Bletchley Park - And Why We Are All Here

[Gabriel]

I think when we speak of aliens for most people little green men come to mind but I think that the little green men was something created to discredit anyone who might come up with something that can not be easliy explained. Id Est a cover by certain people to keep others away from doing harm. When we speak of extrateresrial beings its important to keep in mind that there are enities who do not have bodies or need material things to communicate with. They know by intution at once. I think Dr. Brown found a way to communicate with them if he wasn't already apart of them. The question as Grinder put it is mankind ready for this type of technology. I think the time is coming very soon that it will be made avalible to those who are ready and attuned to it. Each person must choose whether they are willing to listen or not. This is something that has always been there we are now discovering it and the possiblites it will give us are endless. A time will come when we will not need airpalnes or cars to go long distances. We will have ourselves. It will come from within.
Gabe

[Mark Culpepper]

I haven't really studied into this line of reasoning but I recognise the thought as being very ancient ....Gabriel.... thanks for mentioning it. Perhaps we will someday reach a level of enlightenment where we will not need mechanical things at all.

Unfortunately I believe that just may take this civilization a very, very long time. Something to strive for though, I agree with you. Until then I also agree with you , its a step at a time and those steps should be carefully considered.

How difficult it must have been for Dr. Brown, if he was given this kind of knowledge but then was not able to do anything with it yet? How dissappointing, and discouraging!

Was it Paul who said that handing over this particular knowledge too early would be like handing the keys to the "cosmic ferrari" over to us. Could we handle it properly? Hell, I doubt.

So, then, if that was the case, does it seem rational that his plans and steps would have involved just buying time until the kid with the keys got older and wise enough not to wrap himself around a nearby tree?

I guess the only way that we would know is to just watch Dr. Browns actions, at least the ones that we can see. His agenda should be more apparent if we do that.

So, Paul, any chance we can look forward to a Thursday post? I am asking for Victoria, cause .... you know somebody has to ask that dastardly question! <g>....... Mark C.

[Paul S.]

So, Paul, any chance we can look forward to a Thursday post? I am asking for Victoria, cause .... you know somebody has to ask that dastardly question! <g>.

Finally, somebody else who appreciates the use of an "old-fashioned" word. Snidely Whiplash, any one?

In answer to your question... yeah, looks like we've got another installment in the breach for Thursday.

--PS

[Victoria Steele]

Not home yet. Not to worry!!!!! But I can read!!!! and I am taking notes!!!!!Victoria

[Paul S.]

Like the ships on the horizon in "What the Bleep". Doesn't it take a "tuned in" individual to first make note of them?

"The Bleeping Herald" -- an e-newsletter from the people who made "What the Bleep..." has just issued an article that elaborates on this point:

*Infamous Ships and inattentional blindness - There is growing evidence from cognitive studies that humans really don’t see a lot of what’s going on around them!

http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald14/ships.shtml

"The most controversial subject brought up in What the BLEEP Do We Know!? was not the concept of sub-quantum information as the substrate of all life (Planck Scale); nor was it the idea that quantum physics may have as much to say about God as religion. Nope. As per audience response, it’s the ships - those bloomin’ invisible ships on the horizon that only the shaman could see."

Makes for very interesting reading... and, perhaps, speaks directly to what we're discussing here.

--PS

[Madison]

I sense that you might be somewhat of a prophet Gabe!

You said that someday man may not need material devices to communicate and I expect you are quite right in that! Maybe as we get more and more advanced we will need fewer and fewer artificial things.

A truly advanced entity might be something that we could not even imagine in our wildest dreams and you see, that might be the problem we are having. We just can not imagine what they might be. So how in the world (or out of it) can they get us to notice them if there is no way that our brain will accept that information. We have our eyes closed when it comes to them and wrapped with bandages.

I guess the only way would be to slowly acquaint the brain with the concepts that it would need to actually "see" this entity. So , I would guess that the bandages have to someday come off ..........

But what happens when a blind person suddenly sees.

EVERYTHING is different in that persons life. The Bible says "in the blink of an eye!" So maybe we are being psycologically brought out of the blindness slowly, like a Doctor taking the bandages off one veil at a time.

Maybe right now we are just seeing through the fabric, unsure of what we are seeing but knowing that there is something there surely. We can see shadows .... again the Bible says we see things "through a glass darkly" same deal.

I just didn't come up with this analogy. I have been mulling over it for a long time. Its just strange that suddenly everybody on the forum seems to have jumped forward with all this talk of communications devices and in my mind I have a vision of the bandages loosening.

And I think that it was very bold of you Paul to make that declaration and I have no doubt that you will someday be able to prove it! (to EVERYONES satisfaction, especially your own!)

But maybe the proof isn't as important in the long run as the discussion that your statement is provoking. Because each time we talk and share together what we are somehow excited about .... one more wrap comes off those eyes. We are all just waiting to see clearly and I believe that what you are doing here is going to help. the big question is "How do we see what we have NEVER known?" but once we recognize that there is something there and we can even just start seeing it,

everything changes! Madison

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Paul ,

I read with interest the url you put up about the " What the Bleep" studies ... where it was proven that people JUST DON'T SEE WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. I wondered when they spoke about the test where they had a man in a gorrilla suit center camera while everyone else was concentrating on the bouncing ball. few noticed the gorilla though he was in plain sight and I also wondered how many of you noticed when talking about the video that the producer spelled it "guerrilla" video.

Ha, ya gota watch these guys... Your blue lint picker, Elizabeth

[Paul S.]

I also wondered how many of you noticed when talking about the video that the producer spelled it "guerrilla" video.

I was actually part of the "guerilla video" movement in the 1970s:

http://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/

... so at first, I thought that was a "freudian typo," but... maybe not.

And the article ends,

'“Our culture very much emphasizes physical aspects of material reality. And yet the experiments in inattentional blindness and show us that, even at the physical level, we can miss a lot. We do miss a lot. All the time. Everyday.â€

[LongboardLOVELY]

I started reading this thread and it felt as if I fell off a cliff! To be sure, I thought the whole section was going to be about GC&CS and BP. So I am here to bring it back to where Mr. Twigsnapper started it all.
I found some information that may be helpful to you, Paul, if you want to pursue finding people who are related to those famous Codebreakers and workers at BP.
Here is a list of names from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... chley_Park

Here's a name I'm sure many have heard of. John Cairncross. He was accredited with being a Russian Spy. Presumably the information he supplied about the Western atomic weapons programmes is reputed to have kick-started the Soviet nuclear program.

I mention him because his niece is CURRENTLY a senior fellow of public policy in the school of public affairs at UCLA. (University of California Los Angeles).

Here's a short Bio of her:
Management Editor, The Economist


Frances Cairncross is the Management Editor on The Economist, with special responsibility for management issues. From 1994 to 1997, she had responsibility for the magazine's media and communications. In that role she wrote two surveys of the global telecommunications industry and "The Death of Distance," a study of the economic and social effects of the global communications revolution, published by Harvard Business School Press in 1997. The book was short-listed for the MCA Management Book award.

In September 1998, she published a survey of the Year 2000 problem, a topic on which she has lectured to audiences in several countries, including the World Economic Forum of top managers in Davos, Switzerland, in January 1999. She lectures widely, and chaired the 1999 annual conference in Monte Carlo of Management Center Europe, a sister organization of the American Management Association. She is also the author of two books about the environment, "Costing the Earth: The Challenges for Government, the Opportunities for Business" and "Green, Inc." Both were written during her time as environment editor of The Economist between 1989 and 1994. She won the first Reuter's-Alpe Action award for her coverage during that period.

She previously held posts as principal economic columnist on the Guardian newspaper, and as editor of The Economist's Britain section. She was educated at Oxford University and at Brown University, Rhode Island. She is a regular presenter of the BBC's flagship "Analysis" programme, a governor of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, on the council of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and a non-executive director of the Alliance & Leicester group. She lives in London with her husband and two daughters.

OK. I'VE DONE MY JOB. GO FISH.

Linda

[twigsnapper]

Ah, Linda B,

Good to see you home safe and sound.

As for "fishing". I appreciate your look at Cairncross' neice. But the fishing is a little too wide for me and maybe Paul will agree with me. But, notwithstanding that comment, are you suggesting that she still has those sympathies? Would a harder look in that direction serve to uncover anything that Paul could use? I am all ears, an old girl friend used to say, all ears.

What particularly brought her to your attention? Do you happen to know her? Just interested in why you felt the need to go into so much detail in her direction.

Twigsnapper

[LongboardLOVELY]

Ah, Linda B,

Good to see you home safe and sound.

As for "fishing". I appreciate your look at Cairncross' neice. But the fishing is a little too wide for me and maybe Paul will agree with me. But, notwithstanding that comment, are you suggesting that she still has those sympathies? Would a harder look in that direction serve to uncover anything that Paul could use? I am all ears, an old girl friend used to say, all ears.

I don't know what possessed me to mention her. I remembered her name among all the names and places that I had been; I was assigned a book to read of hers when I was doing my fellowship, years ago. She has insight into the future of telecommunications. She and her uncle were very very close (or so I've heard)
Here's the book:
The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives

What particularly brought her to your attention?

I was speaking with an old friend whom I bumped into recently and we got to talking about the research and science/technology behind Brown's work that my husband is working hard on (she asked what he does) and this person mentioned Cairncross. Fortuitous? Esp. as I was thinking about the book I was assigned to read years ago.

Do you happen to know her?

NO. Unfortunately. She would be an asset to my black book!

Just interested in why you felt the need to go into so much detail in her direction.

Her economics background may lend itself to the evaluation of the history of the Communications Network, why it died, then transformed into something altogether different. And it was late and I was feeling verbose.

LB

[Paul S.]

Hey, weren't we talking about Bletchley Park here?

I was just surfing around yesterday, and I found this (fairly recent?) photo of the place that I thought I'd throw in here so we could all have a visual fix on what we're taking about:



--PS

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Everybody,

Taking the discussion back to the physical place named "Bletchley Park" and how well (we all seem to think) it was portrayed in the movie "Enigma"

Anybody else out there have comments on the movie? Any flaws seen that need to be brought to our attention?

I have been struck by the thought that this group of really talented people worked under amazing cloaks of secrecy that kept them from knowing what was actually happening.

As was pointed out to Paul by Mr. Twigsnapper, one "hut" didn't know what the other was doing, information was carefully compartmentalized to safeguard it. (Sort of like having a ship with water-tight compartments. If a breach of the hull happened then it would only affect certain areas but not the entire effort as a whole)

So when you set out to study the life of a man who has operated within that sort of framework in essence what you are trying to do is "breach his security measures" just trying to find out what he was doing. And we have already learned that Dr. Brown was no fool .... so why is it that we continuously seem amazed at the difficulty of our task. Its supposed to be difficult I remind myself constantly. This is not meant to be easy! I ask myself that as I bang my head on the desk in frustration. Why am I constantly so suprised that it is difficult to find information on him.

I think that Paul has already been told by his "sources" that the closer he gets to uncovering the heart of the work that consumed Dr. Browns attention the more difficult it will be to learn anything at all. We just have to remind ourselves not to get discouraged.

This has been one heck of a journey and I just wanted to thank AGAIN all of the forum members who have added to this discussion so wonderfully.

I encourage anyone else out there too! PLEASE join us if you see something that captures your interest. One little comment can be an amazing contribution so don't think that your "Hmmmmm" thought is insignificant! Its hard to know sometimes actually how valuable inspiration sometimes finds us all, but I have seen it here at work on the forum.

Elizabeth

[twigsnapper]

Sometimes before you can sucessfully track a wild animal ... say, a very crafty and invisible fox, you need to learn more about its surroundings and its habits.

When dealing with Dr. Brown then, contrary to what many people have thought to this moment, you must keep in mind that his TRUE habitat was not exclusively a laboratory.

So then I suggest looking hard at the world of "INTELLIGENCE"

If you pull yourself out of your compartment and try to get a birds eye view what you will see then are three sections of the field of "Intelligence"

Information has to be aquired, it has to be analysed and interpreted and then ( here is the tough part folks ) it has to be put into the hands of those who can use it. And understand for all the light side of that there is also the dark side. Information has to be protected and guarded, encoded so that no one else would understand it and then at nearly all cost, kept from those who want that information. The parallel universe, the up and down. Dr. Browns world is right there, either on one side or the other ....... or both ..... or somewhere a million points in between.

Paul. Does this look at all familiar to you? No matter how detailed you get or what part of this effort you are looking at, BASICALLY, that was the world Dr. Brown WAS in THEN and you have surely come to understand by now that this is an ongoing process, to use the phrase " a multigenerational project" (I believe I have Andrew to thank for that) thats what you are doing now. What you are currently involved in THAT now.

Get some distance straight up and then look down. Sometimes things are more readily apparent. Twigsnapper

[LongboardLOVELY]

Sometimes before you can sucessfully track a wild animal ... say, a very crafty and invisible fox, you need to learn more about its surroundings and its habits.

I liked the way you phrased that! However, Crafty and Invisible Foxes sometimes leave trails ~ and they can't be completely Silent.

When dealing with Dr. Brown then, contrary to what many people have thought to this moment, you must keep in mind that his TRUE habitat was not exclusively a laboratory.

So then I suggest looking hard at the world of "INTELLIGENCE"

If you pull yourself out of your compartment and try to get a birds eye view what you will see then are three sections of the field of "Intelligence"

So what does that mean? He worked for MI5 or 6 and actually did reconnaissance work, or was handed scientific evidence from those who did do recon work? This is an interesting vein of thought. I am going to definitely pursue this.

Information has to be aquired, it has to be analysed and interpreted and then ( here is the tough part folks ) it has to be put into the hands of those who can use it. And understand for all the light side of that there is also the dark side. Information has to be protected and guarded, ...

Is this where you come in, Mr. Twigsnapper? I just had a vision of someone short, stocky, all muscle ripping into a taller, younger man. It'd be funny if it weren't so serious.

... encoded so that no one else would understand it and then at nearly all cost, kept from those who want that information. The parallel universe, the up and down. Dr. Browns world is right there, either on one side or the other ....... or both ..... or somewhere a million points in between.

The dark side and danger I can definitely understand. How much of Doc Brown's life and work was in the dark and danger zone?

Paul ... you have surely come to understand by now that this is an ongoing process, to use the phrase " a multigenerational project" (I believe I have Andrew to thank for that) thats what you are doing now. What you are currently involved in THAT now.

Yes, I liked that phrase too that my husband used. It is true. And I am sure he will probably be handing a lot down to our progeny, (if we ever have any).

Get some distance straight up and then look down. Sometimes things are more readily apparent. Twigsnapper

Good advice, but sometimes hard to do; especially when one is enmeshed as much as Paul is. Right Paul?

Twigsnapper, when I lived at home years ago, I often climbed up to the top of the hill behind my parents' home to look out to sea. It was a good place to think. Kind of like the in-between world in CS Lewis's Narnia books (#6 The Magician's Nephew). It's not a world per se. No sound, no rustling leaves, no birds. This is where Paul needs to go to get some distance.

Linda B.