Mikado14,
When I say aether flows, its how I have percieved it.
I only found the nine lines Eighteen months ago, and my dowsing ability
has risen all the time.
At firt I simply found the lines, I went line mad, following and mapping them, hence I could not help but walk straight into megaliths , churches, trees etc ( fairy rings are stunning, and the fungi know more than me, moles are even better, little dowsers are they )
Then I was led to a so called roman fort, it is a henge, where an embankment is surrounded by a ditch, around all forts and castles you will see these, and around such as stone henge and avebury, the best example is called old sarum, if you google that you will find it.
These embankments are sixty foot tall, the ditchs equally deep, but I can run up them.
It was similer to tooth ache, nagging at me, I knew there was more to the lines than I was finding, and as I live close by the bards birth place, i knew there were more things in this world than meets the eye, horatio. never mind in the heavens ( though they mirror )as above , so below.
I now view the megaliths as relics of a superior race, not this caveman rubbish.
When I finally realised how the two parts were been teased apart, and the implifications sent my head spinning, it is very peacefull inside those henges.
I sat and began to doubt Einstein, got quite angry about him, time quite litterally went out of the window.
I cant force the path, it seems to come in its own way, perhaps as i can handle and comprehend.
Its similer with David talk, thats what I call davids theory, it has to soak in at the right speed.
I know its not flowing as such, but its the best perception I know in this reality, and because my rods act as arials, they show direction, when I detect a line, they are rock steady, when I detect the aether they waver , as if they were in a water flow.
I can only report what i detect and how I percieve it, every day brings new insight and clears the fog, I thank you for helping to blow the fog away.
How those lines vary and inter-react is stunning, all is one, no time, no speed, nothing dies, no one dies, all changes.
Kevin
THINGS UNKNOWN, UNSEEN
-
twigsnapper
- Revered Elder
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
- Location: mobile
road apples
I agree with you Mikado. None of us have time to slow down for road apples. "Green Apples" Meant that way or not, I agree.
You have mentioned "universal frame reference" and the name DeWitt.
Paul. Rummage through your pictures of the Bahnson Labs. You have several shots of a smiling Townsend Brown (in his element. in his lab coat) and some others. One a handsome young man with his arms folded. DeWitt. 1957-1958.
Quantum Conciousness? Reference Frame? Oddly will echo something that was said by a young woman during the summer of 1966. Morgan told me that it was ironic beyond measure that she had chosen the words to say goodbye " You have your "frame" and I have mine.
Oh, Kevin, fare forward voyager. twigsnapper
You have mentioned "universal frame reference" and the name DeWitt.
Paul. Rummage through your pictures of the Bahnson Labs. You have several shots of a smiling Townsend Brown (in his element. in his lab coat) and some others. One a handsome young man with his arms folded. DeWitt. 1957-1958.
Quantum Conciousness? Reference Frame? Oddly will echo something that was said by a young woman during the summer of 1966. Morgan told me that it was ironic beyond measure that she had chosen the words to say goodbye " You have your "frame" and I have mine.
Oh, Kevin, fare forward voyager. twigsnapper
Re: CLOSING ON 58
This post as been nagging me since I first read it, I woke up about 4 AM my time, on the outer banks watching a pea floating upon a sea and being swallowed by a hideous looking fish, anyhow, I finally started to see something. The skull and bones have nothing on the Caroline group. What secret, what technology, what history, what knowledge can be worth sacrificing one's personal life over? What transpired that required the "enlistment" of an individual in the 60's that would actively pursue ...whatever.... as a chimera or possibly a wraith at times. If he were a Centurion, who was the Centurionate? One has to wonder in regard to others. What machination was used to entice them? Case in point, look at Decker. Extremely difficult, to say the least, to find anything about the man prior to the mid 50's, other than he loved aviation. And as to the bankruptcy in the mid 70's, the same is true. The man gave speeches on the White House lawn but yet very little is available about him. Well, there is a reason....... 5 bucks to five beans says it is the Caroline group. Any takers?
