TOWNSEND BROWN AND THE MEDIA

[Paul S.]

Oh Jesus please not another "to be continued" ......... again!!!

Well, either it's that or we skip the last 50 years of his life and go straight to "the end."

Oops. Either/or.

--PS

[Trickfox]

I think this either/or issue smacks of the same language problems expressed by using Aristotlian logic. The article here listed is by Robert Anton Wilson, so it's controversy is allready well known. The fact is that I agree with modifying the english composition used in science to be written in E-Prime.

For a short description of E-Prime see: http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

What do you think Paul? doesn't it apply here very well?

Trickfox

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

AH TRICKFOX, YOU ARE A MIRACLE OF LIFE

Paul will have responses to you soon, I am sure .... but from me .... well, you already know how important your last message was .... all I can add at the moment is .... the words "To be, or not to be " now suddenly take on a whole new meaning! Thank you for getting this week off to such a grand start! Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mark,

I am so interested , in your declaration that your "heart is in electrogravitics" Can you tell me how this passion developed for you? If you can remember the things that set your heart in this direction? You have to admit .... using Pauls word here .... the field is "obscure" .... so what was it that peaked your interest? and maybe even more interesting ... what has KEPT it burning?

I know that Andrew has said that he first saw mention of Townsend Brown and his work through the Philadelphia Experiment book and after that he just never let that interest go. Was it sort of like that? I know it might seem a strange question but the answers are always interesting and usually more pertinent than you would expect. Elizabeth

[Victoria Steele]

Elizabeth and Trickfox (everybody else too!)

I am quite familiar with the use of E-Prime. Thats one of the reasons that I was so pleased to see Paul declare that he did not want to employ what he called "weasel words". Words like maybe, perhaps, possibly,and when I saw him doing that and then begin to pick up on the theme of "either/or" I figured he was on the track to E-Prime and I wouldn't have to mention it to him because someone already has been showing him that situation.

Of course using it in science works extremely well because it "clears the air". I write my problems down in the frankness that is E-Prime and often the problems I THOUGHT I had with the situation have "taken care of themselves" where if I had continued with my old way of regarding the situation the problems are sort of embedded, and you find yourself going around in a circle and not actually solving things. And I like solving things, at least to MY satisfaction.

Take this. On one hand you have the idea that gravity must be represented by a particle. On the other hand .... you have those who claim it MUST be a wave. If you are one .... in this language .... its the old either/or situation ....() if you are one .... then you can't be the other. BUT THATS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. As others have pointed out. Gravity could be represented by a particle .... could form into a wave ....OR COULD BE SOMETHING WE YET HAVE NO CONCEPT OF AND NO WAY OF RECOGNIZING. But if we keep speaking in terms of .... its either THIS or THAT .... then we will never be able to see the other possibilities.

and talking about weasel words ....".IS "....... one of the worst. And the most useful ........... just ask a certain President Clinton. Victoria

[MARK MOODY]

I first learned of electrogravitics via Moore's book.
Ever since then, I was hooked.
Not so much by the brilliance of Brown as the possibilities of his discovery.
My fire stays fueled by this principle: most people in the know argue about how this principle works-ion momentum transfer/gravitymodification/ion wind. I say why worry about HOW it works, just know that it does work and imagine the possibilities. Even if we designed an aircraft that was powered by "ion-wind", would it not still be capable of enormous speed and almost completely silent? Is this not an IMPROVEMENT over modern day aircraft? So why worry HOW it works, just look at the BEAUTY of the thing! I like looking "outside the box" with my horseblinds removed.
Remember-discovery is seeing what others see, but seeing it differently.
My eternal flame will always burn for electro-gravitics.
Mark

[Trickfox]

E^
Hello everyone. I'm glad to be in this little circle of mutual friends, and I would like to mention that Music "seems to be" an important part of our sensory input. Don't you all agree?

most music contains harmonic content mixed with synthetic noise and percussions and these sensory contacts "may sometimes" be added on the chat forum with Paul's permission of course.

