[quote="Rocky"]Paul,
I do not believe that the thrust necessary to mimic the extreme flight characteristics reported by most UFOs can be strictly EHD. There is not sufficient thrust without reducing the effect of gravity on the machine. Einstein’s Unified Field Theory provides a way to accomplish this goal, through the use of torsion. Therefore, for a “UFOâ€
ADAMSKI Scout Ship
-
LongboardLOVELY
- Junior Birdman
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:32 am
- Location: Southern California
glad you are asking that
LBL, glad you are asking that question and while you are at it can that same person maybe help me understand what a "Ion Plasma vortex" might be .... and in reference to that the word "toroidal" I am at a loss. Is torsion and toroidal the same thing?
I have a feeling that you don't want to ask Andrew that question. Has he already given you his answer and you just want another from one of the smarter ones of us? Or is he excluded from this question? Thats cool, I can understand that. So whoever has what they think is a grasp, in laymans terms , please give us a chance to understand this better than googling . It would really be appreciated.
I got that phrase and those words from the drawing of the Adamski Saucer which I guess Dr. Brown took as his model earlier in this post) (or maybe it was the other way around, mayb e Adamski took it from Dr. Brown. Nobody seems to really know.
And speaking of two men, wasn't that what Adamski said " Two men approached him" Of course they told him they were from Venus, and he either knew who they actually were and said " you want me to tell people WHAT?" or he said " I've always wanted to go there, will you take me?" In either case I think he was sincere. grinder
I have a feeling that you don't want to ask Andrew that question. Has he already given you his answer and you just want another from one of the smarter ones of us? Or is he excluded from this question? Thats cool, I can understand that. So whoever has what they think is a grasp, in laymans terms , please give us a chance to understand this better than googling . It would really be appreciated.
I got that phrase and those words from the drawing of the Adamski Saucer which I guess Dr. Brown took as his model earlier in this post) (or maybe it was the other way around, mayb e Adamski took it from Dr. Brown. Nobody seems to really know.
And speaking of two men, wasn't that what Adamski said " Two men approached him" Of course they told him they were from Venus, and he either knew who they actually were and said " you want me to tell people WHAT?" or he said " I've always wanted to go there, will you take me?" In either case I think he was sincere. grinder
For any who are familiar with general relativity, gravity is represented by a curvature of spacetime. Torsion research concerns itself with the twisting of spacetime. That's about the best it gets in layman's terms. Torque, of course, has the same root, and if you can think of torsion being spacetime being twisted/torqued, where curvature is spacetime being bent, then it gives you about the right idea.
Under Einstein's 1929 formulation of a Unified Field Theory, electromagnetism was represented by torsion. He never quite got it to work. However, under a number of proposed ideas, torsion and curvature should be able to lead to each other. That is, electromagnetism can, under the right conditions, create a gravitational field and vice versa.
In the West, attempts at unified theory have focused on trying to develop quantum gravity, to include string theory. This has meant a significant neglect of approaches trying to make general relativity encompass all the known forces, to the point where discussion of torsion is rather taboo in most American physics departments. Russia has had less restriction in their research.
For grinder, toroidal just means "donut-shaped." Current hot fusion reactors, Tokamaks, are toroidally shaped. Toroidal geometries appear in physics very frequently, from astrophysics (high-spin stars, black holes, etc.) to subatomic physics. They almost always involve high-spin, which would likely be accompanied by torsion for charged particles.
Under Einstein's 1929 formulation of a Unified Field Theory, electromagnetism was represented by torsion. He never quite got it to work. However, under a number of proposed ideas, torsion and curvature should be able to lead to each other. That is, electromagnetism can, under the right conditions, create a gravitational field and vice versa.
In the West, attempts at unified theory have focused on trying to develop quantum gravity, to include string theory. This has meant a significant neglect of approaches trying to make general relativity encompass all the known forces, to the point where discussion of torsion is rather taboo in most American physics departments. Russia has had less restriction in their research.
For grinder, toroidal just means "donut-shaped." Current hot fusion reactors, Tokamaks, are toroidally shaped. Toroidal geometries appear in physics very frequently, from astrophysics (high-spin stars, black holes, etc.) to subatomic physics. They almost always involve high-spin, which would likely be accompanied by torsion for charged particles.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!" -Einstein
LongboardLOVELY
Torsion is a spin, twist or rotation.