Paul, my sympathy to you. I see what you have been through but it is sort of like an addiction. Just have to see what happens next, like having you hands over your eyes as you peek through your fingers.
Mikado
In some respects, it is becoming to look as if there were two programs, one in full public view and another that was not....or was it? Sort of like looking for you glasses and then you realize just where they are.twigsnapper wrote:Mikado,
Both you and Paul are noticing that Dr. Brown had some participation in a situation that has not been at all mentioned in papers so far written about him. And your track on Decker will intersect soon.
I remember hearing this back in the mid 70's when someone slipped and mentioned that there was what the public saw and what they didn't. Remember Apollo 13? Ask yourself the question after you thought about the first sentence for awhile. The greased pig syndrom.twigsnapper wrote: In the fall of 1958 NASA was formed. All earlier work on space exploration was supposed to go under that single banner. Scientists were drawn from all over. It was a very big deal, of course you will see this. In 1958 the man you are following started up ..... and ...... then? <g>
Paul, my sympathy to you. I see what you have been through but it is sort of like an addiction. Just have to see what happens next, like having you hands over your eyes as you peek through your fingers.
Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Re: road apples
I bet you agree with a few more things but you just can't say. Right? That was stupid of me, you can't say.twigsnapper wrote:I agree with you Mikado. None of us have time to slow down for road apples. "Green Apples" Meant that way or not, I agree.
Oh crap! Now why does this not surprise me.twigsnapper wrote: You have mentioned "universal frame reference" and the name DeWitt.
Paul. Rummage through your pictures of the Bahnson Labs. You have several shots of a smiling Townsend Brown (in his element. in his lab coat) and some others. One a handsome young man with his arms folded. DeWitt. 1957-1958.
Anyone know if Roland DeWitt went by J. Roland DeWitt? Any relation to Bryce?
Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
-
twigsnapper
- Revered Elder
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
- Location: mobile
the quality of his company
I thought I might save you some time Mikado and supply you with this. Soon Paul will be able to supply you with pictures. If not, I probably can.
I entitled this " the quality of his company". Bryce was just 35 in this photo and you can tell that Dr. Brown and he were in pretty good spirits over something. Of course, that was Dr. Browns way about things. Note that this man is a class mathematician, and usually somewhere within reach, Dr. Brown had such a man.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00413/00413-P.html
Note this part especially:
DeWitt received all three of his degrees in physics from Harvard University (Ph.D. in 1950). DeWitt was a dedicated teacher and researcher; he held positions at the Institute for Advanced Study, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before beginning his professorship at The University of Texas at Austin in 1972. At UT Austin, DeWitt served as the director of the Center for Relativity (1972-1987), Jane and Roland Blumberg Professor of Physics (1986-2000), and Professor Emeritus (2000-2004).
Sterling young man. twigsnapper
I entitled this " the quality of his company". Bryce was just 35 in this photo and you can tell that Dr. Brown and he were in pretty good spirits over something. Of course, that was Dr. Browns way about things. Note that this man is a class mathematician, and usually somewhere within reach, Dr. Brown had such a man.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00413/00413-P.html
Note this part especially:
DeWitt received all three of his degrees in physics from Harvard University (Ph.D. in 1950). DeWitt was a dedicated teacher and researcher; he held positions at the Institute for Advanced Study, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before beginning his professorship at The University of Texas at Austin in 1972. At UT Austin, DeWitt served as the director of the Center for Relativity (1972-1987), Jane and Roland Blumberg Professor of Physics (1986-2000), and Professor Emeritus (2000-2004).
Sterling young man. twigsnapper
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
I'm no math expert
Everybody.
I want you to know first that I am no math expert. I barely made it through Algebra II and had a difficult enough time with quadratic equations, but I wanted to point something out by putting up this post.
