Nick Cooks "take" on Townsend Brown

A place to engage extended discussions of things that come up on the ttbrown.com website. Anything goes here, as long as it's somehow pertinent to the subject(s) at hand.
grinder
Senior Officer
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

Nick Cooks "take" on Townsend Brown

Post by grinder »

You know, because some of you mentioned the "Hunt for Zero Point " again, I dug my copy out and have been making notes and highlighting what he had to say about Townsend Brown and I found his slant really interesting. Is it OK if we talk about it here Paul? I know that we all hold Mr. Cook in high regard but you have to admit, for all of his careful research he seems to have missed the Townsend Brown story completely. I thought it might be interesting to discuss how and why that might have happened.

I'm going to be as thorough as I can be here and you all are welcomed to join me in this discussion, Mr. Twigsnapper especially. Please wade in here any time you want.

Page 7. His first mention of Townsend Brown and strangely the first error in judgement. (I guess I have learned in the forum here that the either/or opinion is a difficult and deadended way to think. It doesn't have to be either one thing or the other, if something is one thing that doesn't mean its not the other too. I know that sounds strange but in a way, if we are to keep up with Dr. Brown I can see that we have to stay open to all possibilities and guard against that sort of mind trap. And thats the first trap Cook walks right into.) You guys see what I mean?

Page seven he writes " I replaced the volume and returned to my desk. It should have been easy to let go, but it wasn't. If people of the calibre quoted by Gladych and Interavia had started talking about antigravity anytime in the past ten years I would have reported it .... however sckeptical I might be on a personal level. Why had these people said the things they had with such conviction? One of them, George S. Trimble had gone so far as to predict that a breakthrough would occur in around the same time it took to develop the atomic bomb, roughly five years. Yet, it had never happened . And even if the results of "Townsend T. Browns" experiments had been "so impressive as to be highly classified" they had CLEARLY COME TO NAUGHT OTHERWISE BY THE 60S OR 70S THE INDUSTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERTAKEN BY FUELLESS PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY.

"Clearly come to naught?" I don't think so. As Paul will probably add ... I don't think there is much about Townsend Browns story that is or maybe ever will be crystal clear ...... MY POINTS. YALL JUMP IN

I am not sure why he calls him "Townsend T. Brown" when I have always seen it "Thomas Townsend Brown" but he is a careful researcher so thats the way his sources must have presented Dr. Browns name.

But thats not what I am getting at here. Nick Cook is assuming because something did not come into the light of public knowledge that Dr. Browns work had come to "naught" .... (which I am translating here as the same thing as saying "His theories "Didn't pan out".)

Yet , just in reading Pauls story up to this point its pretty darned clear to me thats not what was actually happening. I don't know WHAT was happening but I am pretty fairly sure that it wasn't NOTHING. But this is just the first example where Nick makes a judgement and he never seems able to challenge his own box.

Mr. Cook please join us and if I have been unfair in this assesment of what was happening (because only you would really know what it was that turned you away from Dr. Browns story.) You are a great writer and, by the way, I am looking forward to buying your next book. grinder
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

Grinder,

Perhaps a portion of Mr. Cook's problems with Townsend Brown can be traced back to his "source" for information of Townsend Brown. Please bear with me as I tread lightly in this area as not to seriously offend anyone.

The vast majority of his source's information was compiled from the original Townsend Brown site (soteria.com). If you look at two of the main books "written" by his source (a very courteous and friendly man, by the way), Electrogravitics I & II, you will find most of the contents of the soteria website. I have to admit that it has been a small irritant to myself and the Brown family that none of the proceeds ever got back to the family, but that seems to have been status quo over the years.

In any case, Mr. Cook's source is primarily a collector of information. As I and the Brown family have put information up on the soteria website over the years, so has the information in his lectures generally expanded.

