Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

The end of "The End." Please Stand by....

Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Paul S. » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:26 pm

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)


I have remained quiet while watching the furor erupt over Richard Hull's recent comments regarding Tesla, claims of suppressed and esoteric science, and the role of the Internets in breathing life into the unsubstantiated. Since I was the one who asked Richard to post his observations, I suppose I should say something about the hornets nest his comments have stirred up.

I am going to gather my thoughts about these exchanges here, in the "Second Draft " section, with links as necessary back to the original posts, because I think that the the broad concepts that Richard has addressed, and the members' response to his sentiments, shines a very bright light down here in the rabbit hole. It may not be lighting up the rabbit yet, but it nevertheless illuminates numerous facets of the subjects that will need to be addressed if we are ever going to find our way out of here.

I had originally asked Richard for his observations and comments regarding certain assertions by FM No Static At All:

viewtopic.php?p=15715#p15715

Henry Moray called it a "Sea of Energy" and Tesla called it "Cosmic Energy" and others have called it Zero Point Energy. But it all disappeared into oblivion with the publication of Einstein's General and Special Relativity Theories. From that time onward we have become fixated on some myth called the Big Bang Theory, which has spawned the String Theory, and which they have several of those as well.

To utilize aetheric energy, one will have to learn its frequency. Yes, Mr. Kevin B. is hitting on something with vibrations and feeling the energies resonating. Nikola Tesla got it and used it quite well thank you. J. P. Morgan squashed every attempt Tesla made to get his system up and running, because he (J. P. Morgan) knew that energy would be "free" to all that bought the "antenna" to capture it.


A couple of days later htmagic echoed those sentiments:

htmagic wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15780#p15780

Nikola Tesla tried to deliver cheap energy and J.P. Morgan stopped Tesla's plan and tried to suppress his ideas. J.P. Morgan prevented any future dealings with potential investors with Tesla. But Tesla has 2 patents for radiant energy collection. I believe they hold the key to cheaper energy. Patents 685957 & 685958 explain the process and the circuits. I believe this is the basis for Tesla's electric car.


In these posts we see the quintessential expression of the sort of conspiratorial rhetoric that abounds on the Internet -- particularly when Tesla's name comes up. It's not enough for some people that Tesla provided one of the fundamental pillars of our modern industrial society; he has to be deified as somebody whose true gifts were over looked, or, even worse, deliberately suppressed by a ruthless capitalist plutocrat.

I asked Richard share his thoughts on these subjects because I know that he has conducted as much careful and deliberate research into the mythology that surrounds Nikola Tesla as probably anybody alive today. He has spent long dark hours pouring through the notebooks that survive from Tesla's Colorado Springs experiments and has authored a (now hard to find) book that separates fact from the fantasies that swirl around those now mythic days.

Above all, I know that Richard is cast in the mold of a "hard boiled engineer." He is a card-carrying "I'm from Missouri, you have to show me" investigator. For Richard, the kind of zen koan that Morgan once offered me, that "absence of proof is no proof of proof's absence" is an absolutely meaningless exercise in circular illogic.

Mostly, I wanted Richard to help us separate fact from fiction where Tesla is concerned, since so much of that mythology feeds the underground suspicions of establishment misconduct. Needless to say, I got more than I bargained for. But I am grateful to Richard for stating so emphatically in his first post:

rhull wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15827#p15827

None of Tesla's patents ever gained substaintial value save for his polyphase patents and his radio related patents which were only given precedence after his death...

All of his other patents have never produced anything nor are suggestive of application. It is often these that the new agers pick for the holy grail. Tesla never made or worked with an electric car or any car. (no images exist or even lab notes) He did theorize and constantly, on the occasions of his birthday, tell assembled reporters of fantastic things he had in the works. (bluster and boast) The world was leaving him behind. by 1920.


So Richard is clearly and succinctly calling the bluff on much of the mythology that surrounds the legacy of Nikola Tesla. And he does so with hard-earned authority on the subject.

When you put these two posts together as I just have, it's easier to see the apparent contradiction between what htmagic posted (specific Tesla patents) and what Richard has stated (no "substantial value").

So, Magic Bill, is Richard wrong? Can you dredge up any concrete evidence that those patents you cited are viable? What do we really have to go on? Or are we proceeding on the basis of... well, what you might have read elsewhere? Like... on the Internets?

Richard makes a good case for what I consider "the origins of pseudoscience" when he writes,

rhull wrote: Many of the names mentioned other than Teslas are false inventors and kooks that remain legends, themselves, in the new energy community, all without devices or application, but are said to have had the devices but they got lost, the inventors died without giving up the magic formula to recontruct the devices, etc. You get the drift. When I hear those names used in an energy context, the red flags go up higher and higher in proportion to the number of called out names.


All of which he might have gotten away with, except that so many readers here took such deep umbrage at his final assertion:

Tesla is often at the top of the list followed by Brown.


Elizabeth was comparatively mild in her response:

Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15838#p15838

"what does a person have to do to get some sort of respect for his intellect and ideas?"


History is replete with examples of renowned individuals who had to endure all manner of abuse and hardship before society at large would engender any "respect" for their "intellect and ideas." Galileo comes most readily to mind. Gotta love that Ministry of Silly Hats, the Catholic church, for sticking to its dogma.

But Elizabeth asks the operative question. What DOES an intellectual or scientific pioneer have to do to earn "respect" for their original ideas? Or, in the path outlined by Schopenauer, how does any purveyor of "truth" make it from "ridicule" (Stage 1), to "evident all along" (Stage 3) without going insane during "Stage 2" (violent opposition) ?

These are the questions we are going to have to contend with if the biographical expression of Townsend Brown's life going is to have any meaning beyond this very small, isolated, and self-selected cadre of devotees. If, once the book is published, the circle of interest is going to become as large and powerful as it will NEED to be, then we are going to have to be able to offer concrete answers to the Richard Hulls of the world.

So it is interesting to see how the conversation proceeds, once Richard shared his thoughts with us. For example:

FM No Static At All wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15839#p15839

While I do agree with your assessment that many have attempted to build devices based on Tesla's patent's and have failed, there are others who have succeeded and have filed patents of their own....