Now this is a discussion between two people who seem to me to know what they are talking about. They don't agree, but they seem bright enough. If you have a moment just glance through this series of responses until you get all the way to the end. Please don't worry about understanding what is being said. Just pay attention to the sway of the conversation back and forth and then REALLY pay attention to the ending remarks. THATS WHERE BEING RUDE TO EACH OTHER GETS PEOPLE.
http://www.adras.com/ON-THE-CO-DEPENDEN ... 52-91.html
or if you don't have time to read all of that and the math bores you to tears too ... this is how they ended it.
DIRK VAN DE POODLE
Longitudinal length of an object in relative motion with respect to
you, is the difference between the distances of two points on the
object, measured simultaneously in your frame.
Since nothing is moving between the endpoints of the object
during some time interval, the act of dividing the difference between
these distances by a time interval is meaningless.
VERT
You're suffering from myopea. You just said that the *length* is the
"distance".You are agreeing with me and don't know it. Next, you are
saying that dividing the distance by time is meaningless*! I guess you
never learned the definition of velocity. Pity.
STRIKE ONE, then:
Restated: The velocity of the moving frame is
> greater than the observed velocity. Thus we have two velocities, the
> observed velocity -- and the true velocity of the moving frame. The two
> velocities are Lorentz variant. That is true velocity times the Lorentz
> transform equals the observed velocity.
V D Poodle
The distance of the origin of the moving frame is not a
longitudinal length of anything,
THEN
VERGON
Never said it was.
VDP
since it is not the difference between
two fixed points on a moving object.
It seems that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
VERGON
One of us doesn't --- hello.
THEN
Where V is the velocity of the moving frame, v the observed velocity,
> and R the Lorentz transform ---
> v ( 1- v^2/c^2) , V x R = v
It seems that you have a problem writing down a proper equation.
Have you ever read some kind of introduction to physics?
THEN FINALLY
VERGON
Learn to read. Notice the comma. The equation is V x R = v.
Apparently you never had (or understood) an introduction to algebra.
You know, you are more intrested in knocking someone down than in
learnng something.
That's why you're so dumb.
Until you change --- if ever --- I'll not be wasting my time answering
your stupid posts.
(fade to black.)
Poor Paul has had to deal with subjects like superluminal velocities and all this other "stuff". I am just so pleased that I am not in his shoes. But it does seem a shame that the people who might understand something different ...... can't even talk with each other. Elizabeth
I want you to know first that I am no math expert. I barely made it through Algebra II and had a difficult enough time with quadratic equations, but I wanted to point something out by putting up this post.
Now this is a discussion between two people who seem to me to know what they are talking about. They don't agree, but they seem bright enough. If you have a moment just glance through this series of responses until you get all the way to the end. Please don't worry about understanding what is being said. Just pay attention to the sway of the conversation back and forth and then REALLY pay attention to the ending remarks. THATS WHERE BEING RUDE TO EACH OTHER GETS PEOPLE.
http://www.adras.com/ON-THE-CO-DEPENDEN ... 52-91.html
or if you don't have time to read all of that and the math bores you to tears too ... this is how they ended it.
DIRK VAN DE POODLE
Longitudinal length of an object in relative motion with respect to
you, is the difference between the distances of two points on the
object, measured simultaneously in your frame.
Since nothing is moving between the endpoints of the object
during some time interval, the act of dividing the difference between
these distances by a time interval is meaningless.
VERT
You're suffering from myopea. You just said that the *length* is the
"distance".You are agreeing with me and don't know it. Next, you are
saying that dividing the distance by time is meaningless*! I guess you
never learned the definition of velocity. Pity.
STRIKE ONE, then:
Restated: The velocity of the moving frame is
> greater than the observed velocity. Thus we have two velocities, the
> observed velocity -- and the true velocity of the moving frame. The two
> velocities are Lorentz variant. That is true velocity times the Lorentz
> transform equals the observed velocity.
V D Poodle
The distance of the origin of the moving frame is not a
longitudinal length of anything,
THEN
VERGON
Never said it was.
