilling that shaker again. And Ms. Steele you just go right on bouncing hither and thither. It sure keeps me awake when I start getting too narrowly focused, like a horse wearing blinkers. (Redheads are what makes my wife jealous so I hope she isn't reading over my shoulders)

So finally I am not offended by any of your posts and questions, in fact I thank you for allowing me look at things from different views. Now since it has finally broke seventy degrees here, as I promised my dear wife, I am going to go cut away my beard and be clean shaven once again.

So I asked this God a question
And by way of firm reply he said,
"I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays" - Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull)


Fred

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

I think I understand what you meant by this statement but I want to go over it again Fred, if thats alright. You said:

When I first realized that there are two "Philadelphia" experiments that involved high energy and high frequency physics, it occurred to me that T. Townsend Brown WAS involved in a Philadelphia experiment, just not the infamous one involving the Eldridge. And I did find it ironic or perhaps synchronistic that when I came to read Defying Gravity" you throw out the Eldridge as unsubstantiated because of the references to Dr. Brown."

If ONE Philadelphia Experiment then is the William Moore version can you tell me which you believe is the second Philadelphia Experiment, why is the " Eldridge" still part of the equation then? You said your friend " freaked out" when that name was mentioned.

Of course, like most of us, I have some theories of my own regarding an experiment in Philadelphia involving "high energy and high frequency physics" but I would like to hear more about what you believe might have been the " true" Philadelphia Experiment" We may be on the same page and not realize it yet.Of course, only if sharing it is comfortable for you.

I agree that Pauls efforts to " throw out" the Eldridge stories were based on what he had found regarding Townsend Brown. There were some glaring inconsistancies in the stories that needed to be squared away and I think that Paul has done a very good job of that. It was important for him to demonstrate that Townsend Brown did not have much to do with that Experiment AS WILLIAM MOORE DESCRIBED IT. You can tell that I believe there is some wiggle room in that statement that still needs to be explored.

Personally I believe he may have had some hand in parts of it or some hand in the disinformation program that turned itself into one verson of the Philadelphia Experiment.

Which leaves the second story out there still to be really investigated. However it turns its bound to be far more complicated than we would ever imagine.

But perhaps that is one of the reasons that why this forum has become such a vital part of these investigations. As we all agree ... we need several viewpoints and the ability to talk them all out. Thanks for your input. Looking forward to whatever thoughts we can share. Elizabeth

[Mikado14]

Very well put.

I seem to remember awhile back about Paul taking information without knowing the source. The question came about because a trusted individual informed Paul that he might be able to speak to someone in regard to Dr. Brown and wanted him to compile a list of questions. Paul wanted to know the credibility of the individual as to who he was. Paul's informant said that he couldn't give the name. Paul's question was, should he trust a third party source without knowing anything at all about them only because he trusted his source?

If your sources are ex USAF and ex CIA, good enough for me. Paul, perhaps you should be sitting down with this man.

Mikado

[FM No Static At All]

I think I understand what you meant by this statement but I want to go over it again Fred, if thats alright. You said:

If ONE Philadelphia Experiment then is the William Moore version can you tell me which you believe is the second Philadelphia Experiment, why is the " Eldridge" still part of the equation then? You said your friend " freaked out" when that name was mentioned.

William Moore has his facts confused with spin. The Eldridge as far as I "know" may have used large Tesla coils and high voltage/current generators (I heard they were diesel/electric like in submarines) but to the best of my knowledge it was not Dr. Brown. Tesla himself did not wish to participate but allegedly was coerced into it. It may have been playing on his pacifist nature, or more "persuasive" methods, but that I have no idea.

Of course, like most of us, I have some theories of my own regarding an experiment in Philadelphia involving "high energy and high frequency physics" but I would like to hear more about what you believe might have been the " true" Philadelphia Experiment" We may be on the same page and not realize it yet.Of course, only if sharing it is comfortable for you.

The name sticks like "flying saucer" has stuck to describe a UFO. I saw a blimp like craft when I was very young, and I saw disk or spheres over the Atlantic. Fighters scrambled from McGuire couldn't keep pace and the disks disappeared towards space.