Is that right? It may be true Fred, but simply hanging a statement like that out there without substantiation is not going to get us from Stage 1 to Stage 3. When I read simply that "others have succeeded and filed patents of their own," I need to see more. If patents have been filed, then the information is public, nobody's hiding any secrets. Can you cite the specific examples you are referring to here, please?

Fred then asked rhull:

Have you read any works by Harold Aspden or the original James Clerk Maxwell Treatise on Electromagnetism BEFORE it was edited by Heaviside and Lorentz? I will admit that the mathematics Maxwell used is beyond my capabilities, but their omission is not necessarily because they were not pertinent. As for aether theory, are you a subscriber to the belief that Michelson-Morley proved it does not exist or do you feel that it was not properly understood by early physicists?


Fred is restating the occasional assertion that "there is something missing" from Maxwell's equations. I'm familiar with that concept, having picked up on it from Tom Bearden's stuff. Hell, I cited Bearden in my talk in Las Vegas, and predicated much of my monologue on the same assumption -- that there is something missing from classical electrical theory, that Townsend Brown knew what it is, and that its dismissal by the mainstream scientific establishment constitutes precisely the kind of "ridicule" that Schopenauer speaks of.

But still, Fred, where do you come by this assertion that "Maxwell....was edited by Heaviside and Lorentz"? I ask because such assertions are central to the case we are trying to make here: that modern electrical theory is incomplete, and that attempts to round it out have been deliberately suppressed. So, Fred, next time you make a statement like that, please, provide us with chapter and verse -- or at least hyperlinks -- so we can all know precisely whereof you speak.

Another interesting (if slightly tangential) assertion in another post from FM further illustrates the kind of challenge that awaits us:

FM No Static At All wrote:
viewtopic.php?p=15863#p15863

And there is also a paper by Tom Bearden who claims that the Soviets used scalar weapons against the US during the Cold War, specifically he mentioned an incident in the North Atlantic involving a nuclear submarine.


The paper that Fred is referring to here is no longer available on the Internet, as it was a few years ago. If you want to read it, you have to buy Bearden's book "Fer De Lance" which purports to be a briefing on "Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons" and makes the case that the Soviet Union used secret, "scalar EM" technologies to sink the USS Thresher in 1963 -- in response to the the US "victory" in the Cuban Missile. Fortunately I grabbed that text from the web and saved it:

To save face and prevent his immediate ouster, Khrushchev apparently conducted a startling two-strike demonstration of his new weapons as soon as they became operationally ready. On April 10, 1963 he detected and destroyed the U.S.S. Thresher nuclear submarine using a scalar EM howitzer in the underwater "continuous" mode. The next day he demonstrated the "pulsed" underwater destruction mode for nuclear subs by producing a giant underwater EM explosion underneath the ocean 100 miles north of Puerto Rico.



Here again, we see an example of a bold claim -- in this case, that the Soviet Union in the 1960s employed secret weaponry that was based in part on the esoteric theories of Nikola Tesla. But... is there any real (pardon the expression) proof of this?

Are we getting too accustomed to accepting bold claims without any material evidence... because the claims themselves somehow resonate with the irresistible tractor beams of what we want to believe?

There are lots of examples of this kind of (uncritical?) thinking pervasive in these forums. Claims of esoteric achievements that are offered without substantiation.

That's why I think Richard Hull has actually done us a great service in forcing us to take a critical look at some things we might wish we could take for granted.

If indeed the truth goes through the three stages that Schopenauer postulates, then Richard Hull has reminded us that the ideas that have drawn us all to this forum are still very much in the first stage of their evolution. However strong or objectionable his wording may be, he offers us plenty of rationale for why that is the case. He has reminded us how easy it is to dismiss -- as Schopenauer said, to "ridicule" -- ideas that flourish on the periphery of accepted knowledge.

Richard has shown us how challenging it will be to slip the thread that is Townsend Brown's life through the eye of the needle of ridicule and opposition it will necessarily have to go through before it will ever stand a chance of becoming "self evident."

Given the mercurial nature of our subject matter, Richard points out -- and I think rightly -- that there is very little of substance that can pull us through Stage 2, and certainly nothing that would deliver us to Stage 3. Some of our number may be working on gizmos, some may be working on the math, or steeping themselves in the literature. But still... where's the hard evidence?

Indulging Richard Hull's rigorous standard reminds us that we must redouble our efforts to be concise and specific. Statements that "others have succeeded" will no longer suffice without specific citations that we can follow to judge for ourselves the veracity of the claims.

As the discussion proceeded, I think natecull pitched the whole ball of wax into the wheel house when he posted:

natecull wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15968#p15968

*If* we want to produce workable devices and achieve open validation for extraordinary claims - and perhaps after all is said we do not, perhaps that is too dangerous for the world and we'd rather hide it forever - then we will eventually need to take the scientific route of open, honest, freely replicated disclosure.


And Fred drove it out of the park with his response:

FM No Static At All wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15969#p15969

It would seem apparent that many of Dr. Brown's research and discoveries are hidden for that very reason. Perhaps he and the group that he was associated with had the foresight to see how benevolent use would be a great thing, yet in the "wrong" hands it could mean devastation on a global scale. And also it remains hidden because we have yet to learn how to get along and play nice as a global community.


At last, we have arrived at the heart of the matter, the principle dilemma that underscores this entire undertaking.

We are essentially on a quest to find the the invisible seam that separates genuinely Great Secrets that are, as Fred says "hidden for that very reason" from the sort of self-delusion that is so easily propagated across an unrestricted forum like the Internet. There is a lot to what Richard says when he says "the Internet gave all the nutballs a forum." Our job, people, is to make absolutely damn f'ing sure that we, and Townsend Brown, are NEVER lumped in with the "nutballs." And if you think that's gonna be easy, then you took the wrong pill before you went down the rabbit hole.

And that's not even allowing for the other possibility, as natecull so brilliantly stated,

natecull wrote:viewtopic.php?p=15968#p15968

I try to keep an open mind, and that requires admitting that for all our stories, this may all be a rabbit hole with no rabbit.