My point is that there is no understanding of the technology and actions involved - only a massing of data. It was particularly irritating to have the source referred to as a "one stop shop," while the soteria website, as a information clearinghouse by the Brown family, was completely ignored. i.e. Mr. Cook never contacted the Brown family or myself while researching or writing his book. The Soteria website has been number one at Google for "Townsend Brown" for nearing a decade. Isn't that odd? It seems even odder if you read through this post twice.

But I digress. The point is that without an understanding of the information that his source had "collected" and dispensed to him, I don't believe Mr. Cook was able to make any type of connection with what was going on in the world at the time, or the importance of Townsend's work in the scientific and reconnaissance fields.

To give him credit, though, I believe his book is an excellent introduction for Paul's book, which will fill in a number of gaps and set the historical record straighter in many areas.

Andrew
grinder
Senior Officer
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

weak links

Post by grinder »

So, let me understand what you are saying here. Cooks way of looking at the Townsend Brown story was initially (and perhaps fatally) flawed because he did not have any direct information on Brown, just what he was getting from Tom Valone?

You are being very courteous toward this particular individual and I agree with you that he does seem a genuine guy. I met him a long time ago at one of these UFO conventions. and it is true that he has presented alot of material on TTBrown. And if he didn't get all that material from the family itself and your site has been out there dispensing invaluable information that he then used ....... then yes, I can see why your nose would be a little out of joint. I don't know how this sort of thing actually works but when you use material supplied to you by another isn't it at least considered proper to acknowledge the source?

I really appreciate your input here Andrew. It gives all of us a better idea of how the impressions about Townsend Brown have been reached. grinder
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

the site

Post by Victoria Steele »

Andrew,

I think all of us have availed ourselves of your site (soteria) probably for years. I can remember being interested in Dr. Brown from what I read there and then of course I saw an actual demonstration of his "tethered flying saucers" by Mark Bean in a conference in Laughlin one year and that pretty much flipped me over. Even when I came home invested with the desire to learn more about the man your site was also uppermost in dispensing that information. Its perhaps time that you recieve proper recognition.

So, can I ask? What motivated you to do that? It takes alot of time and effort to put that kind of site up. And I know that most of the material known about Dr. Brown by the public has probably gone through your hands first. It goes through your hands .... they publish it .... then they don't even nod in your direction? Its not the money that actually would bug me ... it would be the lack of recognition for all that dedication.

You have said that you have been friends with Linda Brown now for twenty years or so. Was it your idea to promote the information on the soteria site? Or hers? Somehow what little I know of her so far I rather doubt that she would have been the one promoting the release of material, so did you have issues with her over what should go out and what should stay hidden. I have the feeling the lady appreciates her privacy and is wildly protective of her Dads legacy from what Paul has inferred over these last many months. So I just wondered, what was it that inspired you to do all of this? Obviously there hasn't been a flow of cash from this effort. Just interesting all the way around. And getting more interesting every day. Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

cooked books

Post by Victoria Steele »

Linda B,

Am I sensing a little wifely moral outrage seeping into your conversation regarding Nick Cooks book? On one of your last messages on another thread line you made the comment that you had noticed a "play on words". I guess that the phrase " Cooks Book" had been used but you immediately struck up the chord about the play on words and what it was to "cook books" to get the desired result. Are you actually saying thats what you feel that Nick Cook did? Sort of "cooking his information" until it turned out the way he wanted it to?

Was that just sort of a defensive wifes position, maybe a little passive agressive attitude? Are you championing Andrews position? If it was, YEAH, Step out there. Go girl!

Right now I am just gathering information . When I figure out something to say about this you can be sure that it will be said. Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

antigravity?

Post by Victoria Steele »

There are a couple of things that jump out at me, given my rather odd connection to the researching of the story of Townsend Brown.

The first is the very free use of the word "Antigravity" by Mr. Cook. He is always in search of this "antigravity" ghost and yet seems to miss other things because maybe he feels they don't somehow fit into the box that he has made for that subject.