In the sense I used the term, I was implying rotation in either a mass or an energy field. The importance of this line of research cannot be understated. In its most basic form, matter may even be the result of torsion or twisting of quantum vacuum resulting in a “knotâ€
Torsion is a spin, twist or rotation.
In the sense I used the term, I was implying rotation in either a mass or an energy field. The importance of this line of research cannot be understated. In its most basic form, matter may even be the result of torsion or twisting of quantum vacuum resulting in a “knotâ€
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
Kozyrev
Rocky,
Was it Kozyrevs work that you were thinking of? If so please note that Paul has drawn a thin line of conjecture already that Dr. Brown and this scientist actually may have been in communication. Our sources have said that indeed they were so you are right. No coincidences here at all. perhaps cooperation? And the link? A redheaded Russian speaking kid that Paul has named " Morgan".
Is this the 1966 reference you were thinking of?
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/doc17.html
is also important to note the experiments which demonstrat anomalies connected with gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems. Probably the first researcher to establish that the behaviour of gyroscopic systems cannot be explained in the frame work of Newton's mechanics was russian astrophysicist N.A.Kozyrev. In the 50s, N.A.Kozyrev cunducted a large series of experiments with gyroscopes and found that variations of the gyroscope's weight exists depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [1,2]. Later, Kozyrev's results were completely confirmed by a member of the Belarus Academy of Sciences A.I.Veinik, who in the 60s - 80s conducted a major research of the anomalies demonstrated by gyroscopic systems [8].
then this:
From the mid-50s to the late 70s, N.A.Kozyrev (with V.V.Nasonov) conducted astronomical observations using a receiving system of a new type. When the telescope was directed at a certain star, the detector (designed by N.A.Kozyrev and V. V.Nasonov) positioned within the telescope registered the incoming signal even if the main mirror of the telescope was shielded by metal screens. This fact indicated that electromagnetic waves (light) had some component that could not be shielded by metal screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible position but at the true position of a star, the detector then registered an incoming signal that was much stronger. The detection of the true positions of different stars could be interpreted only as detection of star radiation that had velocities billions of times greater than the speed of light. N.A.Kozyrev also found that the detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed at a position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it's true position. This fact was interpreted as a detection of the future positions of stars [3,4].
Interestng huh? Elizabeth
Was it Kozyrevs work that you were thinking of? If so please note that Paul has drawn a thin line of conjecture already that Dr. Brown and this scientist actually may have been in communication. Our sources have said that indeed they were so you are right. No coincidences here at all. perhaps cooperation? And the link? A redheaded Russian speaking kid that Paul has named " Morgan".
Is this the 1966 reference you were thinking of?
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/doc17.html
is also important to note the experiments which demonstrat anomalies connected with gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems. Probably the first researcher to establish that the behaviour of gyroscopic systems cannot be explained in the frame work of Newton's mechanics was russian astrophysicist N.A.Kozyrev. In the 50s, N.A.Kozyrev cunducted a large series of experiments with gyroscopes and found that variations of the gyroscope's weight exists depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [1,2]. Later, Kozyrev's results were completely confirmed by a member of the Belarus Academy of Sciences A.I.Veinik, who in the 60s - 80s conducted a major research of the anomalies demonstrated by gyroscopic systems [8].
then this:
From the mid-50s to the late 70s, N.A.Kozyrev (with V.V.Nasonov) conducted astronomical observations using a receiving system of a new type. When the telescope was directed at a certain star, the detector (designed by N.A.Kozyrev and V. V.Nasonov) positioned within the telescope registered the incoming signal even if the main mirror of the telescope was shielded by metal screens. This fact indicated that electromagnetic waves (light) had some component that could not be shielded by metal screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible position but at the true position of a star, the detector then registered an incoming signal that was much stronger. The detection of the true positions of different stars could be interpreted only as detection of star radiation that had velocities billions of times greater than the speed of light. N.A.Kozyrev also found that the detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed at a position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it's true position. This fact was interpreted as a detection of the future positions of stars [3,4].
Interestng huh? Elizabeth
tripping, stumbling
I'll share something with you Rocky. A personal observation on my part.