That said, then, if there IS a rabbit in this hole, then this is what it looks like:


1) There are indeed infinite and freely accessible sources of energy in the universe. Gravity is one of them;

2) Those technologies and the knowledge they embody are "forbidden" because the species in question -- homo sapiens -- has not evolved yet to the point where it would not be tempted to gleefully explore the most destructive applications of that knowledge (and our continued devotion to "ancient tribal superstitions" does little to expedite matters - see "Ministry of Silly Hats," above);

3) there exists here on earth a "secret society" that, in concert with an unseen, "shifted dimensional intelligence" (SDI), keeps that information at arm's length -- holding, in other words, the "keys to the cosmic Ferrari." That, by the way, probably includes nuclear fusion;

4) Townsend Brown, as a young man having discovered the keys to this forbidden knowledge, was drawn into that secret society, conducted covert operations on behalf of its protective mission, and spent his life obfuscating and obscuring his true nature while leaving a trail of bread crumbs for that might lead a future generation to the knowledge he discovered and helped to conceal.

That is the idea. There, in four easy steps, is what this book -- these forums, this entire undertaking -- has been about.

But, when you read it stated just like that.... doesn't that sound.... ridiculous??

If it doesn't sound ridiculous, if you think we here are possessed of the vision necessary to see that what seems ridiculous in the present will be self evident in the future, then you must also see that it is incumbent up on to devise the means -- critical thinking, mostly -- that will drive these concepts from "ridicule" through the gauntlet of "violent opposition" to a place where they can be readily accepted as self evident" all along."

Now, my task in the course of re-writing and editing, is to make sure the result lands on the four notes I just outlined above. In its current rendering, I'm not certain that it does, but I think I can improve the likelihood of achieving that result with some judicious editing and rewriting.

But when it's done, the end result -- as Richard Hull has dutifully reminded us -- is going to be very easy to dismiss and, in Schopenauer's scenario, ridicule.

So when somebody like Richard Hull steps in and strips away the veil of mythos and legend that grows out of the kinds of mysteries that we're contemplating here, don't take offense. The challenge is legitimate. Don't shoot the messenger, for he is telling us how difficult it will be to separate those fringe ideas which are rightfully ridiculed -- the "nutball" stuff, as Richard so indelicately puts it -- from the Golden Thread that will somehow make it through the eye of the needle into the promised land of having been "self evident" all along.

Otherwise, we will be forced to face the conclusion, as natecull suggests, that there is in fact no rabbit in this hole.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby twigsnapper » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:58 pm

Paul,

You are better prepared and able to reach your stated goal here than rhull may ever be of understanding that there are more things here at work than can be explained by current science.Though I have the hope that he can learn as much from you as you will from him.

I agree that Richards opinions are vital to note..... and I hold him in high regard, as you do. Its imperitive that everyone on the forum understands that we have to respond to his important concerns by being as strict with ourselves and our facts as he is. If this were a horserace your efforts would have to be as disciplined as his have been.

But for all of the strict training ... a wondrous racehorse always has something that can not be defined in ordinary ways. Those who have seen it before have ways of recognizing it.

Paul.... I have watched you for a couple of years now and this last bit shows me that you are capable of hitting your stride and knowing what you have to do when you have to do it. I'll put my money on your horses colors anytime. I think that you will find plenty of company.

Well done, Nicely written. Well thought through. Proud of you. twigsnapper
twigsnapper
Revered Elder
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
Location: mobile

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Radomir » Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:35 am

Excellent and admirably foresighted post, Paul, and agree that this aspect of the edit is one of the major filters / lenses you (and the forum as a whole) will need to use in order to produce a successful second draft.

While I pretty vehemently don't agree with Rhull on his assessment of Tesla, I respect the fact that he's a builder-researcher and that he took the time to validate (or disprove) for himself aspects of that and other paths. I'm still not clear he read your book before posting, though, and if the case then he loses serious credibility right there.

The critical posture still stands as one the TTB book effort will confront--if one cares to. By your above, it is clear that you do care to.

I wonder if Nick Cook bothered to worry about that aspect, for instance, or did his publisher? He may have just put it out there to stick or fall off the wall as it may. And he garnered a decent audience. But perhaps the two books have different goals. Perhaps it would be good for you to reiterate exactly what your goal is for this book -- as a mission statement but also specifically in terms of size and composition of the audience you are seeking to reach. Noting the reading public worldwide is a fraction of the viewing public, and that some day there may be a movie, what is the specifics for this written volume as opposed to any other format. That could include the goal that the book should be attractive enough to media people to spin off into other formats.

One response to your above is: "Simple, we'll just be sure to have some operating examples of the TTB technology by the time the book is published, that will be unimpeachably concrete." However being realistic we've seen 60 Minute spots with the guy in Australia who burns water for his motorcycle (though he did not disclose how it worked) and similar videos of all stripes -- so what is "proof" if the effort doesn't simultaneously move towards something that could be productized and become ubiquitous. We've referenced in the past that it was years after the Wright Brother's flight that people were still denying such a flight was possible. Some folks still think we staged the moon landing. Perhaps "concrete proof" won't help the book one bit if the narrative isn't sufficiently & inherently belief-inducing on its own.

So then the tougher road is what you've laid out, which is how to structure the narrative and evidentiaries (such as they are) so that the narrative will compel inherent understanding & belief, and similarly will be painstakingly bulwarked-in-advance against the type of critique you outlined above. Without losing one whit of the passion and engagement that gives this manuscript such vibrant life.

I must admit however that after writing all this, my gut feeling is just put it out there, stay true to your original voice. Write to your audience that you know will find a spark in this material, and damn the critics--they will have their say no matter what you do. And I'm concerned too much concentration on this aspect may produce a narrative that comes off as defensive, which may actually hurt credibility. Versus writing the truth as the truth (as you know it).

There's an important balance to be struck here.