VDP
since it is not the difference between
two fixed points on a moving object.
It seems that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
VERGON
One of us doesn't --- hello.
THEN
Where V is the velocity of the moving frame, v the observed velocity,
> and R the Lorentz transform ---
> v ( 1- v^2/c^2) , V x R = v
It seems that you have a problem writing down a proper equation.
Have you ever read some kind of introduction to physics?
THEN FINALLY
VERGON
Learn to read. Notice the comma. The equation is V x R = v.
Apparently you never had (or understood) an introduction to algebra.
You know, you are more intrested in knocking someone down than in
learnng something.
That's why you're so dumb.
Until you change --- if ever --- I'll not be wasting my time answering
your stupid posts.
(fade to black.)
Poor Paul has had to deal with subjects like superluminal velocities and all this other "stuff". I am just so pleased that I am not in his shoes. But it does seem a shame that the people who might understand something different ...... can't even talk with each other. Elizabeth
-
Trickfox
- The Magician
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
- Location: Quebec or Montreal
- Contact:
Bruised egos
Elizabeth
Your point is very pertinent and I have myself learned that it is allways better to politely bow out of a debate when one of both of the debators insists on defining all of what is normally considered objective reality just to prove a single point of contention.
Normally in science, there is comfort in the fact that basic equations help to prove or disprove whole theorems and postulation. Now before you drag out the old 3 rooms for $25.00 argument out again, please understand that these problems in subjective perception can be resolved if both debators continue to treat each other with respect.
I promise to hold myself to this high moral standard of common respect and I expect others in our forum will do so also. The truth is that all of science is based on the agreement of an objective reality. Since we may someday crossover into each other's subjective realities with certain aspects of this rabbit hole science, what will there be left to argue about once we realize how bizzare this universe really is?
What I'm saying here is that there is no avoiding the fact that some of us may end up stepping on each other's egos, and the things we had best learn as soon as possible is how to say I'm sorry, let's try again to underrstand each other one more time.
This precious wisdom and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee right?
Trickfox
Your point is very pertinent and I have myself learned that it is allways better to politely bow out of a debate when one of both of the debators insists on defining all of what is normally considered objective reality just to prove a single point of contention.
Normally in science, there is comfort in the fact that basic equations help to prove or disprove whole theorems and postulation. Now before you drag out the old 3 rooms for $25.00 argument out again, please understand that these problems in subjective perception can be resolved if both debators continue to treat each other with respect.
I promise to hold myself to this high moral standard of common respect and I expect others in our forum will do so also. The truth is that all of science is based on the agreement of an objective reality. Since we may someday crossover into each other's subjective realities with certain aspects of this rabbit hole science, what will there be left to argue about once we realize how bizzare this universe really is?
What I'm saying here is that there is no avoiding the fact that some of us may end up stepping on each other's egos, and the things we had best learn as soon as possible is how to say I'm sorry, let's try again to underrstand each other one more time.
This precious wisdom and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee right?
Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
Thanks
Thanks Trickfox. Its just that I know that this forum is not the normal soapbox. It seems to have sort of a life of its own. And because of that I expect that we will cause quite a few dissenting and aggressive comments eventually. as it was said earlier .... if you haven't managed to piss someone off ..... you haven't been doing much. And I expect as we get further along more and more people may get ..... agitated...... with us.
Sometimes I see this forum as somewhat of a magical ship. Its just a mental vision so please bear with me. She is a good sound, beautiful ship nearly ready to sail out of the harbor. She has been calling to her crew and one by one they have been responding. Each person who has taken the time and effort to really involve themselves here has become an "able seaman". Each one has an inspiration for the job he will be asked to do.
I expect when we clear the breakwater sometime soon its going to get pretty choppy out there. But at least we will be able to count on each other. Each one of us has different ideas, different talents, and this ship counts on all of them. And others too as they join.
If we can maintain respect for each other then the ship can face rougher weather without breaking apart. We are her crew.