I think that both Paul and Andrew will agree that Dr. Brown may have been "attributed" the use of the word "antigravity" in his work but he himself preferred to use the less sensational "Stress in Dielectrics"

As grinder mentioned his quote from Cook was something like "If anyone had reported ANTIGRAVITY in the last ten years I would have written about it." What if THAT word wasn't used? Would he have even NOTICED special work then? What if the work was being carried on in a field where Mr. Cook would have been a complete stranger. Look again to Dr. Browns roots and his great pride and love, the Navy. lOOK AGAIN FOLKS TO TOWNSEND BROWNS EARLIEST WORKS AND CONCEPTS.

Paul just recently said that he found it strange that the line of conversation on our little forum has somehow flowed into a discussion of submarines. WHY NOT? What was Dr. Browns love (behind his family, his work .... there was always his love of the Navy and the seas of the world. )


Frankly I am not finding it strange at all and I can't wait to see where this thread goes but I'll bet right now it will be into some very dark waters. Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
Posts: 1742
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Steohenson???????

Post by Elizabeth Helen Drake »

grinder,

thankyou for starting this thread. It is sure to generate some VERY interesting discussion. And it has with me too. Alot of questions but this one maybe only Mr. Cook can answer, or perhaps one of you could help me with this.

For those of you with Mr. Cooks book in front of you try turning to page 90 of the paperback. I have discovered what I like to call an anomaly. You know, something that stands out. Like the turtle on the fencepost . y this on for size and please tell me what you think has happened here.

(He was having a conversation with his "source" a man he called "Markcus"

"Marckus took a moment before adding: "I think its 1939 all over again. I think that we are poised on the brink of something. The physics is mind-boggling . Christ, I don't pretend to understand half of it myself, but what we are talking about is huge.

"Spell it out for me"

"Bye Bye nuclear power, bye bye rocket motors. bye bye jet engines. If we can manipulate gravity nothing will ever be the same. But expecting British Aerospace to develop this stuff is like asking someone who'd spent the first half of the 17th century building horse drawn carts to come up with the outline for Stephensons bloody rocket" .............

Now he goes on but I need to ask this, perhaps of Mr. Cook himself.

WHO WERE YOU REFERRING TO HERE?There is no listing for a Stephenson in your book. And you are directly quoting Mr. Markcus here so do you even know WHO HE MEANT? Did he mention someone earlier named Stephenson or did I just miss it. Am I the only one that has noticed this "glitch", if it is one?

AND WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT. "TO COME UP WITH THE OUTLINE FOR STEPHENSONS BLOODY ROCKET?" What rocket? What outline? What the heck? Can someone please explain that statement to me? Stephenson had an outline that was for a "bloody rocket". William Stephenson? The same man who was the head of the intelligence network that threw its loop around Dr. Brown in 1933 and Morgan in 1965? If not William Stephenson Mr. Cook, who was Dan Marckus speaking of?

Talk about not being able to put a subject away. Elizabeth
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
Posts: 1361
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Re: Steohenson???????

Post by Paul S. »

Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:AND WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT. "TO COME UP WITH THE OUTLINE FOR STEPHENSONS BLOODY ROCKET?" What rocket? What outline? What the heck?
That one's easy. "Stephenson's Rocket" was one of the first steam locomotives.

Image

Designed and built by George Stephenson of the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1829, the Rocket was the winner in the Rainhill trials—a competition sponsored by the railway to obtain a locomotive for carrying both passengers and freight. It pulled a load of three times its own weight at the rate of 20 km/hr (12.5 mph) and hauled a coach filled with passengers at 39 km/hr (24 mph). When the road opened in 1831, it employed eight of Stephenson's locomotives.

Amazing what you can find with Google.... <g>

Interesting thread...

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
Posts: 1742
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Stephensons rocket

Post by Elizabeth Helen Drake »

Whew! Thank you Paul. Now I will be able to sleep.