R.
Radomir
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:51 pm

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Victoria Steele » Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:58 am

So when somebody like Richard Hull steps in and strips away the veil of mythos and legend that grows out of the kinds of mysteries that we're contemplating here, don't take offense. The challenge is legitimate. Don't shoot the messenger, for he is telling us how difficult it will be to separate those fringe ideas which are rightfully ridiculed -- the "nutball" stuff, as Richard so indelicately puts it -- from the Golden Thread that will somehow make it through the eye of the needle into the promised land of having been "self evident" all along.

Otherwise, we will be forced to face the conclusion, as natecull suggests, that there is in fact no rabbit in this hole.


Well, great Paul. What a treat! And its not even Thursday!
I got a couple of things to say.

It wasn't what rhull had to say that riled most of us up. It was his manner of saying it. Now I understand that he has a sort of reputation for that sort of wording and I can go along with that but he must also realize that none of us have to roll over and play dead and let him get away with that sort of attitude. Respect is respect. And his attitude just oozed disregard which was unfounded. This forum has gone a long way without that sort of thing and I vote that we do in fact have a duty to treat each other with words that are more kindly and carefully chosen. Believe me, I have refrained from firing back in kind but I am trying to learn what a gentle hand is from Linda and I am trying not to backslide now. But I warn rhull not to tread on me.

Everything you said in your essay was excellent Paul and I agree with what Mr. Twigsnapper has said too. I am proud of you and proud of all of us ahead of time because I know that we will accept the challenge here and your good advice.

I was the one that signed up so that I could rip you upfor making " Philadelphia Experiment" type of wild claims .... so I totally understand how important it is to avoid that type of reputation. I agree that we must never let the reputation of Townsend Brown be thrown into the wrong company because of OUR actions. At the same time you might as well know right now that I am ardent enough about all of this to also guard him against attacks from mouthy meanspirited know-it-alls. Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Victoria Steele » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:18 am

You are so right Radomir!

It could happen that Paul could get so wrapped up trying to PROVE all of his points to people like rhull that he will lose the magic that has decided to join him in this and which other people actually recognize. You are right! Paul! Just put it out there AS YOU KNOW IT TO BE AND AS YOU FEEL IT TO BE. Maybe thats a scarey situation for you but I really believe that Radomir is right here and that you might lose something so special and so magical that no amount of " reality checks" will be able to match it.

People know the truth when they see a fine painting or when they hear good music. It might break all the rules but if it reaches out and touches the reader or observer THATS whats important. Its not going to be a damned textbook. And its not a piece of machinery.

Just let it rip and I believe that your hand and your heart will be guided in this. GO FORTH! Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby natecull » Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:46 am

Thank you for your kind words.

Paul S. wrote:But Elizabeth asks the operative question. What DOES an intellectual or scientific pioneer have to do to earn "respect" for their original ideas? Or, in the path outlined by Schopenauer, how does any purveyor of "truth" make it from "ridicule" (Stage 1), to "evident all along" (Stage 3) without going insane during "Stage 2" (violent opposition) ?


Providing a valid demonstration is the missing bit. People will generally keep laughing or opposing until you melt a tract of New Mexico desert, lift an airplane off the ground, or build a geodesic dome that doesn't collapse. THEN they were always your friends. And even once you do, they may *still* laugh when you say you can also build giant floating cloud bubble cities or disprove Heisenberg, and often for good reason. Even proven geniuses have off days.

I think there are three (maybe four) strands to the story so far, each a different ways of 'validating' them.

1. As entertainment, a possibly-fictionalised biography. Here, having personal psychological details is important, and Linda Brown's input as well as that of Morgan, International Emailer of Mystery and FTM Wrangler (Possibly Spending Some Time Being Dead Right Now For Tax Purposes) is essential. The important thing is 'is it a good story? Are the characters well-drawn, warm and human? Do the interactions make sense? Is there flow, pacing and suspense? Is there a world-shattering McGuffin?' Whether it 'actually happened' is secondary.

2. As history, especially as a definitive biography. Here, it is important that all details about Townsend Brown and any other historical people or events referenced be absolutely watertight and confirmed by public third-party sources. Because this document is going to go onto the 'public record' for maybe a century to come. Any speculation introduced should be kept to an absolute minimum and preferably should be cut out entirely, otherwise it will merely muddy the waters for valid historical and scientific investigation. It's not important that there be a 'point' or a 'story' but it MUST be 100% factual - even if the facts are sparse and contradictory and any rational interpretation leads to madness. Linda's input is vital here, as is everyone else who personally knew the man and whose own identity can be validated.

Morgan... not so much, IMO.

(Though maybe you can vouch for him? And I'm sure Linda can. But I've not seen any solid proofs presented of his identity. His whole communication with you smells like intelligence 'handling' to me, and that makes me nervous. Are we only speculating along certain lines because we were told to? His 'return from death' as recounted by Linda is pretty impressive, and seems harder to fake than the rest of his correspondence. But who gains from publishing a book alleging the US Navy has a time-travelling yellow submarine run by the Illuminati? Is it all yet another 'caper' to hide a prosaic real truth, or to puff up the USA's image as the ultimate technological badasses in a world where George Bush burned a lot of political capital? Or just stir the UFO pot a little to keep the story 'on top'? Are we the next Aviary and Majestic-12? Sorry, but I'm a suspicious bastard.)