I have posted a few links before and they "are identified as" midi files. Some are "known as" wav files but anything that I post I usually check to see if that " filetype reality" differs first.

for example http://www.psychopropulseur.com/images/ ... _World.mid

which playes a midi song by DEVO that I like a lot.

The motive for the song "is said to be to be" explained by one of the musicians:

"We wanted to get everybody into a mood where people thought Devo was saying the world was really nice and saying the world was beautiful, then it turns out to be one man's opinion, which is mine, which is, while the world could be beautiful, it's not for me because of what I'm seeing."
"

Now the Lyrics:

It's a beautiful world we live in
A sweet romantic place
Beautiful people everywhere
The way they show they care
Makes me want to say
It's a beautiful world
For you
It's a wonderful time to be here
It's nice to be alive
Wonderful people everywhere
The way they comb their hair
Makes me want to say
It's a wonderful place
For you
Hey
Tell me what I say
Boy "n" girl with the new clothes on
You can shake it to me all night long
Hey hey
It's not for me

From a personal point of view, I think this song seems to apeal to me.
Remember It "only is" my point of view.

trickfox

Paul

I would like to mail you a CD Rom of Music that I have assembled using white noise, Pink noise, Stochastic natural patterns like bird songs, woodland streams ect. I have mixed these sounds together to come up with something which "will probably" inspire you. Call it a hunch, but I think you would really love to hear it.

Send me a private e-mail with your mailing address and I will burn you a copy.

Trickfox

[Chris Knight]

Victoria (and all),

I wanted to briefly discuss William Moore with you and his involvement associated with Brown. Notwithstanding my comments on letting him off the hook, I wanted to find out in more detail the particulars as to what and why others thought of him. How he came on the scene, how he might have misled people, etc. Moore and the "Philly Experiment" are unavoidably interconnected, so let's start at the beginning from what I remember. Please help me out. Perhaps we can set the records straight.

After writing a book "The Case for the UFO," and going the lecture circuit, M.K. Jessup, the astronomer who discovered binary stars and logged a number of them as well as a competent archeologist having done some work with Mayan ruins, begins receiving letters from a man by the name of Carl(os) Allen(de) claiming his involvement in an experiment gone awry in Philadelphia in 1943 (I believe).

An annotated copy of "The Case" shows up at the ODNR with apparently three authors claiming inside knowledge of UFO workings, they call Jessup in, he recognizes the handwriting as the same from the letters, Jessup goes on the trail, ends up in an apparent carbon monoxide suicide...

The issues surrounding Jessup and Allende have been rehashed so many times, so unless someone has any new information, let's skip directly to Moore:

1) What do you think of Moore, and why in particular ?

2) Do you know how Moore got involved with the so-called Philly Exp. (Jessup/Allende affair) ?

3) How do you think he came to associate Brown with the possibility of such an experiment ?

Andrew

[Victoria Steele]

Andrew,

Why would I be interested in rehashing Moore when he won't even stand up for himself in all of this. If I do, I am only falling into the trap where he has led many through the years .... keeping his name up front .... not from his personal work but from what OTHERS are saying. I don't know why you would be interested in revisting this territory, but like I said before ... if the man himself is not interested in answering those questions, why should I be interested in asking them? Victoria

[Angela Bloomstrum]

Paul,

I am interested in HOW and WHY William Moore decided to include that previous article about Townsend Brown in his book about the Philadelphia Experiment. He leaves the inference that Brown was totally involved in the project but others have said that Brown never admitted anything of that sort.

But Victoria is right. Why should I even bother to ask that question when the only one that can answer it is Moore himself and he doesn't seem at all interested in doing that.

So .... why are you asking .... does it have anything to do with pens of a different color? Those around me know that I have certain "abilities" ... they aren't crayons .... but the colors on the paper are different and they are yours. Right? Angela

[grinder]

Andrew,

What do you think of Moore? I don't know. I don't know the man. Only what I have heard and none of that reflects anything about his personality just what others have said about him. He did admit to being a "disnformer" and I read some sort of cloudy explaination of how he worked himself (or got worked ) into that situation. I still know nothing about him. And apparently thats the way he wants to keep it .... otherwise .... he would have responded in person I would think to all of this activity. Unless of course he has no interest in someone ELSE writing about Townsend Brown.