I agree that Pauls efforts to " throw out" the Eldridge stories were based on what he had found regarding Townsend Brown. There were some glaring inconsistancies in the stories that needed to be squared away and I think that Paul has done a very good job of that. It was important for him to demonstrate that Townsend Brown did not have much to do with that Experiment AS WILLIAM MOORE DESCRIBED IT. You can tell that I believe there is some wiggle room in that statement that still needs to be explored.

The only Townsend Brown connection to a Philadelphia experiment that I am aware of is the one in Paul's book. The Cutlass in the sixties, but not the Eldridge in 1943. And my "friend" said that Dr. Brown was either resigning or already on his way out of the area. Seems that Dr. Brown knew what they were attempting was possible, he didn't agree with the method (using a crew) proposed. Tesla voiced his objections and was either dismissed or took voluntarily leave and distanced himself from the project. And that experiment was called the Rainbow Project, and its origin is with Von Neumann and Montauk. Supposedly the 1963 project which was forty years later was called the Phoenix Project, as it was supposed to be a resurrection of the original, but designed to reverse the damage. That is where it does get hazy and disinformation comes and goes in between bits of fact.

I cannot verify that the Eldridge was still in service in 1963, but I do remember someone posted the Cutlass's log or record and there are holes and discrepancies in its whereabouts. But based on what I have learned and trusting intuition (or maybe its the force Luke!) it does seem that Decker had contracts with the Navy, as I did find a summary citation on some military site, I'll have to see if I can locate it and post the URL.

Personally I believe he may have had some hand in parts of it or some hand in the disinformation program that turned itself into one verson of the Philadelphia Experiment.

That is a real possibility also. and there are two investigations to look into here, but I am really more into FTM than the work that Von Neumann was doing. Oh yes, of course the Montauk work supposedly did achieve time travel also, but that was discovered by "accident".

There is one other "strange" event that supposedly took place at Montauk. Duncan Cameron with Von Neumann apparatus was able to "conjure" or think an orange into being. That is where the monster stories come from

But perhaps that is one of the reasons that why this forum has become such a vital part of these investigations. As we all agree ... we need several viewpoints and the ability to talk them all out. Thanks for your input. Looking forward to whatever thoughts we can share. Elizabeth

I spent the best part of my growing years looking at science and particularly physics in a pragmatic and logical manner. It wasn't until I realized that many things didn't seem to "compute" when I began allowing a more intuitive nature to become a guiding force. I suggest that we all do what we do best, but always allow that gut feeling to manifest itself as a reality. My experience is that is usually more accurate than the slide rule.
And Yes Linda, I allowed that intuition to guide me on a horse, not a whip.

Live long and prosper,

Fred

[Mikado14]

Supposedly the 1963 project which was forty years later was called the Phoenix Project, as it was supposed to be a resurrection of the original, but designed to reverse the damage. That is where it does get hazy and disinformation comes and goes in between bits of fact.

You lost me, so what project was in 1923?

I cannot verify that the Eldridge was still in service in 1963, but I do remember someone posted the Cutlass's log or record and there are holes and discrepancies in its whereabouts. But based on what I have learned and trusting intuition (or maybe its the force Luke!) it does seem that Decker had contracts with the Navy, as I did find a summary citation on some military site, I'll have to see if I can locate it and post the URL.

Google "Eldridge" and the first hit will tell you that it went to the Greek Navy in '51 and served into the 90's, just for referrence for those reading.

My experience is that is usually more accurate than the slide rule.

Then you have never worked in any research capacity for it takes a little of both.

Mikado

[kevin.b]

If I may just lay one of these red flags down about time and timing.

Instead of thinking as you have been told to think, that is in tens, try to think instead of sequences of spiralling time, where a recurring time wave based upon the golden ratio and fibonacci will be found embedded in that sequence.
The timing of the moon will give the best clue to this timing, then the sun.
If you concentrate upon the moon, then use its rythm to set a sequence of timings to.
The moons timing been the closest object to us, gives the best hint at the sequence involved, the further away in distance, the less obvious and over a longer time frame are those objects sequence timings.
I consider ancient people upon this planet knew exactly this timing.

Just using crude years veils these timings, as does counting in tens, things can be lost in tens.
Just a little red flag to keep a thought upon.
kevin

[Mikado14]

kevin,

???????

I must be in dense mode today.