3. As a scientific investigation of the alleged 'Townsend Brown breakthroughs'. For real science, there has to be a theory, testable predictions, and rigorously repeatable demonstrations. I don't think we have anything approaching that, though with eg Lifters and Ionocraft and the Ionic Breeze we can point to specific devices inspired by or connected with Townsend Brown's known, published, unclassified work, but they don't necessarily count as 'breakthroughs'. With gravitational isotopes, we have sketches of a theory starkly in contrast with accepted science, and *possibly* with the 'paint shaker' experiment a repeatable experiment. With gravitators, dielectricity and the 'vacuum' propulsion effect, very faint sketches of ideas again far outside the mainstream, but with no way (at yet) of constructing a complete theory giving predictions - unless someone can unify Brown's notebooks with other 'outside the mainstream' unified theories, of which so far there are many claims and few deliveries. With 'gravitational radio', we have almost nothing beyond patents (with which the antigravity field is already crowded) and personal claims. Maybe it's just a small matter of engineering getting those patents to work? Or given the troubles with the Ionic Breeze, maybe not. So:

4. As a philosophical investigation of Townsend Brown's implied overall cosmic worldview, with comparisons with mainstream science of the time and other non-mainstream cosmologies. Here the point is to grapple with some of his ideas and inspirations, put them in context with both classical electrodynamics and other UFO/antigravity fringe ideas such as Adamski, Carr, the Tesla mythology, Deyo, Moore, Bearden, Aspden, Russell, Fuller et al. Without actual hardware or hard theories to work with, this is possibly the best we can do with the resources we have, and it seems to be what both 'the Internets' as a whole as this forum specifically can do well (but doesn't always). We seem to occasionally discover points of startling correspondence linking back to 'consensus reality', and if we get multiple 'fringe theories' making the same testable prediction we might be able to leapfrog from there to the beginnings of a scientific methodology. If not, it's a fun intellectual game but not necessarily much more.

Which interest me personally? I want (2) and (3) myself. (1) and (4) ONLY IF they are filtered and focused (but we probably don't all agree on what the filters and focus should be). I for one would not want to see this book become the next Philadelphia Experiment meets Da Vinci Code, mixing wild conspiracy allegations with a racy plot with no historical or scientific substance - but if it does, it will probably sell a billion and make you very rich, because that's what the mass market probably wants...

Still, you seem to be already lightyears ahead of Dan Brown and William Moore with your sourcing of real documentation so far, so thank you very very much for achieving so much. And for bringing this forum community together.

The story just seems to be incomplete to me without some solid kickable proof that Here Be Rabbits and the Internet hasn't just made us all stupid... but while that's frustrating, maybe an incomplete, baffling story bordering on madness and self-delusion is all we can hope for. It's *that* kind of material.

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'"
It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
natecull
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby FM No Static At All » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:31 am

Paul, Et. al.
There is data available about Fer de Lance on Bearden's site, and there are other sources available besides the Internet. You can start here.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html

Regarding Tesla and Moray, Having Tesla's Colorado Springs notebook will not answer questions regarding his radiant energy devices. But think about how much he put into Wardenclyffe only to have it burned down. Now I am sure many theories abound, but those who seek truth can find it beneath all the legends and hype. Try sources closer to Tesla's native country and you may find out more for yourselves.

Regarding his other patents outside pf polyphase and radio, his phase conjugate mirror has been applied in lasers although I cannot know for certain if anyone has produced anything that utilizes electromagnetics. There are many projects that have not seen the light of day, since they have been regarded as secrets under national security interests. But with the knowledge and experience the Richard Hull brings, I would have thought that a thorough investigation would have been his first order of business rather than just conclude that Tesla was a quack after the two above mentioned patents gained ubiquitous use in the world. Tesla was also working with th emilitray on classified projects and much of his work may be as veiled as that of Dr. Brown's.

As I have stated, I am neither a mathematician nor a degreed engineer. I do not have a laboratory at my disposal to test all of the claims made by others. I do have a keen sense for bullpuckey and a good analytical mind. I have taken paths that probably only doctorate scientists have taken under superb funding. And I have listened to the lectures of those tenured professors as well. But I will not claim any expertise for myself, as I am a student yet.

Now as Ms. Steele has pointed out, when Mr Hull slammed Dr. Brown, that obviously was a raw nerve for many of us I am sure. I look at what you have written, what I have read in the past, and what personal contacts have had to say on the subject all with an open mind and a grain of salt. I you book you make some pretty "out there" claims regarding Dr. Brown, and ask us to follow you down that "rabbit hole" and be open to possibilities. Mr. Hull has done neither.

It is NOT an assertion, as I have been able to find the original unedited version. I am certain anyone who has the qualifications professed by Mr Hull could also readily do so. I was led to research this when it was written by Dr. Harold Aspden, who made the claims that I repeated for the forum audience. As far as links go, I have posted many links referencing the works of Aspden, and those that care to take more that perfunctory glance through them will find references to the classic physics of Compton, Coulomb, Einstein, Faraday, Heaviside, Lorentz, Maxwell, Planck, Thompson, etc. You will see how through postulation backed with mathematics, Aspden has demonstrated the aether as a real and energetic source in the universe, one that can readily be responsible for proton creation as well as gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces as well as electromagnetism. I am not referencing a pseudo-scientist or some garage tinkering quack, but a man of letters that has peer reviewed publications and books on physics that you will not in classic physics study at any major university.

Paul S. wrote:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
Yes, and I would suspect that Mr. Hull is still in phase one based on most of his comments. And stage two when it comes top the claims of free energy devices made by the garage inventor set. But without a willingness to look beyond what has been "proved" by science before, nothing new can become self-evident. The evidence is out there and has been presented to the scientific community by reputable scientists. The Pons-Fleishmann cold fusion experiments have passed the first two phases and more than one reputable source including a government (NASA or Navy I cannot recall at the moment) agreed that they produced over unity gain although on a very small scale. Another MizunoTanomalouse was even more compelling in favor of such proof.
So Richard is clearly and succinctly calling the bluff on much of the mythology that surrounds the legacy of Nikola Tesla. And he does so with hard-earned authority on the subject.

Really? By what credentials and proven devices has he brought with? He claims that fusor technology is his area of expertise and yet he has no viable product? Was Philo T. Farnsworth also a quack? This admonition of all of us that have been following and digging and gravitated to the online book and these forums are all just New Age dreamers? And are you suggesting in all sincerity that we should provide you with proof of our assertions when you cannot back up your own? No, I think that most of the clay pigeons thrown up are meant to be shot down. however you have to sift through the coals to discover the diamonds. Much of Dr. Brown's life and work is hidden beneath the surface. Mis-direction and dis-information is the norm.

But a truly gifted analyst uses meta-analyses to find truth, never taking and either/or stance when it comes to discovery. Paul, you must have learned that yourself over these past years in compiling and writing these drafts

There are several gifted persons among us who are adept in the mathematical and physical sciences who have questioned but have never proclaimed with such vehement authority as Mr Hull. It would seem that first, there is a respect amongst the members, and also that there must be validity in some of the science that escapes textbooks and college courses.

