1. Beau Kitselman did calculations for Project MOHOLE
2. Those calculations where possibly reused on Project AZORIAN
3. Brown was on Catalina because Catalina was where Howard Hughes was conducting AZORIAN
4. Raymond Lavas said that JPL Pasadena kept a record of a submarine designed by Brown and it was electrohydrodynamic in nature
5. It was suggested by Jan that Lavas's discovery was in fact the AZORIAN submarine
6. This would mean that Brown was at Catalina island as a project member of AZORIAN
...
Is this true? I don't know. I recently revisited these threads and started by penning the alternate theory that Brown really was there just to collect rocks, and that the silicate minerals where used in High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Brown was inspired by Charles Brush's experiments where the silicate powder seemed to heat up anomalously. Maybe Brush had HPLC figured out and Brown got it from his old papers.
But recently I received an email from Mikado saying that in addition to Lavas's philosophical papers (the red binder), he also holds other materials of a much more confidential nature that truly outline Brown's work and its link to "EG communications", and it was insinuated that EG really is "electro-gravity".
So High Performance Liquid Chromatography may be way off the mark.
...
Now for the AZORIAN project... as it turns out, it was planned by David Packard.
But who is David Packard?
It is the same man that introduced ROBERT BOOTH NICHOLS into the CIA.
And when Raymond Lavas met Robert Maheu, Nichols was already there. According to his own account, which was posted on Paul's main site, but I added those comments to this forum a while back.
It seems likely to me that Nichols was a part of the same inner circles as Brown. And Lavas was only on the outside, but is our only window into it all.
PROJECT AZORIAN: THE STORY OF THE HUGHES GLOMAR EXPLORER
One of the most difficult exercises is to apply the cost-benefit principle to a specific intelligence operation. This is particularly true of Project AZORIAN. During its early stages of planning, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard and his fellow ExCom members and other senior officials were wrestling with projected costs of the program and evaluating the technical risks involved. Lifting a submarine weighing approximately 1,750 tons from a depth of 16,500 feet had never been attempted or accomplished anywhere before. Packard contended if they were to wait until all the risks were eliminated, the project would nenver get under way. The resulting decision to move ahead with the plan to recover the Soviet submarine was courageous, carefully considered, and intangibly beneficial: a government or organization too timid to undertake calculable risks in pursuit of a proper objective would not be true to itself or to the people it serves.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005301269.pdf
But at about this time a mysterious burglary took place at a Hughes office in Los Angeles. Four or five armed men overwhelmed a guard, slipped past a sophisticated electronic alarm system and burned their way into a Hughes safe containing documents outlining the participation of the Hughes organization in the effort to raise the submarine. As a result the Los Angeles Times somehow came into the possession of incomplete and somewhat garbled information about the Glomar Explorer project and, on 8 February 1975, published what it had learned.
Director William Colby and other CIA officials then scrambled to suppress the story. They met with temporary success: the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Star, the three major television networks, the National Public Broadcasting System, Time magazine and Newsweek all agreed to "hold" the story at least until someone else published an account of the operation in exchange for briefings on the submarine raising efforts. But on 18 March 1975 columnist Jack Anderson decided to break the story and "the cat was out of the bag."
Or was it? Questions remain. As Time put it in its 31 March 1975 article:
(T)here is the puzzle of why so many reporters for major newspapers, magazines and TV networks simultaneously stumbled upon the (Glomar Explorer project) trail. On the morning after, some journalists got the feeling that the CIA had actually been helpful all along in getting the story out, while at the same time it apparently tried to suppress the story. There are several theories .... The last theory goes off into the wild blue yonder, suggesting that raising a Soviet submarine was not (the project's) mission at all, but the supreme cover for a secret mission as yet safely secure.2
MILITARY AUDIT PROJECT, Felice D. Cohen, Morton H. Halperin, Appellants,
v.
William CASEY, Director of Central Intelligence, et al.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120325093 ... ml#fn2_ref