We could stay in the harbor and continue to discuss "safe" topics and known things. But thats not what this ship is for.
Paul will recognize those lyrics, or the approximation to them. I trust that he can give the proper credit where it is due, the name escapes me at the moment. But the image of that ship has come to both of us during this wonderful experience and I thought it was time to share it with all of you.
And I noted that our Mr. Twigsnapper used one of his favorite expressions to Kevin not long ago. So I join him in using it. Fare forward Voyagers, Elizabeth
Sometimes I see this forum as somewhat of a magical ship. Its just a mental vision so please bear with me. She is a good sound, beautiful ship nearly ready to sail out of the harbor. She has been calling to her crew and one by one they have been responding. Each person who has taken the time and effort to really involve themselves here has become an "able seaman". Each one has an inspiration for the job he will be asked to do.
I expect when we clear the breakwater sometime soon its going to get pretty choppy out there. But at least we will be able to count on each other. Each one of us has different ideas, different talents, and this ship counts on all of them. And others too as they join.
If we can maintain respect for each other then the ship can face rougher weather without breaking apart. We are her crew.
We could stay in the harbor and continue to discuss "safe" topics and known things. But thats not what this ship is for.
Paul will recognize those lyrics, or the approximation to them. I trust that he can give the proper credit where it is due, the name escapes me at the moment. But the image of that ship has come to both of us during this wonderful experience and I thought it was time to share it with all of you.
And I noted that our Mr. Twigsnapper used one of his favorite expressions to Kevin not long ago. So I join him in using it. Fare forward Voyagers, Elizabeth
-
Trickfox
- The Magician
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
- Location: Quebec or Montreal
- Contact:
Practicing what I preach
(In this post I am addressing the members of the Gravity Control Forum at [url]http://www.gravity%20control.org[/url]
I am here one last time (on the Gravity control forum) to post this message of apology.
Please understand that I have re-evaluated my statements about David and project unity.
I must admit that the last post I made on their website was excessively aggressive and uncalled for.
I may have hinted something with respects to "Fraud" however, I am sure in my heart that David's writtings and his work are not Fraud. Fraud would constitute previous knowledge of disinformation, and I simply do not REALLY suspect that David is perpetuating Fraud.
David and I are simply having yet another debate about the accuracies and meaning of certain scientific terms.
I'm deeply sorry for having suggested that David is a "Guru" with his own cult following. This was an insulting and egotistical statement and I deeply apologize for having made reference to it.
Let me now point out how and why I believe David is so very close to success. You see there is an inherent beauty and truth about science. At it's roots, all of science has a foundation in simplicity. The famous poet Keats once wrote of it as such: Beauty is Truth, Truth, Beauty. This is all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know.
Now almost every real (paid) scientist I know believes this to be true. David's visions and the way he describes the foundation of his ideas are truly beautiful and elegant and so without having any kind of proof whatsoever, it becomes obvious that what he is pursuing must be ever so close to the truth, and I even hope for the sake of humanity that everyone else is wrong and that David will prove it so.
I am here to tell you that I have learned from David. I am not as sure of my path as he is. I will soon have a tremendous responsibility to manage a large research facility, and I will have to lead the efforts of several engineers and technicians. My decisions will be needed to guide the expenditure of hundred of thousands of dollars (perhaps even millions), and I must admit that I am not completely sure that we are on the right path to success. What I am sure of is that I will do my very best to assure that our research will not be wasted on avenues which I know to be wrong from experience.
When David and Jim and I first started to communicate I suppose I assumed that we could join forces. I still hope this is something which will some day be possible. At the moment we have reached an obstruction which is the result of a misunderstanding of "English terms" as used throughout the scientific and engineering community.
So be it and we disagree with each other and must pursue our paths separately. This does not mean that we need to disrespect each other, and so I am addressing this forum one last time to present my apologies for having been sarcastic and accusative.