Now I would like Mr Hull to participate rather than humiliate here, and if he wishes to do so, than it needs to be with the same respect all of us are expected to exhibit toward one another. And since you Mr. Schatzkin have invited him, then it would be your responsibility to see to it that he behaves like a mensch. :)

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby htmagic » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:31 am

Paul,

I agree with Mr. Twigsnapper's post. I happen to hold Richard Hull in high esteem even before his fusor work. His Nemesis Tesla coils could put out 12 foot sparks and were much more powerful and better designed than the little 4 foot sparks my unit put out. I talked to Richard and knew that this physicist knew his stuff. I thought he would be a good voice of reason for the Pegasus Project.

But I am afraid Richard got a blast of negative as his negatives brought forth negative from the rest of the group. I think Mr. Hull was being realistic and I think one of the women picked up that he might have been disappointed in the fact that we haven't achieved the "holy grail" of energy that Tesla, Moray, and others talked about. But if Mr. Hull reads the TTB story and some posts on this forum, I believe he might come to the conclusion that it is there. It is in 'plain sight' but we cannot see it. And physicists cannot explain it. Maybe it is mythical BS to them but it is real. Thought creates energy and that can manifest itself into matter.

Paul, I think you captured it eloquently when you said it in your other post. Sounds ridiculous? Maybe, before I became enlightened on this forum. I would have said much of the same stuff Richard has. But then I saw 'the other side' and came to the conclusion that anything is possible if your put your minds to it. How many things on StarTrek in 1969 do we take for granted now? Everyone seems to have a "communicator" (cell phone, some even flip style) and use them while driving! Spock put square disks (we call them 3.5 inch floppies) into his computer to store data. Someone took the wood or plastic blocks used as props on that TV show and some other guy (or gal, don't forget the ladies) turned it into reality. Wow! Now how's that for mythical BS?! :wink:

Paul, Tesla's patents are real. Do they work? The jury is still out there. There is one using the radiant energy patent I discussed and is obtaining energy. But his setup is not exactly as Tesla described so he is only getting a few volts. He has some YouTube videos posted of his setup and results. Hew is a young man enamored with Tesla but not applying scientific reasoning to his setup and results. Tesla also used bifilar coils which seem to have interesting properties. He could stack pancake coils together and get a transformer effect without the metal cores. Air coils can operate on higher frequencies because the iron has hysteresis and can saturate. I was thinking of trying Tesla's radiant energy device in my office but have been hesitant so far about having high voltage capacitors at thousands of volts nearby to two computers and one with a business material on it... I do not wish to attract lightning with a metal collector. There is plenty of energy coming in from outer space. Remember the tether experiment from NASA. There was so much energy there, it burned out the carbon fiber cable (wire) and had more voltage than expected. Why wasn't that better published? There was a brief mention of it and that was it...

As for Tesla patents, there are 112 and I will list them below. After you read them, you'll see even the electrical meter to your home had Tesla's fingerprints on the original design. Richard's statement gave me the impression that there were a few patents related to his polyphase system but his patents covered the entire system! Read through them and judge for yourself if they were useful or not. Please remember these are Tesla's patents that he filed. Then figure that he worked for Edison and solved some of Edison's problems that no one else could solve. And I'm sure Edison filed his patents for that "solution" that Tesla provided. I read Tesla's Colorado Spring notes and I felt that even some graduate classes were less complex than the material Mr. Tesla presented in his notes. The other difference was that Tesla's solutions were completely formed in his head and not by the "99% perspiration" and brute force that Edison used. Tesla's designs were elegant yet simple. Tesla was no god but a genius that had idiosyncrasies. He also had no family and probably lead a lonely life.

Tesla had more ideas and unfortunately didn't write a lot of material as he kept the designs in his head. Apparently he might have had a photographic memory and visualize the entire polyphase motor in his head. On this forum we refer to them as "downloads". I would have thought that was "mythical BS" before I became familiar with this forum. I mean this group of the Perfesser, with Mr. Twigsnapper, the Enforcer, AM, FM, a Knight, a Radomir, a Nate, a Dowser (also Navigator), a JimZim, a Magician, (don't forget the ladies), and others I have failed to mention, what do we all have in common? I'd originally say human but have changed my mind and decided to include ETs, the "true alien" and minority if you ask me! :wink:

Seriously, the one thing we have in common is the story of Thomas Townsend Brown. We all read the story that Paul wrote with help from some of the members of this forum. I am proud of all the members in this forum. Some spent many an hour of research so naturally a condescending attitude will rile people up (especially them redheads! LOL!!!) :lol:

I can agree with Radomir, Victoria, and Nate's posts as well. If you need concrete proof, get me some ceramic insulators and I'll put together TTB's electrokinectic generator. I do not wish to produce 10 million volts but may go to a few hundred thousand to keep it safe for demonstration purposes. And Mark Bean with the flying disks (I knew I left some out!). We already have the lifters group as well... J.L. Naudin has some documented results and a very thorough scientific style. Sometimes he does not reproduce exactly as stated. That would be proof that some of the material presented was for real...

