In another thread, in another post:
viewtopic.php?p=2352#2352
On reading that, I confess I was initially tempted to answer like this:grinder wrote:In all of your research do you have even one little shred of evidence that Townsend Brown was in communication with another intelligence?
Subject: "One Word Answer"
Post: "No."
In other words, if grinder was asking if Dr. Brown had ever had a cinematic style "close encounter' type of experience, then the answer would be "no" because, well, because there's just no solid "evidence" that such a thing ever took place. The operative word in this case would have been "evidence." But when it comes to "communication" and "intelligence," the answer is not so simple.
I knew immediately that the question grinder posed is not necessarily the question he wanted answered, and that woven in among the many layers of this story, there are not only possible answers, but also better questions to be asked for the sake of the kind of discussion we have embarked on here. So I asked grinder to expand on his query, and in this subsequent post:
viewtopic.php?p=2358#2358
Do you all see how this variation on the original post poses an entirely different question?grinder wrote:Have you in your research had the inclination through what you have learned about Townsend Brown that he was in fact communicating with some other intelligence?
<snip>
After all, he seemed to spend his entire life studying this "radiation". Or more precisely I guess, the variation in the radiation. Did he ever say that the variation could have been some sort of communication.? Seems to me you have to consider something before you can investigate it.
What sort of "intelligence".? I'll make it easy. Something intelligent and up to that point, not recognized. More.?Can I make what I am asking better understood? I never realized that the questions can be as hard as the answers! grinder
The key word here for me is the word "radiation," which I suspect was the synaptic connection that triggered grinder's original question. The word is key because, even as I contemplated my comedic one-word response, I knew that there is, lurking in Dr. Brown's notebooks, the real answer to the real issue that grinder is driving at.
I think I have mentioned, somewhere in this space if not in the actual text, that Townsend Brown was fairly obsessed with those "fluctuations" that he discovered in the basic "Biefeld-Brown" effect. He attributed those fluctuations to something he called "Sidereal Radiation" -- meaning that it came from the stars -- and spent his life measuring them and trying to quantify their impact.
When I read grinder's question, I was reminded of something that Linda Brown has said to me often: late in his life, Dr. Brown told her that in his efforts to measure this "radiation" he was certain he had tapped into the "nervous system of the Universe." That, to me, qualifies under a broad (if slightly abstract) definition of "evidence," "communication," and "intelligence."
But before I posted this reply, I wanted to go back to the source, to see if there is any written evidence of the quotation that Linda had conveyed to me. So this morning I went through my notes, and here are the passages that are pertinent to this discussion:
* * *
In April 1984, Dr. Brown was writing in his notebooks about a newly introduced addition to aether and spectrum theory, something called "The C Spectrum" or "The C Field:"
That's offered just to give you some context for what follows. On April 7, 1984, Brown wrote an entry entitled "The Omniplasma Continuum:"Now there may have appeared a new and unsuspected contender .... the "C" spectrum. Possibly equal to the electromagnetic spectrum in its range of frequencies. The "C" spectrum suggests a parallel relationship. Could it be that an aether is again required...or is an aether necessary? Can the quantum theory provide an adequate solution, relegating the aether to the boondocks? Or does it require a new look on the part of theoretical physicists?
<snip>
The "C" Field to me is conceived as a universal continuum of energy, a kind of soup in which everything is immersed, Its density if we mean energy content is not uniform throughout space but may vary in the proximity of massive stars.
Dr. Brown reminds us now that during this period of his life, his focus was on "petrovoltaics" -- literally, getting electricity out of rocks. He was, in effect, using common rocks as capacitors in what amounted to an inverse expression of the Biefeld-Brown effect in gravitators. And all the while, he is noticing the same fluctuations that he had been observing for decades in other expressions of the same basic concept. After considering the possibility that the fluctuations are due to the properties of his "OPC," he writes,The use of the word "plasma" may be a bit misleading in that it is not the plasma of conventional physics. It is not "hot" in the accepted sense of matter in the 4th state. I use it to imply interacting containment in a kind of "sea". The word continuum implies the infinitely vast extent of that containment.
But the name is appropriate in my understanding of what may be going on. It is synonymous with the "C" field and, perhaps also, the reconstituted "aether"
OPC, as we shall call it in the future, is then conceived as consisting of particles of energy (Perhaps call them minor quanta, gravitons,gravitinos, neutrinos or what have you!) in rapid random motion or agitation. It is essentially present throughout all of space and matter. It exists within molecules, groups of molecules and the regions around and between possibly even to the consistuents of matter. As such, we may well consider OPC to be the re-constituted "Aether."
This is a new concept for me. I have never really considered such a possibility. Its implications are a bit staggering.
In short it would mean that rock sensors (for example) are masses, not unlike other masses on earth or in the cosmos. Since OPC is conceived as being all pervasive. It exists between and within said masses and is inseparable...hence the sensor...regardless of its size would be "host"to a "source of energy" within its own confines and not dependent on external incident radiation.
Which brings us to the "money quote" from these notebook entries, and what I suspect is at least a clue to the answer to grinder's question:
If this is true and it is to be accepted we must shift the emphasis of our analysis (if such is possible) of the energy content, frequency spectrum et al of OPC. Such an analysis would probably reveal a "gigantically complex" continually variable energy system which only the Lord Himself could ever fully comprehend. I mean to say -- and I am quite serious --that the cosmological influence of the Creator's Central Nervous System could be deeply influencing life processes, including mankind's destiny here on Earth.
This is the only written "evidence" I have that Dr. Brown might have been "communicating" with "another intelligence." This is NOT to say that Dr. Brown and this "other intelligence" sat down in the woods one day and exchanged "Deep Thoughts." Rather, I think it means that Dr. Brown believed that he was observing the means by which some "other intelligence" in the universe communicates its presence (and perhaps its intentions) throughout the cosmos.
Think of it this way: if an aboriginal human wandering around in the outback stumbled across a discarded cell phone, he would have discovered the means by which "another intelligence" communicates. But would the aboriginal know what the object was actually used for? If he happened to press the right sequence of buttons and the object began speaking to him, would he understand what he heard in the handset?
That's a simplistic analogy, but I hope you all get the point: There may not be any "concrete" evidence that Townsend Brown "communicated" with "another intelligence." But the "evidence" we do have implies that he was, indeed, drawing inspiration from some higher source, and he spent his life trying to understand that source.
So, there is the answer to grinder's question, and as you can see, while it's not exactly "yes," it's a far cry from "no."
--PS
(P.S. Please note how very clear and concise Dr. Brown's wording is. He is trying to express a relatively foreign and abstract concept, but he does so without confusing his point with jargon and oblique references. We should all aspire to be so precise and effective when we write about such things).