Regarding this story? There is no such thing as " accidentally stumbling into or onto information"
Others around the forum will agree with me I am sure. There is some wierd shit happening here. Real spooky stuff at a distance! grinder
Regarding this story? There is no such thing as " accidentally stumbling into or onto information"
Others around the forum will agree with me I am sure. There is some wierd shit happening here. Real spooky stuff at a distance! grinder
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
how fast?
I have seen this before of course and we may have already talked about this but this is one of the things that stands out as a "marker" of common thought between Kozyrevs work and Townsend Browns. This statement from
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/doc17.html
this particularly:
From the mid-50s to the late 70s, N.A.Kozyrev (with V.V.Nasonov) conducted astronomical observations using a receiving system of a new type. When the telescope was directed at a certain star, the detector (designed by N.A.Kozyrev and V. V.Nasonov) positioned within the telescope registered the incoming signal even if the main mirror of the telescope was shielded by metal screens. This fact indicated that electromagnetic waves (light) had some component that could not be shielded by metal screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible position but at the true position of a star, the detector then registered an incoming signal that was much stronger. The detection of the true positions of different stars could be interpreted only as detection of star radiation that had velocities billions of times greater than the speed of light. N.A.Kozyrev also found that the detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed at a position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it's true position. This fact was interpreted as a detection of the future positions of stars [3,4].
"HAD SOME COMPONENT THAT COULD NOT BE SHIELDED"
"THE DETECTOR THEN REGISTERED AN INCOMING SIGNAL THAT WAS MUCH STRONGER" ..........................".COULD BE INTERPRETED ONLY AS DETECTION OF STAR RADIATION THAT HAD VELOCITIES BILLIONS OF TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,"
" star radiation?" Townsend Brown called his mystery radiation " sidereal radiation" ...... and he said it was instantaneous through the universe.
A velocity of BILLIONS of times GREATER than the SPEED of LIGHT? I would be willing to accept that particular speed could be considered " instantaneous" wouldn't you?
and grinder, regarding spooky stuff at a distance, look further down the line in that same article. Thought maybe you and kevin might like this.
"Thus each substance possess its own characteristic torsion field. Each physical object in living or non-living nature possesses its own characteristic torsion field. The torsion fields of any object can be detected by various methods [1-4,8,9]. Torsion fields can be observed visually by the Kirlian method [17]. (It should be noted that the torsion fields of various objects also can be visually observed by "psychics". This is usually interpreted as "aura" observation . "
That particular paragraph is a packed one with more than one important observation.
Lindab, what were you saying about "signatures?" <g>
and strangely (?) one of the index entries for this article is this
Brown T.T., US pat.# 300311, 15 nov.1928; US pat.# 3167206, 01 june 1965. Elizabeth
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/doc17.html
this particularly:
From the mid-50s to the late 70s, N.A.Kozyrev (with V.V.Nasonov) conducted astronomical observations using a receiving system of a new type. When the telescope was directed at a certain star, the detector (designed by N.A.Kozyrev and V. V.Nasonov) positioned within the telescope registered the incoming signal even if the main mirror of the telescope was shielded by metal screens. This fact indicated that electromagnetic waves (light) had some component that could not be shielded by metal screens. When the telescope was directed not at the visible position but at the true position of a star, the detector then registered an incoming signal that was much stronger. The detection of the true positions of different stars could be interpreted only as detection of star radiation that had velocities billions of times greater than the speed of light. N.A.Kozyrev also found that the detector registered an incoming signal when the telescope was directed at a position symmetrical to the visible position of a star relative to it's true position. This fact was interpreted as a detection of the future positions of stars [3,4].
"HAD SOME COMPONENT THAT COULD NOT BE SHIELDED"
"THE DETECTOR THEN REGISTERED AN INCOMING SIGNAL THAT WAS MUCH STRONGER" ..........................".COULD BE INTERPRETED ONLY AS DETECTION OF STAR RADIATION THAT HAD VELOCITIES BILLIONS OF TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,"
" star radiation?" Townsend Brown called his mystery radiation " sidereal radiation" ...... and he said it was instantaneous through the universe.
A velocity of BILLIONS of times GREATER than the SPEED of LIGHT? I would be willing to accept that particular speed could be considered " instantaneous" wouldn't you?
and grinder, regarding spooky stuff at a distance, look further down the line in that same article. Thought maybe you and kevin might like this.