Here are 122 of Tesla's patents that he submitted.
http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/grant_tesla.html wrote:Patents Arranged in Patent Grant Date Order:

# Patent Year Month Day Title
1 334,823 1886 January 26 Commutator for Dynamo Electric Machines
2 335,786 1886 February 9 Electric Arc Lamp
3 335,787 1886 February 9 Electric Arc Lamp
4 336,961 1886 March 2 Regulator for Dynamo Electric Machines
5 336,962 1886 March 2 Regulator for Dynamo Electric Machines
6 350,954 1886 October 19 Regulator for Dynamo Electric Machines
7 359,748 1887 March 22 Dynamo Electric Machine
8 381,968 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
9 381,969 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
10 381,970 1888 May 1 System of Electrical Distribution
11 382,279 1888 May 1 Electro Magnetic Motor
12 382,280 1888 May 1 Electrical Transmission of Power
13 382,281 1888 May 1 Electrical Transmission of Power
14 382,282 1888 May 1 Method of Converting and Distributing Electric Currents
15 382,845 1888 May 15 Commutator for Dynamo Electric Machines
16 390,413 1888 October 2 System of Electrical Distribution
17 390,414 1888 October 2 Dynamo Electric Machine
18 390,415 1888 October 2 Dynamo Electric Machine or Motor
19 390,721 1888 October 9 Dynamo Electric Machine
20 390,820 1888 October 9 Regulator for Alternate Current Motors
21 396,121 1889 January 15 Thermo Magnetic Motor
22 401,520 1889 April 16 Method of Operating Electro Magnetic Motors
23 405,858 1889 June 25 Electro Magnetic Motor
24 405,859 1889 June 25 Method of Electrical Power Transmission
25 406,968 1889 July 16 Dynamo Electric Machine
26 413,353 1889 October 22 Method of Obtaining Direct from Alternating Currents
27 416,191 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
28 416,192 1889 December 3 Method of Operating Electro Magnetic Motors
29 416,193 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
30 416,194 1889 December 3 Electric Motor
31 416,195 1889 December 3 Electro Magnetic Motor
32 417,794 1889 December 24 Armature for Electric Machines (A. Schmid & N. Tesla)
33 418,248 1889 December 31 Electro Magnetic Motor
34 424,036 1890 March 25 Electro Magnetic Motor
35 428,057 1890 May 13 Pyromagneto Electric Generator
36 433,700 1890 August 5 Alternating Current Electro Magnetic Motor
37 433,701 1890 August 5 Alternating Current Motor
38 433,702 1890 August 5 Electrical Transformer or Induction Device
39 433,703 1890 August 5 Electro Magnetic Motor
40 445,207 1891 January 27 Electro Magnetic Motor
41 447,920 1891 March 10 Method of Operating Arc Lamps
42 447,921 1891 March 10 Alternating Electric Current Generator
43 454,622 1891 June 23 System of Electric Lighting
44 455,067 1891 June 30 Electro Magnetic Motor
45 455,068 1891 June 30 Electrical Meter
46 455,069 1891 June 30 Electric Incandescent Lamp
47 459,772 1891 September 22 Electro Magnetic Motor
48 462,418 1891 November 3 Method of and Apparatus for Electrical Conversion and Distribution
49 464,666 1891 December 8 Electro Magnetic Motor
50 464,667 1891 December 8 Electrical Condenser
51 487,796 1892 December 13 System of Electrical Transmission of Power
52 511,559 1893 December 26 Electrical Transmission of Power
53 511,560 1893 December 26 System of Electrical Power Transmission
54 511,915 1894 January 2 Electrical Transmission of Power
55 511,916 1894 January 2 Electric Generator
56 512,340 1894 January 9 Coil for Electro Magnets
57 514,167 1894 February 6 Electrical Conductor
58 514,168 1894 February 6 Means for Generating Electric Currents
59 514,169 1894 February 6 Reciprocating Engine
60 514,170 1894 February 6 Incandescent Electric Light
61 514,972 1894 February 20 Electric Railway System
62 514,973 1894 February 20 Electrical Meter
63 517,900 1894 April 10 Steam Engine
64 524,426 1894 August 14 Electromagnetic Motor
65 555,190 1896 February 25 Alternating Motor
66 567,818 1896 September 15 Electrical Condenser
67 568,176 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Electric Currents of High Frequency and Potential
68 568,177 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Ozone
69 568,178 1896 September 22 Method of Regulating Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
70 568,179 1896 September 22 Method of and Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
71 568,180 1896 September 22 Apparatus for Producing Electrical Currents of High Frequency
72 577,670 1897 February 23 Apparatus for Producing Electric Currents of High Frequency
73 577,671 1897 February 23 Manufacture of Electrical Condensers, Coils, &c
74 583,953 1897 June 8 Apparatus for Producing Currents of High Frequency
75 593,138 1897 November 2 Electrical Transformer
76 609,245 1898 August 16 Electrical Circuit Controller
77 609,246 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
78 609,247 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
79 609,248 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
80 609,249 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
81 609,250 1898 August 16 Electrical Igniter for Gas Engines
82 609,251 1898 August 16 Electric Circuit Controller
83 611,719 1898 October 4 Electrical Circuit Controller
84 613,735 1898 November 8 Electric Circuit Controller
85 613,809 1898 November 8 Method of and Apparatus for Controlling Mechanism of Moving Vessels or Vehicles
86 645,576 1900 March 20 System of Transmission of Electrical Energy
87 649,621 1900 May 15 Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy
88 655,838 1900 August 14 Method of Insulating Electric Conductors
89 11,865 1900 October 23 Method of Insulating Electric Conductors
90 685,012 1901 October 22 Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations
91 685,953 1901 November 5 Method of Intensifying and Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
92 685,954 1901 November 5 Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
93 685,955 1901 November 5 Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted From a Distance to a Receiving Device Through Natural Media
94 685,956 1901 November 5 Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted Through Natural Media
95 685,957 1901 November 5 Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy
96 685,958 1901 November 5 Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy
97 723,188 1903 March 17 Method of Signaling
98 725,605 1903 April 14 System of Signaling
99 787,412 1905 April 18 Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums
100 1,061,142 1913 April 29 Fluid Propulsion
101 1,061,206 1913 May 6 Turbine
102 1,113,716 1914 October 13 Fountain
103 1,119,732 1914 December 1 Apparatus for Transmitting Electrical Energy
104 1,209,359 1916 December 19 Speed Indicator
105 1,266,175 1918 May 14 Lightning Protector
106 1,274,816 1918 August 6 Speed Indicator
107 1,314,718 1919 September 2 Ship's Log
108 1,329,559 1920 February 3 Valvular Conduit
109 1,365,547 1921 January 11 Flow Meter
110 1,402,025 1922 January 3 Frequency Meter
111 1,655,113 1928 January 3 Method of Aerial Transportation
112 1,655,114 1928 January 3 Apparatus for Aerial Transportation

Notes:

Patent # 382,280 (item # 12) includes a Disclaimer
Patent # 511,560 (item # 53) includes a Correction
Patent # 11,865 (item # 89) is a reissued patent for # 655,838 (item #88)
Patent # 1,655,114 (item # 112) includes a Correction



Paul, I do believe you were right to bring Richard onto this project. We need a critical eye to review the technical material. I read Paul's book on Farnsworth first so I was already familiar with the writer. So I felt Paul already had already established a rapport with me. So even though some of the stuff I read seemed unbelievable, I trusted Paul in his delivery of the truth down the rabbit hole. I suspect Richard may have not even read Paul's story on TT Brown. But we need a critical and realistic assessment of the text and I think Richard can be a tremendous asset when it comes to explaining the physics. I'm sure he and Mr. Trickfox can compute rings around the rest of us and dig into the math like no other...