The truth is that I envy David's abilities to communicate so easily his elegant ideas to those of you who seek to understand the visions that the both of us are having about this wondrous new area of science.
When I spoke of keeping evil ugly things silent, I did not necessarily mean to imply that the information should be forever kept secret from all who seek the truth about these atrocities. I simply meant that the details and cruelty of these past atrocities need not be promoted for profit or for fame. I meant that and nothing else.
I suppose I have said my peace and I am resolved in my decision. I wish all of you great success in your endeavor, and again... please accept my apology for having allowed my ego to rear it's ugly head in public. Life is about peace and cooperation, not spiteful competition and disrespect.
Raymond
(the trickfox)
Note: This post was copied and reposted in the Gavity Control Forum ALSO.
I am here one last time (on the Gravity control forum) to post this message of apology.
Please understand that I have re-evaluated my statements about David and project unity.
I must admit that the last post I made on their website was excessively aggressive and uncalled for.
I may have hinted something with respects to "Fraud" however, I am sure in my heart that David's writtings and his work are not Fraud. Fraud would constitute previous knowledge of disinformation, and I simply do not REALLY suspect that David is perpetuating Fraud.
David and I are simply having yet another debate about the accuracies and meaning of certain scientific terms.
I'm deeply sorry for having suggested that David is a "Guru" with his own cult following. This was an insulting and egotistical statement and I deeply apologize for having made reference to it.
Let me now point out how and why I believe David is so very close to success. You see there is an inherent beauty and truth about science. At it's roots, all of science has a foundation in simplicity. The famous poet Keats once wrote of it as such: Beauty is Truth, Truth, Beauty. This is all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know.
Now almost every real (paid) scientist I know believes this to be true. David's visions and the way he describes the foundation of his ideas are truly beautiful and elegant and so without having any kind of proof whatsoever, it becomes obvious that what he is pursuing must be ever so close to the truth, and I even hope for the sake of humanity that everyone else is wrong and that David will prove it so.
I am here to tell you that I have learned from David. I am not as sure of my path as he is. I will soon have a tremendous responsibility to manage a large research facility, and I will have to lead the efforts of several engineers and technicians. My decisions will be needed to guide the expenditure of hundred of thousands of dollars (perhaps even millions), and I must admit that I am not completely sure that we are on the right path to success. What I am sure of is that I will do my very best to assure that our research will not be wasted on avenues which I know to be wrong from experience.
When David and Jim and I first started to communicate I suppose I assumed that we could join forces. I still hope this is something which will some day be possible. At the moment we have reached an obstruction which is the result of a misunderstanding of "English terms" as used throughout the scientific and engineering community.
So be it and we disagree with each other and must pursue our paths separately. This does not mean that we need to disrespect each other, and so I am addressing this forum one last time to present my apologies for having been sarcastic and accusative.
The truth is that I envy David's abilities to communicate so easily his elegant ideas to those of you who seek to understand the visions that the both of us are having about this wondrous new area of science.
When I spoke of keeping evil ugly things silent, I did not necessarily mean to imply that the information should be forever kept secret from all who seek the truth about these atrocities. I simply meant that the details and cruelty of these past atrocities need not be promoted for profit or for fame. I meant that and nothing else.
I suppose I have said my peace and I am resolved in my decision. I wish all of you great success in your endeavor, and again... please accept my apology for having allowed my ego to rear it's ugly head in public. Life is about peace and cooperation, not spiteful competition and disrespect.
Raymond
(the trickfox)
Note: This post was copied and reposted in the Gavity Control Forum ALSO.
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
-
Trickfox
- The Magician
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
- Location: Quebec or Montreal
- Contact:
hiccup
This second post is a duplication so I removed it
Last edited by Trickfox on Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
-
Trickfox
- The Magician
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
- Location: Quebec or Montreal
- Contact:
A Yorkshire ferkin indeed
Well ya see Kevin
I jost wanted to correct ma'sen, and nay look like a twonk.
no more mytherin needed.
Thank ye for that coment. it were reet gradely!