Mikado

[kevin.b]

Mikado 14,
"Today?"
That was a joke sir, one who I admire very much.
It's all by field, eveything is by field, biefeld brown.
How we see is by field, what we think of as light is by field.
If another field comes between two other fields, and that field is strong enough, the line of vision will be distorted enough to make something appear not to be there.
We are not looking directly at anything, our senses and all manufactured assistances to our senses are observing around fields, fields that interact with other fields, the resultant view is not what is actually in a linear line.
Time will be by field, all so called movement of observed celestial objects will be by field , and the greater the actual distance between objects the more veiled will be the actual position of anything.
Heres a youtube link to a friend of mine, it was an honour to shake this mans hand, we could not let go of each other, contact was awesome.
Five times NDE Paulcmuir.
His field about his hands diverts the normal view of sight , hence his hands appear as vanishing, they haven't just a field alteration between observer and observed, all observed .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8v9yRTnUow

I would recommend the Joseph Farrell links at the side of that link.

The timing about fields will be around the field utilised by the observer and how it interacts with all other available fields, if the other fields are sort of atuned to the observers field, then a balance will exist, throw into the observed view a different atuned field, and our senses cannot adjust.

Dr Brown will have been able to tell where celestial objects actually where, long before any visual or signals currently employed could detect, he will have realised the signifigance of this, and computed real time, not the timing based on our inadequate short distance senses.
Those dominant senses have evolved to survive and pinpoint the wolf that wants to eat you.

I am totally convinced nothing is actually moving out in space, except metiorites and comets.
The larger spheres of mass I consider are fixed, on a lattice, with the aether flowing about upon that lattice , and we observe along the flows, the flows emitting from other spheres of mass meet our field flows and dictate position , but are time related dependant upon the time it has taken to circulate about the zillions of circulations realtive to the position out from the observer to the collision point with the other field circulations, we are viewing nothing in alinear way, its all by field.

Our field direction about us is right to left as viewed from yourself, we are therefore viewing time in such a way, and in a forward way, reverse the field direction, go back in time, enchance the field direction and go forward in time, its all by field.

And all the lattice framework measurements that I have driven myself potty measuring , are all to a sequence of fibonacci measure, and everything is composed upon spiral pathways created by this geometry, therefore all timing will be to that sequence, not to an observed sequence of inadequate detection devices we utilise, in short distance of whatever miles we can see , this will not ever be apparent, but over greater distances the time lags will become apparent, things will not be where they should be according to our short distance sensing, including all we manufacture to enchance those.
A veil about us sir, that is lifting from me' and I am trying to convey to all on here, I think one or two already know, but are tied up in secrecy etc, once though revealed publically, then its not a secret, thats our little quest, thank you for all your assistance and valued insistance upon verifications.

Kevin

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Wide ranging comments here. Hang on.

Fred said "I cannot verify that the Eldridge was still in service in 1963, but I do remember someone posted the Cutlass's log or record and there are holes and discrepancies in its whereabouts"

That would have been Paul with his very exhaustive research into details. But he did it not to open a big can of worms so that we could all wildly speculate. He did that to make a solid connection. She WAS in Philadelphia during the time specified by Mr. Twigsnapper. Paul did not know that at first. It took alot of travel and very careful digging to verify what Mr. Twigsnapper had told him. That takes some tenacity folks but its hard and fast information.

We are still working on the hard information that will tie Dr. Brown with the Cutlass during the summer of 1966. And to be faithful to the work that has come before ... no simple rumor is going to do. Somewhere out there is an eyewitness that will stand up and say ....."I was there" and " I can speak from my own experience".

I believe that such volunteers will begin to use this virtual book as path to find Paul and to finally speak their peace. They haven't been offered that ability yet so this next phase should be vitally important for the book that finally will be published will take all of that into account.

Otherwise, in the passage of time , it would be far too easy for someone to casually say of his work ... " Oh ....Townsend Brown was connected to the Philadelphia Experiment ... it was all hooey ... he never flew discs ... that was all a publicity stunt during the time .You know “ Flying Saucers in the fifties and all of that. “ Besides” they will say ..” those discs can't fly in a vacuum anyway so what good are they as space ships?"

Elizabeth

[natecull]

Thinking about 1958 again... I've just finished reading Journals 1 and 2, and a couple of things struck me.

1. I've seen a diagram derived from the sketch of the saucer supported by air vortices on page 10 here http://www.qualight.com/journals/journal2.htm#79. Possibly in a Deyo book (either Cosmic Conspiracy, or its 1989 sequel The Vindicator Scrolls). This was also in the context of ether as a working fluid for MHD-like propulsion (I'm not sure dielectricity was mentioned, but I'm sure I've encountered it also in other antigravity-underground materials), though it switched between describing ether and air as this sketch does. It didn't make much sense at the time, but whoever it was was probably trying to explain Brown's early ideas as being a full working craft, without a whole lot of grasp of the details, or else just being overly dramatic and seizing on something that 'looked' like a classical UFO. Unless other people were working along these lines, I presume that means whoever got that diagram got it from Brown's 1958 research. Were these notebooks widely publicised before 1976? Before 1989?

2. There's that suggestive gap from October 1958 on which practically screams 'exciting things here!'

3. And then, looking at his later notes from Avalon, it has this rather sad air to it, picking up threads after a nine-year gap, as if the previous propulsion research didn't actually fly, or wasn't convincing enough somehow. It seems to be back to basic research and hypothesising again, with little support from previous work. I find that odd, if indeed there was anything huge and exciting and classified happening with the propulsion aspect between 1958-1967. I suppose I would expect if the saucers were something he couldn't talk about, that he'd be writing on other nonclassified aspects, but not with quite the same sense that 'oh well, that didn't work, now we have to find other angles'.

[Chris Knight]

Nate,

That was noted by Paul in Chapter 73.

Try a search for it, because I know we've discussed what was going on during the gap at some length.

[kevin.b]

Mikado14,
Just to add something about time, I suggested moon time, we are presently brainwashed into sun time, keep in mind sidereal time, in other words the direction the planet is moving irrespective of its rotation about the sun.
Then dare to think that its not moving at all, but the ether is, relative to each supposed different time, in other words the ether is circulating around the earth, around the moon, around the sun, around the galaxy, and we are observing via those flows giving the illusion of movement.

Thus the ether flows are TIME.
They also create the condition of light and gravity , the resistance of the stationary planet creates heat, altered by the interference of all other circulations.
kevin

[AM]

Well, Mr. (Kevin) B., John Ernst Worrell Keely said "Time is Gravity".

In my opinion time is space in movement and space in turn is nothing, but aether.

If there exists anything close to motionless space without vibration then it would be the "unexcited" phase, while time is the "excited" phase.

Have you ever asked yourself why Dr. Brown was so focused on ions, phenomena dealing with ions (corona discharges, etc.) and gravitational isotopes?

Both isotopes and ions are somehow "out of phase" i. e. in a specially excited state, which makes then maleable for all the fun purposes that you have on your mind.

While a normal atom is in "balance", the ions and isotopes are due to their abundance or lack of electrons and neutrons respectively in a more "flexible" state.

It's like in martial arts where one of the main goals is to bring your adversary into such a position that will compromise his balance - and when you control your adversaries balance or make him loose it, oh, then the real fun begins.

AM

P. S. What do you say about my plans of trying to teach a raccoon speak Chinese? For start just some basic sentences. I know it can be done.

[AM]

Different patterns of movement cause the aether or space to manifest as time, gravity, magnetism, yodeling Austrians, etc.

Structure of Space.

Geometry, patterns, alignments...

Let us again think of chapter 48.

In the moment that he watched her do that — handing the stack of postcards to the clerk, their warped surfaces overlapping like rippled sheets of corrugated steel, it suddenly occurred to him that the Universe was formed just like that wavy stack of cards, one on top of the other; that the surfaces all had connections with each other, and that to describe one of those cards would describe the whole….

Now consider the whole quote from a slightly different point of view. The wavy stack of cards! Emphasis is on the wavy.

Think of how your crumple a piece of paper. First it's completely straight and flat and then your apply force.

Space as a piece of paper crumpled into special geometrical patterns through a force caused by the difference in potential between high K, high mu and low K, low mu areas.

The only difference here is that there are no hands from outside crumpling the paper, but it is the force INHERENT in the paper itself.

And what if this crumpling is a constant, dynamic movement?

AM

P. S. What is easier: teaching a raccoon basic Chinese or making him sing the Hank Williams classic "I saw the light"?

P. P. S. Mr. Mikado, I am still pondering the special diode and the triangle. It has just been a busy week - feeding giant centipedes and watching them spin their plates, etc., well, business as usual. Now we have a whole herd of them and they are getting bigger and fatter every day.