"Thus each substance possess its own characteristic torsion field. Each physical object in living or non-living nature possesses its own characteristic torsion field. The torsion fields of any object can be detected by various methods [1-4,8,9]. Torsion fields can be observed visually by the Kirlian method [17]. (It should be noted that the torsion fields of various objects also can be visually observed by "psychics". This is usually interpreted as "aura" observation . "
That particular paragraph is a packed one with more than one important observation.
Lindab, what were you saying about "signatures?" <g>
and strangely (?) one of the index entries for this article is this
Brown T.T., US pat.# 300311, 15 nov.1928; US pat.# 3167206, 01 june 1965. Elizabeth
To find out WHY my rods move and align so precisely as they do, I was led initially into the past world of megaliths.
This world is opening up fast, and revealing the past world was a much bigger world , and far more intelligent than we have been led to believe.
There are countless celestial observertories.
Google earth will reveal more and more, and as the ability to align of these increases the phrase " as above , so below " will become even more relevant.
IMO, each star will send and recieve transfers between other stars , these will increase and decrease dependant upon position and alignment.
The alignment will not be directly in lines , but upon circulations around a point of least resistance at the centre of universe.
These transfers will be of positive and negative flows.
As these transfers vary, so will the relative density of space that they flow into.
This will result in variations in the life support capabilities of the region of space .
We appear to be entering into a region of high density, thus all will alter, but, along with these alterations will come vast alterations in the pressure of incoming space flows around the planet.
I consider this will lead to perhaps continents lowering, and others raising.
I have always KNOWN that what affected me and sort of set me off on this quest was in no time, and if we are pushed from afar, we will move at the same moment.
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarious, but its not water that will be pouring into us, but space, it will create more water, and raise the frequencies.
I seem to be forming a picture in my head of universe, I dont really need to know the finer maths or anything, just understand how its operating, the rest is simple, so silly simple, it needs someone in relative terms a bit simple to see it.
Its just electrical, everything is.
As it fluxs , creation occurs everywhere, the electrical alterations because of different frequencies allow the transfers in various methods.
Once you achieve the ability to modulate the frequencies of a planet, you can take the planet where you want, where the transfer rates are favourable.
If you create a little planet ( craft) space is travelling without time in every direction at once, so all you need do is alter your craft frequency to be attracted or repulsed by which ever star, and space will flow along that alignment, the craft wont move, space is moving along alignments and with differeing frequencies.
The megaliths were to see the alignments, and then to keep the balance of the space flows correct to sustain life.
Too much positive or negative will have been when the earth was scorched and its surface dissolved , they KNEW this and so created countless henges with the relevant earthing points , all insulated to ensure any excess was evenly distributed, and sent out of the planet, they will have left with these transfers as and when they desired.
Whoever they were or are?, we are, to some degree.
The GODS, of time and universe.
Kevin.IN MY OPINION, BUT?
This world is opening up fast, and revealing the past world was a much bigger world , and far more intelligent than we have been led to believe.
There are countless celestial observertories.
Google earth will reveal more and more, and as the ability to align of these increases the phrase " as above , so below " will become even more relevant.
IMO, each star will send and recieve transfers between other stars , these will increase and decrease dependant upon position and alignment.
The alignment will not be directly in lines , but upon circulations around a point of least resistance at the centre of universe.
These transfers will be of positive and negative flows.
As these transfers vary, so will the relative density of space that they flow into.
This will result in variations in the life support capabilities of the region of space .
We appear to be entering into a region of high density, thus all will alter, but, along with these alterations will come vast alterations in the pressure of incoming space flows around the planet.
I consider this will lead to perhaps continents lowering, and others raising.
I have always KNOWN that what affected me and sort of set me off on this quest was in no time, and if we are pushed from afar, we will move at the same moment.
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarious, but its not water that will be pouring into us, but space, it will create more water, and raise the frequencies.
I seem to be forming a picture in my head of universe, I dont really need to know the finer maths or anything, just understand how its operating, the rest is simple, so silly simple, it needs someone in relative terms a bit simple to see it.
Its just electrical, everything is.
As it fluxs , creation occurs everywhere, the electrical alterations because of different frequencies allow the transfers in various methods.