I just get the impression that he is finished with the game now ... especially since there looms on the horizon someone who just might be doing a better job on telling this story. And ... as engaged as he seems to have kept people on this subject, suddenly NOW he doesn't want to be involved and is "happily in semi-retirement". That just sounds pretty convenient to me. Still doesn't answer the question of WHY.

I can understand Victoria in a way. She took Moore seriously as a writer .
(as most of us did.) Most of us saw Townsend Brown for the first time through those words .... through Moores eyes ..... Now when there is more to be said about the man Moore continues to be semi-retired with no interest any longer in the UFO field. Isn't that just a little wierd?

Why that attitude? Did he insult so many people that he had a mob after him? Or did he just make enough money out of playing us all for fools that he doesn't have to deal with us anymore? Gee! I am beginning to sound like Victoria! Some of her attitude rubbing off!

Its our fault really if we expected more from Moore. We expected some kind of accountability to his reader ... which obviously is not there and maybe never was. So then, if you are not writing for your reader ... who are you writing for? And whatever Moores character is NOW ..... it reflects what it was when he wrote the book.

Reminds me of the story of the poor cold snake taken inside the clothing to be warmed up. Afterward when he bites his host ... who becomes indignant over the injury .... the snake says .... but you knew what I was! Maybe a lesson for all of us. Whatever his agenda .....Moore still probably still has it. Nothing has changed.

More questions but no more time. Andrew, its well worth the discussion and I will continue with you on this. Just have to go right now ........ grinder

[Chris Knight]

I remember Moore saying he was an expert in disinformation or something to that sort. Please bear with me, because what I'm trying to get at is almost secondary to Moore himeself. We've discussed the Philly Exp. (TPX) in other areas - Nick Cook for example. When he came across TPX associated with Brown he ran the other way because of the conotations. By doing so, he missed one of the main characters.

My point is that whenever someone hears about Moore, it seems they run the other way saying what a crackpot/liar/etc. I want to make sure I'm not missing something that I should not be missing.

Let's face it - Moore was the one who associated Brown, who's importance is just becoming clear, to TPX, which is definitely within the realm of fringe UFO circles. From then on everyone associated the two, and Brown was "oh that guy from (snicker) TPX, right?"

Why would he pick out Brown? Doesn't that chapter in his book kind of stick out like a sore thumb? I think it was meant to dissuade people from looking at Brown, but what I want to know is why would Moore care? Was there something going on at that time in the larger sphere where the attention needed to be drawn away from Brown?

Andrew

[Mark Culpepper]

Hey, he didn't insult me. Writers don't insult me. They can disappoint me but they rarely insult me.

So yeah, I'll talk "Moore" with you Andrew. Should be fun.

Here is a question for you and for Paul. Since Moore seemed to be so influential in the initial story of Townsend Brown being preserved, have either of you met with him yourselves to talk about Dr. Brown. I know that you have had your "family" site up for years Andrew, did Moore ever contact you through that? And Paul, if I had been in your shoes, collecting information, Moore would have been one of the first ones I would have contacted. So did you? and if that was the case, what did YOU THINK OF MOORE? Mark

[Chris Knight]

Victoria - I see what you mean that you expect some degree of accountability from writers to present the truth and back up their claims. If I might hurl some mud in the direction of the UFO camp, I have noticed that if there's a coat-tail to be ridden on or money to be made, there are too many people who suddenly "remember" things and too many people willing to pay for that information. Nough said. I don't take anything as fact until I check it out myself - I only store information I hear.

Martin - No, Moore never contacted me at all. Neither did Berlitz, Friedman, etc., etc., etc. I don't really think these people can take a chance that they might be proven wrong on what they've touted as the truth concerning Brown. As Victoria has pointed out - there doesn't seem to be much information in publishing retractions or corrections. They were probably off writing another book or four on something else...

But anyhow, I was just talking with a friend, and she gave me some additional information:

As Angela pointed out, the chapter in the Moore's book was almost a word for word duplication of his earlier article "The Wizard of Electrogravity." If you look at the TPX book, the only chapter that really makes sense in any logical way is the chapter on Brown - the rest is a hodge-podge of sundry information.

My friend found out that it was Reilly Crabb of Borderlands Research who really insisted that Brown and TPX were associated and pushed Moore to include it in his book. Interestingly enough, Borderlands was the publisher for Vassilatos' book that Victoria has mentioned before.

There doesn't seem to be any available information on Vassilatos and no response forthcoming. My friend voiced the question of whether it was possible that Vassilatos and Moore were possibly the same person. Just a thought.

So let's go up a step. Does anyone know much about Crabb and Borderlands? I have to admit that I do not.

Andrew

[Trickfox]

If anyone wants to hear it ->click here: http://www.psychopropulseur.com/images/ ... aville.mid
and you will here a Buffet MIDI, then just click back onto the forum to read the rest of the message. That way you can here the background music while reading any of my future messages and posting.

Trickfox

I'm looking foward to sending all of you some real great Internet Media but I still have to get a LOT more organized. It's comming together by itself however and I love the sponteneity and multicultural approach.

Pascal looks like he's slowly getting use to talk to us but he seems shy so please ask him anything you wish and we will coordinate the technical responses together so that you may all learn in simple terms how exciting the future looks to those of us who have come back from it.

I would like to know from anyone if there appears to be any French Names in T.T. Brown's personal backgroud from the time he was in France.

We would like to contact the relatives of the French citizens who knew or worked with Brown during his tenure in that country.

Let me wade into the MOORE controversy by telling all of you that Stan Deo was a lot more successfull at informing the public than William Moore was.

The philladalphia experiment was too incredible to believe in the book AND SPECIALLY the movie. Then Al Bieleck started to give audio lectures (I still have one on cassette) claiming he was a time travelor from the eldridge.

I remain open to all of it, BUT.......

When I saw the discs hovering in Stan Deyo's film. I sat up and started to pay attention to the technology right away, Then I met another genius who had dupplicated Brown's FAN with no moving parts.

Then the speaker,

Then the "OTHER" things that even Brown himself may not have been aware of.

T.Towsend Brown's work appears to have been the seed to a whole new area of science that very few people were aware of except people like Dr. Einstein, and Dr. Edward Teller, and of course Dr, Oppenheimer.

None of it worked according to the known and understood laws of phyics. At best, scientists were wronly attributing the real phenomena as simple ionic wind. (without trying to describe the unballanced forces involved) Meanwhile I became aware of SEVERAL relatively unknow military projects that were rumoured to be using T.T. Brown's principle ideas.(See Tom Clancy's books, the Hunt For Red October).

When Moore's jaws started to flap with Shanderai, Greys, Ice Cream and a movie with great special effects about a ship dissapearing, then I knew that Brown was being ridiculed as marginal. I kept wondering if "Sharper image catalog" had a deal with him.

In any case I had other data which indicated there appeared to be a LOT MORE to this story, so..... my antenna went up for ANYTHING published by Brown. I kept asking everyone around.

Whatever Moore said back in the late 80s and early 90s, was not credible enough because I never even bothered to contact him directly. I had enough sense in my own mind to dissmiss some of his ramblings as lies anyway.

Now, I too would like to drag his posterior into the forum and ask him to account for his actions, because he has admitted to being a purveyor of dissinformation. I would like to know exactly what was the purpose in it. If so, -who ordered it, What was the agenda involved and any other pertinent details which could explain his utter disregard for the truth.

I assure you that in my opinion, this sort of public declaration can be libelous to people. William Moore may now consider himself to be "NOT beyond the measures of prosecution" over the Thomas Townsend Brown depiction in his book.

now let me get back to my Margarita.

Trickfox