I had this wild vision of what a "rocket" William Stephenson might have dreamed up might look like. You know, looking very much like something that Flash Gordon would have captained, Visions of plans for something like that out there all packed up with a ribbon around it, all ready to be delivered to some unsuspecting person. Now there is an intimidating thought.

Better that its a railroad engine! Thanks for the information and I guess I have to thank Dan Markcus then for a history lesson!

Did you note that gentleman also made quite a point in that same section of the book of pointing out the "towers" along with a little story about how they would turn them off when the German blimp approached. all very interesting.

Elizabeth
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Chris Knight »

Victoria, Elizabeth, all

This is an interesting thread.

Mr. Cook does use the term antigravity a bit. Linda Brown reminded me that Townsend never himself used the term - it was always applied to him and his work. I personally have always said "there is no such thing as antigravity - there are only opposing gravitational fields" (which I did hear repeated at the International UFO Conference a year or two ago, but credited to THEM.

If I were to have a project dealing with gravitational fields, I sure wouldn't name it "Gravity Engines" or "Antigravity." Whenever I am using a computer where I wish to keep private files, I will create a directory named config or debug or MSapps - something no one, if they were browsing, would glance over with a second thought.

In any case, can anyone mathematically define Townsend's work as gravitational in nature? Paul and I have had a couple of conversations, and the closest we can agree is basically that a linear engine "appears" to fall into a gravitational field in the direction of movement. True, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, but it all goes back to oppositely charged masses and the asymmetric attraction between them.

I would think it would be in electrical engineering if anything, and anyone looking for "antigravity" would simply get nowhere. As such, that type of research, as Victoria pointed out, could have been carried on under the Navy, Army, or any research institution capable of the required equipment.

As Elizabeth observed, there are a number of anomalies in Mr. Cook's book that were seemingly thrown in there. Perhaps they will be of some use to us.

As far as soteria goes, at the time I put it up, I simply felt it was time to do it. Linda Brown did help me with some of the original designs, and I remember sitting in their living room one Christmas trip drawing graphics. We were pretty much in sync - we wanted a good cross-section of information. We decided to put everything on it that might possibly be obtained by the public - hence, the Winterhaven and Xerxes projects, among other papers, which were at that time virtually unobtainable.

Recognition is fine, and those who have benefitted from our work realize where the information came from, but more importantly it is important that we realize that we are not, but any stretch of the imagination, on our own. We are, and I forget the person and quote, standing on the shoulders of giants. Each of our lifes are indelibly intertwined with those who have come before us.

It's no secret that my own area of interest is the linear engine (the Biefeld-Brown Effect), but Mr. Cook's discussion on time travel really peaked my interest. My Linda often talks about the way Torrence was back in the 1980's, and I was thinking the other day how nice it would be to actually go back and see that with her. What do any of you think about the whole "Nazi Bell" discussion (aside from the "hendge"/water tower support?

Andrew
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
Posts: 1742
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

dropped like a stone

Post by Elizabeth Helen Drake »

Here folks is one of the most interesting pages in Cooks book.

Page 25 ..... where he says ......"The Philadelphia Experiment was made famous in a book by Charles Berlitz and William Moore, writers who have forged names for themselves with tales of paranormal mysteries. Even they confessed that it was "questionable whether Brown was ever really heavily involved in the Philadelphia Experiment project" .... a comment that assumes this incident took place at all.

But the association is ingrained. Run a check with a search engine and Brown is up there, his name highlighted, nine times out of ten, right alongside it.

I tried to manuever around this obstacle, this blip in Browns' otherwise blemishless wartime record, but whichever way I turned, it wouldn't go away. Its effect was powerful and immediate. Up until this moment, I'd trawled cyperspace and decades old documents in the growing conviction that this unusually gifted engineer was an important, long overlooked link in the anti-gravity mystery highlighted by the Gladych and Interavia articles.

But the instant the Philadelphia Experiment started to be mentioned in the same breath as Brown, it made me want to drop him like a stone."