Once you achieve the ability to modulate the frequencies of a planet, you can take the planet where you want, where the transfer rates are favourable.
If you create a little planet ( craft) space is travelling without time in every direction at once, so all you need do is alter your craft frequency to be attracted or repulsed by which ever star, and space will flow along that alignment, the craft wont move, space is moving along alignments and with differeing frequencies.
The megaliths were to see the alignments, and then to keep the balance of the space flows correct to sustain life.
Too much positive or negative will have been when the earth was scorched and its surface dissolved , they KNEW this and so created countless henges with the relevant earthing points , all insulated to ensure any excess was evenly distributed, and sent out of the planet, they will have left with these transfers as and when they desired.
Whoever they were or are?, we are, to some degree.
The GODS, of time and universe.
Kevin.IN MY OPINION, BUT?
fibonacci is king
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
reaching for
So kevin,
So what you are reaching for here .... ( not to worry about "proving yourself to anyone ... all others if this seems a "silly simple situation" then I encourage you to go to another more complicated subject here, with all my good wishes. kevin and I are going to linger here)
So you see possibly some sort of "grid? Of ancient stuctures which may act as some sort of " diffusing lighting rods? for this concentration of .... whatever this energy actually is ..... to dispute it more evenly across the surface of the earth? That might explain the interest in where all of these ancient places are and was it you Radomir or Mikado or Rocky who wondered what a "grid " like that might look like.
When I was little I was struck by the wonder of such things as the pryamids. How enormous they were, how grand! Someone told me that it was a monument and suddenly I wondered just WHY man that ancient would have this NEED to make a monument that grand. Perhaps there might have been an overlaying agenda at work. Yet we accept the first explanation without being enough of the child scientist which would insist ... BUT WHY. Why did early man insist on taking one stone and putting it next to another. Why be driven to do that? Why insist on building something that was massive and reached for the sky? All over the world close to the same design all going skyward, without interaction. or knowledge one to the other. The urge seemed to be the same. Why is that? The simple explanations just don't really bring understanding when you see some of the other questions.
I liked your "silly simple" phrase, by the way and intend to keep it nearby. Elizabeth
So what you are reaching for here .... ( not to worry about "proving yourself to anyone ... all others if this seems a "silly simple situation" then I encourage you to go to another more complicated subject here, with all my good wishes. kevin and I are going to linger here)
So you see possibly some sort of "grid? Of ancient stuctures which may act as some sort of " diffusing lighting rods? for this concentration of .... whatever this energy actually is ..... to dispute it more evenly across the surface of the earth? That might explain the interest in where all of these ancient places are and was it you Radomir or Mikado or Rocky who wondered what a "grid " like that might look like.
When I was little I was struck by the wonder of such things as the pryamids. How enormous they were, how grand! Someone told me that it was a monument and suddenly I wondered just WHY man that ancient would have this NEED to make a monument that grand. Perhaps there might have been an overlaying agenda at work. Yet we accept the first explanation without being enough of the child scientist which would insist ... BUT WHY. Why did early man insist on taking one stone and putting it next to another. Why be driven to do that? Why insist on building something that was massive and reached for the sky? All over the world close to the same design all going skyward, without interaction. or knowledge one to the other. The urge seemed to be the same. Why is that? The simple explanations just don't really bring understanding when you see some of the other questions.
I liked your "silly simple" phrase, by the way and intend to keep it nearby. Elizabeth
Re: how fast?
Elizabeth, this should be " 3,187,206 " for Electrokinetic ApparatusElizabeth Helen Drake wrote:
and strangely (?) one of the index entries for this article is this
Brown T.T., US pat.# 300311, 15 nov.1928; US pat.# 3167206, 01 june 1965. Elizabeth
Just in case someone wanted to look it up.
Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
anybody
Anybody have any idea why iit was misquoted in this article? or what the original number might refer to? Is this just another silly cosmic ha ha?
Thanks Mikado, but I would want to be sure thats the patent they were actually referring to here is the one that you mentioned, before assuiming so. ( You are probably right ... but there is a long way here and many opportunities for screw up. Which may or may not be intentional")
Anybody even know if there IS the number referred to in the index? And if there IS, what does THAT refer to?
