AM2 wrote:do not agree with Mr. Hull on many, many points, but I do respect his right to speak out and critically question things.
It was good that Mr. Schatzkin invited him to this forum.
Although I have the impression that Mr. Schatzkin is highly involved in this project, he still tries to retain a critical distance. Some may not like it, but to those I say: do you know what we would have without Mr. Schatzkin's critical distance and sober attitude? Another William Moore and another "Philadelphia Experiment".
Further Mr. Schatzkin said something very important - you may like it or not, but this is the truth i. e. people will want answers.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=542 wrote: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.
I don't know if contending with those questions will bring the publication of this biography to the New York Times Bestseller List, nor even if such answers are really relevant to the story. Although that may be what is wanted, what is needed is something a bit different. If concrete proof is what Mr. Schatzkin wants then he will have to find that among his various sources that have provided him thus far with tales of the illusive and enigmatic T. Townsend Brown. Otherwise while this has been a wonderful journey, we all have been left without a destination, at least from the author's relativistic point of view.
I certainly cannot be critical of anyone's stance, especially those that have been working with the science and experimenting with the theories expressed here, however as someone else eluded to, there is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water. Often it is not what is known that is of value, nor the pursuit of it, but rather where the dead ends and misdirections lie that can tell as much of a story as such concrete evidence that Mr,. (or Dr. if that is a title worthy of his knowledge and experience) Hull and now Paul has "demanded" of us. In reviewing Dr. Brown's resignation from the Navy, what is not told is as telling as what is. Obviously (at least to me) he needed to move his research away from the Navy, whether to further it along more rapidly or to remove it from their view, or to take it to another level that he felt was being hindered by the bureaucracy.
But it was Paul's attempt at writing this biography that attracted me, as I am sure many of us to reading on and then joining the discussions of this forum. As Mr. Trickfox has indicated, there well may be many lurkers out there who are knowledgeable or seeking some knowledge that may help them complete their own projects or serve some entirely contrary agenda from that which many of seem to embrace. In either case, this is not a physics course where we will be graded, nor it is an exercise in determining who is right.
Connections have been made or hinted at which as Paul so eloquently puts it, has led us down more twisting and turning paths in this Alice In Wonderland adventure. If nothing else is gained, the acquaintance and friendship of many of you was well worth the travels and travails. As I said in a previous post, I do welcome Mr/Dr. Hull to join us, and his scientific input is appreciated. I just don't feel the dismissal of many points made, and the placing of great scientists into the realm of charlatan's or kooks is necessary nor deserved. As Paul has stated, verifying Dr. Brown's associations and whereabouts in compiling this biography has been quite above and beyond what is normal for a biographer. And many of his sources have also proved to be quite elusive regarding answers to questions posed, so in that light, all I ask of anyone is to be respectful of each other and not resort to childish name calling because you have had some burst-your-bubble experiences with others in the past.
Regarding Mr. Htmagic's listing of all of those Nikola Tesla patents and references to additions and corrections (which I thank yo so for taking the time to compile and present to us) I think that much of the reasons given for Tesla's work remaining elusive may be as much a factor of classification as well as industrialist suppression. Even taking Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden's books and papers with the appropriate grains of salt, and given that he is a man with extensive military intelligence background, rather than dismiss what he says has folklore, it is also possible that what he "blames" on the Soviets, may actually be black ops technologies that our own government has developed. I don't know for sure either, I am just putting out a possibility rather jump to a conclusion.
So where do we go from here? Do we continue as we have been? Or do we fold up the tents and move on to our separate lives and illusions?
The truth is out there.