Keep up the great work!
And as TT Brown would say:
GO FORTH...

MagicBill
Speeding through the Universe, thinking is the best way to travel ...
htmagic
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:46 pm
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby greggvizza » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:45 am

Paul,

I have to agree with Radomir and Victoria on over correcting the rewrite. I have had a few personal examples from the recording studio world. We would work every day for a whole month on project till it was exactly right. Then someone would stop in with a tape and say, “play this”. What is it” “It is a copy of the rough mix you made the night of the first session. That tape had raw energy, it exploded; it made the hair on your arms stand up. What you have produced here, after refining it for a month, is lifeless and sterile. We have decided that we’re just going to release the rough mix you did on day one.

Quite a blow, but when I took another listen, I had to reluctantly agree. Now in my old age I tend to listen for that magic moment. It could be the first pass or it could be the 20th, but as soon as it happens I know it and I save a copy. If it doesn’t improve on the next pass, its time to leave it be and go with the magic take, because any further refinement only strips life from it.

GV
greggvizza
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Radomir » Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:44 pm

Well said, Gregg, and that likely applies to any creative process.

It occurred to me this morning as I woke up that the worthy goal with Rhull and critics like him is not merely to convince them, but to fill them with astonishment, wonder and delight.

I think if we followed that as the north star, we would avoid the traps of defensive posture, over-analysis etc. This goes in line with the posture of flooring it, blowing the carbon out, which is more in keeping with the energy (literally and figuratively) of this narrative.

Now like a sculptor, just go back into the raw material and remove everything that doesn't convey this energy.

I know, easier said than done!

With respect,

R.
Radomir
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:51 pm

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby twigsnapper » Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:36 pm

Gregg,

And you wonder when you look in the mirror, why me. twigsnapper
twigsnapper
Revered Elder
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
Location: mobile

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby grinder » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:50 am

Your reaction to rhulls jabs was interesting to me Paul. I understand your letting the dust settle before you responded and I even appreicate your sort of taking notes at the way all of us responded during the dustup. What I can't quite understand is your ability to " turn the other cheek" so readily when I thought that Dr. Browns reputation was being attacked. And not fairly or even with any merit. You of all people , I would think would be best prepared to say " Hey, wait a moment friend", But you chose to say nothing except to basically agree with the man.

Now I do also agree with most of what he said but I just wondered why you let some of his discourteous rhetoric stand without saying anything? Did you think that Victoria would handle it alone? And you wouldn't be needed to take any kind of a stand? WHY IS THAT?

Maybe I am just a little sensitive and protective in this direction and maybe that was uncalled for but if ANYONE is to be Townsend Browns champion here, shouldn't it be you? grinder
grinder
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Victoria Steele » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:59 am

grinder, I know, I know ... we have better things to do but one last shake of this rag doll before it loses its flavor!

I wasn't going to mention that thought but since you have..... rhull had said.......

rhull wrote:"Many of the names mentioned other than Teslas are false inventors and kooks that remain legends, themselves, in the new energy community, all without devices or application, but are said to have had the devices but they got lost, the inventors died without giving up the magic formula to recontruct the devices, etc. You get the drift. When I hear those names used in an energy context, the red flags go up higher and higher in proportion to the number of called out names."


RIGHT, I THINK MANY OF US AGREED AT THIS POINT. NOT SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ALREADY PAINFULLY OBVIOUS ALREADY.

Then Paul .... you say ....

Paul S. wrote:All of which he might have gotten away with, except that so many readers here took such deep umbrage at his final assertion:
Tesla is often at the top of the list followed by Brown


WELL, DUH, WHAT EXACTLY DID HE EXPECT, AND MAYBE THATS WHAT SO DISCONCERTING. RHULL INSULTED DR. BROWN INTENTIONALLY AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.

Paul continued with

"Elizabeth was comparatively mild in her response:" .....


which I do commend her mildness here but ALSO PAUL I DID NOTICE THAT YOU SAID NOTHING, NOTHING.

Maybe I did come the attack as a rabit terrier but what else is new?

rhull seems to be assertive in his own way and thats just fine but he shouldn't act dismayed and tweaked because people responded and called him varying versions of rude. At least SOME people responded and called him rude. Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

Re: Threading the Needle - Responses to Richard Hull

Postby Victoria Steele » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:05 am

And one last thing Paul. This saying should actually have two sides to it.

The original

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"

Here is my version

All truth passes through three stages. First it is steadfastly promoted. Secondly it is violently defended . Third it is accepted as being self-evident.

Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

As Mikado might say...

Postby Paul S. » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:55 pm

"Ya think?"

natecull wrote: Linda's input is vital here, as is everyone else who personally knew the man and whose own identity can be validated.

Morgan... not so much, IMO.

(Though maybe you can vouch for him? And I'm sure Linda can. But I've not seen any solid proofs presented of his identity. His whole communication with you smells like intelligence 'handling' to me, and that makes me nervous.


Hah. The thought never occurred to me (NOT!).

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'"


Haven't I used that one yet? If not, good, I noticed a spot where I need another "Alice" quote.

I hope everybody is having a pleasant 4th of July. Me, I'm trying to figure out how to contend with a crashed hard drive on my laptop. Read the post:

http://49chevy.com

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Next

Return to Defying Gravity: The Second Draft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest