Chapter 37 - Missing Fingers and Reliable Sources

[Paul S.]

I still haven't gotten any answers from Paul about what Morgan is doing now, where his career with this "intelligence network" led him.

All I can tell you is.... that information is.... classified.

--PS

[Victoria Steele]

Thanks anyway Paul for the response. Borrowing a phrase from Mikado and maybe beating him to the punch, all I can say is " Why does that not surprise me?" Victoria

[Paul S.]

Well, well. How interesting that we should come back to this topic. How interesting, and timely for me personally in light of some recent events here in my own playground....

Isn't that where we ALL are regarding what you have told us so far about Linda Brown herself? We don't know her. We haven't met her really, yet you tell us she exists and she has special knowledge and has been the source of so much of your material.

Mark, you have put your finger square on the weakness that from the very beginning has threatened to undermine this entire undertaking.

The critical material for this project is, as you have observed, derived entirely from "personal sources." There are many critical instances where I should not really be saying "this is what happened," since there is often virtually no documentation of the pivotal events in this story. The more accurate default position on a lot of this material is more along the lines of "this is what somebody told me happened."

And even then a lot of "what happened" ... well, nobody's really saying.

So, have the things Linda has told you in confidence checked out?...Are the things you have been telling us being verified though other avenues? How much of it has been taken on pure faith. I suspect that you have made that leap but still might not be wanting to admit to it.

Checked out? As in "corroborated by a second source? Ha. The disturbing fact is, there are too often no corroborating sources.

For example: one of the pivotal stories I've presented here revolves around William Stephenson's appearance on the Caroline in 1933; that's what I was told. That I have absolutely no "proof" that ever actually happened you should find as disturbing as I do. Sure makes for an interesting story, but credible? Verifiable? Not in this universe.

I have been told repeatedly that any actual evidence of the subject matter we're dealing with has been carefully "weeded" from the records. My experience with the NRL and the Navy records would seem to confirm that presumption.

And, while that "weeding" (aka "sheep dipping") makes it difficult if not impossible to "check out" much of what I've been told, I guess the good news is it also makes it impossible to disprove any of it.

the information that she has given you must be checking out, otherwise I am sure there are many out there who would be immediately responding "WAIT, WAIT, WAIT ... YOU ARE INCORRECT!"

You may be over-estimating the size of our readership -- or under-estimating the temptation to "correct" anything that's been written...

I guess the upside of traveling in uncharted waters is that nobody can tell you that you're off course. Or, as I once heard somebody on a racing yacht exclaim, "never mind our course, look how FAST we're going!"

--PS

[Paul S.]

Following what you said here. How do we know what Paul is saying is correct or not regarding Townsend Brown?

It's about time somebody asked that question.

Townsend Brown led a life of intrigue and misinformation, that much is fairly certain. But we should not lose sight of the fact that it's entirely possible that what's going on here is a further extension of that process, i.e. the masking of existing myths with new ones.

Throughout this endeavor, I have tried to apply the "Woodward & Bernstein" standard of reporting. If you remember "All the President's Men," then you'll recall that Ben Bradlee insisted that the Washington Post would not publish any lead or story unless Woodward and Bernstein corroborated their information from at least one additional source. Alas, that standard is difficult to enforce when a) most of the principals are deceased and b) those sources that are still living are not entirely at liberty to divulge.

So what I am saying here Paul is, if you don't have any faith in the information coming to you from Linda or whoever you considered your primary source here, what do you really have? I am figuring that "primary source" was Linda, who else would it have been?

A better question might be "if what I've written about Townsend Brown IS based on "faith" in the material and sources, THEN what DO we really have?? A "faith based" biography? Is that really a biography? Welcome to "Defying Gravity: The Hearsay Universe of T. Townsend Brown.

I am figuring that "primary source" was Linda, who else would it have been?

The first-person accounts of Linda's own life -- i.e. the "Morgan/Linda" thread -- I do believe to be entirely reliable. And I say that not based on "faith," but on the fact that the "Woodstein" standard can be applied: I have had the benefit of two corroborating sources (Linda AND Morgan). But as you're starting to realize, much of the "behind the curtain" stuff is coming form other sources. And while they may take considerable umbrage at my saying so, their reliability is, as you've suggested, strictly a matter of 'faith.'

And that predicament is only going to become more active going forward.

No matter, if there is doubt coming from you, maybe we should look harder too?

By all means, please, be my guest. Look hard. Look VERY hard. Don't take ANYTHING I've said here for gospel. Like I said in the reply to Mark, a good deal of what I've said here is just "what I've been told."

Can Linda prove everything she may have told you? Are there sources that will back her versions up? If not, then what?

I think the stuff that Linda has shared in which she was an actual participant is reliable enough. She maintained extensive "real time" journals for many years, so I don't think "selective memory" is really a factor. And, as stated, there has been some corroboration of those stories from a second source.

But when it comes to the stuff about her father, well, let's just say... the interesting stuff... that's all new to Linda, too.

--PS

[Paul S.]

In any case, Paul sometimes leads himself to believe that if he doesn't have all of the information, then he can not make a connection.

Translation: I am slow to make journalistic "leaps of faith." That's a problem?

However, he tends to sell himself and his efforts short, and sometimes falls into the trap of giving "I guess so.." answers to questions.

I'm curious to know where you think I've done that to a fault.

Given what I've just said in my responses to Mark and grinder, I'm hard-pressed to see where I have erred on the side of caution.

--PS

[Chris Knight]

Paul,

Absolutely, you have been very thorough and I don't think you have erred on the side of caution. I don't think anyone will be able to call you on anything you have written.

I do think you sell your writing talents short, though. Perhaps you are a better writer and researcher than you give yourself credit for ?

Andrew

[Paul S.]

Absolutely, you have been very thorough and I don't think you have erred on the side of caution. I don't think anyone will be able to call you on anything you have written.

Fair enough, I just wondered if there were any examples of what you were alluding to.

I do think you sell your writing talents short, though. Perhaps you are a better writer and researcher than you give yourself credit for

I do appreciate that. But, you know, when you're alone in the garret all day, sometimes it takes an extra effort to keep your ego in check...

--PS

[Victoria Steele]

Paul,

You say that much of your biography of Townsend Brown is based on "personal sources".

Isn't that what history has been all about? Remember the old saying "history is told by the winner?". Regarding William Stephenson stepping onboard the Caroline. I would suggest just putting it out there as your unsubstantiated understanding. Then let others climb up on your shoulders for a better view. How hard is that? Hopefully they won't step all over your face on the way up, but thats happened too with some peoples work. Eventually someone will "stumble across" more information. And then you will be vindicated or your information will be proven wrong. So whats wrong with stepping out there?

Maybe too you are forgetting the one thread that we have been knocking on so hard here. That there seems to be something special happening with this story and that maybe it will manifest itself, if given the chance. I would be willing to bet that the people reading your biography, no matter what the sources have been, will be able to discern the truth of things. Is that just me, being the hopeless romantic again?

And maybe it will eventually boil down to ...... do you see it enough to write it? Victoria

[Trickfox]

Paul

After following the thread in this section of the forum I have reached one conclusive fact. You are an honest and talented biographer with great integrity and concern over the acuracy of your work. Let it be said that you have performed due diligence in composing this rather dificult project and I support your conclusion and indecisiveness at 100%.

I'm sure as the later years are explored I should be able to provide you with yet another small peice of the puzzle as it relates to my exposure the the TTBrown work later on in this story. As Elizabeth has allready reminded me, this has to be acheived one step at a time, and I am simply amazed at the carefully prepared groudwork and foundation you and your research assistance have layed down up to now.

Thank you for voicing your concerns and they are duly noted. At least you have staightened out a great majority of the dissinformation circulated about this famous man's acheivements and TPX can finally be buried as a fiction created by Moore and associates.

Please, by all mean Go forth with the continued story!

Trickfox

(note for new readers TPX=The Philadelphia Experiment)

[grinder]

Lets see, I have to say that I agree with you. How much of the history we take for granted, or "buy into" is produced as disinformation? A whole lot.

I just recently put down a book written by Seymour Hersh. Called "The Dark Side of Camelot". Now, in a way (not the morality questions) I see some similarities between his book and your book about Townsend Brown. Hersh is writing here about the stuff that WAS NOT TALKED ABOUT. The stories of the call girls giggling down the halls on the way to the Presidential Suite. If you had asked me about all of that when I was a teenager I probably would have been insulted and protective of the image that had been polished up there and put in front of me. But it wasn't everything.

Now Hersh has gotten his stories from the agents who worked those shifts. Its their personal account. I don't see him worrying about other substantiating accounts. And I'll just bet there are stories out there about Kennedy that may never see the light of day.

He says in his "Authors Note" " In writing this book. my hope is that I have been able to help the nation RECLAIM some of its history."

Thats what I see you doing Paul, however you need to explain it.

grinder

[LongboardLOVELY]

...
I guess the upside of traveling in uncharted waters is that nobody can tell you that you're off course. Or, as I once heard somebody on a racing yacht exclaim, "never mind our course, look how FAST we're going!"

--PS

I like that; it made me smile! And the Townsend Brown story has certainly picked up speed!

And since I can't sleep, I guess I'll put in my horse-sense as well.
I agree with Victoria about you taking that first step and others climbing up on your shoulders. And I agree with what you said about having at least one other reliable source before documenting the "findings".

But then there's this:
At some point in this pedestrian life of mine, you have awakened in me (and probably every one else in these forums) a burning torch of curiosity and light that I think will take some time for me to absorb. I am reading and studying more history, learning more about the science and technology behind Brown's life-work, and I've done a serious re-evaluation of my life {because of you!}. This is now the webpage I first tune to even before I check my email or do my own writing and reading for my own purposes. I think "appreciate" is too weak a word for what you have done for me and for my husband. [And maybe also for Linda Brown.] This story, this biography, needed to be written, and the charlatans needed to be exposed.
For what you have accomplished so far, you should be so very proud!
Give yourself a big pat on whichever shoulder is slumped over right now.

As a researcher and writer myself, I know that there will always be a certain amount of "taking it on faith". And you will find ways to get through it.

Paul, Carpe Diem!

"See" you after Next Monday.

LindaB.

[Victoria Steele]

I wouldn't have mentioned the feeling I was getting, but then LindaB mentioned it too so I guess that I can step in here.

Whats happening Paul? She mention patting you on your back, whichever shoulder wasn't slumping. And I have been getting that feeling too. That somehow the wind is out of your sails? Slumping at the wheel? What is going on with you? You OK?

Its a particular message I can point to but rather the combination of your responses to our various questions. You seem ..... disoriented. Am I reading you wrong? Are you just tired? Or fighting a cold or something?

I can relate to that.

Or maybe it was because you had to spend time in Texas? Whoa folks! I love Texas myself, grew up there but SOME PEOPLE have been making remarks about how it is one of their least favorite spots. <g> OK with me, as my Grandmother would say ...." if you don't like something on my table that means there is more there for me to eat!"

And more to say too about your story, but I have run out of time. Victoria

[Paul S.]

Carpe Diem!

I kinda liked the bumper sticker I saw somewhere recently that said "Carpe Man~ana!" (no way to get the accent over the "n").

--PS

[Mikado14]

Mikado,

Morgan has apparently has been helping Paul with all of this difficult -to -find information on Dr. Brown. And Paul is saying NOTHING about him currently.

Now you have to admit, for a girl like me, with more than a passing interest in this Morgan fella, thats almost too much to resist.

You are good at figuring things and you said you read most of the chapters. So Mikado, what do you think that Morgan is doing now? and a good one! WHY? WHY? Victoria

Victoria.
I would venture to say that Morgan is probably checking in here from time to time and I am sure he has read everything you have posted. He more than likely finds it .....amusing.......the intrigue, the curiosity, the hypotheses, etc. that all here have conjectured. As to Paul disclosing anything, I am sure that there is either a gentlemens agreement or a non-disclosure agreement, more than likely the first, the second would involve the courts to act upon which would go against the nature of the beast, so to speak. And I am sure that to go back on the first would or could be worse than pissing the Pope off.

If Morgan has, have, is, was, or whatever, been in the line of work as suggested, and I believe so, it would require a low profile, as twigsnapper has inferred. The ability to walk in a crowd and not be noticed, etc. However, it would go much deeper than that. It is that ability or need that would be paramount in that line of work. Celebrity is the last on the list.

As to the email or the purported anonymous Email that started this adventure. Let's look at the facts as I have read here (by no means have I read all the forums so I may not have all the facts, just my gut from what I have read). Paul gets an anonymous Email. Chris or Andrew or whatever his name is, has nurtured a twenty year relationship with the Brown's, in this case, Linda Brown. Now, after reading the material that the family has, Chris Andrew feels that it should be disclosed. Along comes Paul Schatzkin who has written a biography about Philo Farnsworth. a relatively obscure individual who in reality is the father of television as we know it. It is a well written, well researched work. This book is read by either Linda or Chris Andrew or someone who knows either or both and knows of Dr. Browns work. At that moment, Paul has been chosen. An anonymous Email is generated.


Now, my dear Victoria, you are probably saying, "What about Morgan?"

Well, Morgan may very well have been the other individual in all this. I am sure he is the type of man who may be a voracious reader, at least, from what we have seen of his personality. I also believe that there is more to the relationship than what we have seen or what we will ever see. I believe there is an emotional attachment where as Dr. Brown was a surrogate father figure in his life and he held him in high regard, and still does. We have already seen that Morgan would hitchhike 1000+ miles to see Linda, there was more to it than puppy love, lust or whatever. Love, true Love, never dies, it resides in the heart. However, you could also say that he used Linda to get to her Father, I don't feel that is the case. But, in either, do you really think that the communication between Morgan and Linda stopped and never ever, ever happened again? I for one am not that naive. Linda Brown is the nexus.

I could go on with this as to how this just might have been planned over twenty years ago, but then, that would be another story, wouldn't it, and that is not what you originally asked.

[Victoria Steele]

Mikado,

Perhaps I wouldn't be so insistant and such a pain if all of my questions got answered that well. Cripes, what a great, thoughtful answer.

Paul,

The other thought that I didn't have time for on my earlier post was this. What is wrong with putting your THEORY out there? Why the apparent reluctance? THEORIES are just that. You gather the information .... you verify as much as you can, then you step out on that limb and state your conclusions based on the information that you have been given and the feeling (gut response) you have! You just put it out there! Theories are accepted as just that (or SHOULD be. I should hope that we are all adult enough to recognize and appreciate the good use of a theory!) And I know that you would tell your readers just that. Perhaps the second half of your book should be an exploration of your theory about what Dr. Brown was doing. If other people think that they can develop an alternate line then they are welcomed to write their own damned book. Right?

In the future your thoughts will either be vindicated or disproven. Thats the way progress is made. Do you think Einstein knew FOR SURE that the papers he wrote were entirely valid? Of course not! People are still yammering. But what if he had never published?

I just don't understand where your reluctance comes from. Do you? Victoria