PRECISELY

Elizabeth
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
Posts: 1361
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Uh-huh

Post by Paul S. »

I'll have to go along with Elizabeth on this one.

If a veteran aviation journalist like Cook can be diverted by a legend as flimsy as TPX, then, yeah, that's one really effective dis-information campaign. Still working.

I do find this thread fascinating, but as I said earlier, I think we've just got to wait and see if Nick Cook has anything to say. Other than the observation that Elizabeth has made, any thing else we say would be pretty much speculation.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

designed that way!

Post by Victoria Steele »

Hey guys, Nick Cook has no reason to complain over our interest! Look how many of us are familiar with his book. I had to go get another one because I had marked the first one beyond recognition!

Check out page 27 everybody. I won't bother to copy much of it.

He is talking about "mental degaussing" here people. WHAT DOES HE REALLY MEAN BY THAT? He leaves that little bit of information out in the open like a mental land mine just waiting for people like us to find it. Is that another use of something that Dr. Brown might have known about? The ability to "erase" or alter peoples memories or concepts? How interesting. The utmost in stealth! You can see it all you want, you just won't remember it?

And then he says "But during WWll if Brown had discovered a means of shielding US Navy ships from enemy radar (or even for marginally reducing their radar signature) IT WOULD HAVE RUNG RIGHT OFF THE CLASSIFICATION SCALE" (what is he saying here? That It didn't. Would he have ever known if it did? Is this why Paul is having so much trouble finding records? Oh by the way, how are you doing?

But then he says that by the mid 70s "Brown became an inextricable part of the myth". Well, yes. It was DESIGNED that way.

I hope I am not the only one out here who sees that as clearly as I THINK I see it! Victoria
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

and furthermore.....

Post by Victoria Steele »

On a roll now Paul .... and furthermore ...... why do we have to wait for Nick Cook to respond? What, we have to wait for his input before we draw some conclusions of our own regarding the things that he has put in print for all of us to read? I DON'T THINK SO! He is fair game for all sorts of speculation on our part. Not waiting for his go ahead.

So .... on page 28 he writes that Dr. Brown had a nervous breakdown and was discharged from the Navy. Where did he get that information? From the family .... no, he did not speak with Linda in researching this information, according to Andrew. So did he get the information from Andrews site? Or did he do what he should have done, and what I am assuming you are doing Paul .... get the records from the Navy? So who is being a "careful " researcher here, and who is just cobbling together other peoples information and misinformation? Gee. he is almost as much fun as Bill Moore. Oh, I take that back. Not quite as much fun.

A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN during the middle of the war? Possible. And then he makes the comment that in 1944 he went back to work as a "radar consultant" at Lockheeds Vega division in Burbank.

So Paul, are we going to get the real story? Victoria
grinder
Senior Officer
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:20 am

stolen notebooks?

Post by grinder »

Its just great Victoria that you are as compulsive a character as I am!

Try page 29. He says so many things on this page that I encourage all of you to zero in on it for a future discussion, I can't do it justice by myself.

But look at this. He writes (Talking about the Pearl Harbor demonstration in 1945 " His demonstrations supposedly failed to impress the Navy but there is no known official record of its reaction. One account is that it "refused funding for further research because of the negative opinion of other scientists" Another relates the story of his room being broken into after the Pearl Harbor demonstration and the theft of his notebooks. According to this variant, which was related by a close friend of Browns Josh Reynolds, the Navy returned the books days later, adding that it remained uninterested. The reason given was that the effect was not due to electrogravitation but to ionic wind, this despite Browns view that he had conclusively proven otherwise with experiments under oil back in the 1920s."

Thats such a motherload I don't even know where to start.

Mr. Twigsnapper, did you happen to know anything at all about this "notebook" theft? Does it strike you as odd as it does to me that someone would "steal something" and then "return them days later" saying that they were not interesting enough? Ya gotta be kidding.

Mr. Reynolds, is this an accurate quote from you about Dr. Browns experience? It just seems terminally strange. grinder
Locked