Le Trickfox
I jost wanted to correct ma'sen, and nay look like a twonk.
no more mytherin needed.
Thank ye for that coment. it were reet gradely!
Le Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
-
Victoria Steele
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
so thats why
Guys!
So thats why my little dog looks at me as if he doesn't understand a word I am saying! I have alot to learn! He is a Yorkshire Terrier you see! (and I think he is a WHOLE lot smarter than he lets on to me sometimes!)
And Kevin. Have you noticed the last post that Elizabeth has put up.? I thought that you especially would appreciate it.
viewtopic.php?t=393
There are so many pieces of real wisdom there I can't even count them.
Just wanted you all to know that I haven't forgotten you. Just got a little busy for awhile. Besides, I don't have anything more interesting to add than what is already going on here. Victoria
So thats why my little dog looks at me as if he doesn't understand a word I am saying! I have alot to learn! He is a Yorkshire Terrier you see! (and I think he is a WHOLE lot smarter than he lets on to me sometimes!)
And Kevin. Have you noticed the last post that Elizabeth has put up.? I thought that you especially would appreciate it.
viewtopic.php?t=393
There are so many pieces of real wisdom there I can't even count them.
Just wanted you all to know that I haven't forgotten you. Just got a little busy for awhile. Besides, I don't have anything more interesting to add than what is already going on here. Victoria
Dewitt Photo
I presume this is the photo Twigsnapper is referring to:twigsnapper wrote:Paul. Rummage through your pictures of the Bahnson Labs. You have several shots of a smiling Townsend Brown (in his element. in his lab coat) and some others. One a handsome young man with his arms folded. DeWitt. 1957-1958.
So who's the guy on the right?
--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
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
pictures are great!
What an absolutely great shot of Dr. Brown! Certainly captures his character I think! And this Bryce DeWitt is a handsome man and apparently went on to be quite a distinquished math expert and teacher. I like his sort of playful guarded behavior in the picture. He has a twinkle in his eye, like he is on to something that really tickles him but he is not going to display that emotion. So he folded his arms. But there is something going on for sure and THEY ALL ARE PLEASED!
Who is that third man? Dr. Brown is a tall individual? I always thought so/ in any case this gentleman is quite shorter. Its not Mr. Twigsnapper because we have a picture of him taken in Paris in 1956 which was only two years before this. But here is an interesting thought. Our Mr. Twigsnapper KNEW about this shot and he also said ..... on our forum .... that if Paul couldnd't find it .... that he might have a copy .... which tells me ....or gives me the hint .... I think that Mr. Twigsnapper TOOK this picture. Am I right? Can I ask? Mr. Twigsnapper? Dr. Brown apparently feels very much at ease. He has the same easy attitude he had in that Paris picture, which means that he was amonst friends here, definitely.
Notice that the third man has something on his lapel. What is that? And yes, WHO is he? Can we pass a note to the CIA or the FBI like in the Good Shepherd and get some answers? Boy, Wouldn't that be a help.
Anybody out there recognize this fella? Victoria
Who is that third man? Dr. Brown is a tall individual? I always thought so/ in any case this gentleman is quite shorter. Its not Mr. Twigsnapper because we have a picture of him taken in Paris in 1956 which was only two years before this. But here is an interesting thought. Our Mr. Twigsnapper KNEW about this shot and he also said ..... on our forum .... that if Paul couldnd't find it .... that he might have a copy .... which tells me ....or gives me the hint .... I think that Mr. Twigsnapper TOOK this picture. Am I right? Can I ask? Mr. Twigsnapper? Dr. Brown apparently feels very much at ease. He has the same easy attitude he had in that Paris picture, which means that he was amonst friends here, definitely.
Notice that the third man has something on his lapel. What is that? And yes, WHO is he? Can we pass a note to the CIA or the FBI like in the Good Shepherd and get some answers? Boy, Wouldn't that be a help.
Anybody out there recognize this fella? Victoria