You will note that the writer mentions too that everyone trying to describe this effect has called it something different. Townsend Brown, of course, chose to coin the word " Electrogravitics" and as far as I know that word came first in his writings, to be picked up and used over and over by others. I have wondered many times if people who consistantly use the term (Tom Valone, hello) realized that. Elizabeth
Thanks Mikado, but I would want to be sure thats the patent they were actually referring to here is the one that you mentioned, before assuiming so. ( You are probably right ... but there is a long way here and many opportunities for screw up. Which may or may not be intentional")
Anybody even know if there IS the number referred to in the index? And if there IS, what does THAT refer to?
You will note that the writer mentions too that everyone trying to describe this effect has called it something different. Townsend Brown, of course, chose to coin the word " Electrogravitics" and as far as I know that word came first in his writings, to be picked up and used over and over by others. I have wondered many times if people who consistantly use the term (Tom Valone, hello) realized that. Elizabeth
Re: anybody
Patent number 3,167,206 is for a Secondary Seal for Floating tank roof, issued to WR Nelson on June 26, 1965.Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:Anybody have any idea why iit was misquoted in this article? or what the original number might refer to? Is this just another silly cosmic ha ha?
It had to be a mistype.
Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
-
Elizabeth Helen Drake
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
and Mr. Valone
And Mr. Valone, while your name lingers on the tips of my fingers. I wondered how much you remembered about a conference that was held in the Philadelphia area on the main topic of the work of Townsend Brown. Remember that? I understand that quite a few of those speakers have gone on to some situations of prominence in this field. During that conference you ( I understand) Patrick Bailey and a fellow by the name of Josh Reynolds wanted to form some sort of committee to look into the "notebooks of Townsend Brown" to investigate them and help bring them to the light of day. I wondered how that effort faired?
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE7.html
The conference program advertised the following topics: "A Review of Advanced Energy Devices: Evidence, Promises, and Dangers" by Patrick Bailey (VP INE); "Thomas Townsend Brown's Electro-Gravities Research in the 1950's" by Tom Valone (Integrity Institute); "The Role of Electro-Statics" by Charles Yost (Electric Spacecraft Journal); "Thomas Townsend Brown's Research: A Challenge to Modern Science" by Elizabeth Rauscher (Tecnic Research Laboratories); "Electro-Gravitic Theory: Explaining the Operating Principle of Brown's Electric Disks" by Paul LaViolette (The Starburst Foundation); "A Panel Discussion on Biofield-Brown and Beyond;" "Vortices in the Zero Point Energy" by Moray King; "Design of a Compact Marx Generator Triggered by a Blumlein Capacitor" by George Hathaway; "Thomas Townsend Brown's Final Gravito-Electric Research" by Josh Reynolds (New Wave Partners); "Townsend Brown Effects Reviewed" by Ron Kovac; "Pushing the Boundaries: Electro-Hydro Dynamic Potentials ..." by Henry Monteith, and "Gravity Drop Tests" by Don Kelly (SEA).
and this is the part I found most interesting (again)
Looking back at the conference, most of the lectures were concerned with summarizing the known information from Brown's patents and well documented experiments. Very little information was given regarding his private experiments and the vast amount of theoretical ideas and experimental data that he probably has documented in his research notebooks. It was repeatedly suggested that a responsible committee or networking group needs to be setup to be able to go over all of the details in Brown's existing documents to distill what important information may be there. Josh Reynolds, Tom Valone, and myself volunteered to chair this committee and get this investigation going. Since Brown's experiments with disks appeared to be able to defy gravity (somewhat like John Searl's disks), there was some discussion at the conference regarding flying saucers, UFOs, the Philadelphia Experiment, and the Montak Project. While these areas were held as fringe areas at this conference, they could have information that may relate back to Brown's discoveries. In my summary during the panel discussion, I presented my views that: (1) We do not know what T. T. Brown really did, and we need to organize and distribute his patents and materials to a committee (or a company) to find out; (2) Individuals will not be allowed to accomplish much within U.S. - instead we need teamwork, networking, corporations, and an international corporation to distribute results; (3) Commercial applications of any advanced technology were not possible 3 years ago, and should easily be possible now;........................." well, maybe not. Note the date of the conference.
And the other guestion for Paul maybe. The "Josh Reynolds" that is mentioned at this conference ( NEW WAVE PARTNERS) Could be one of two people I figure. The Josh Reynolds who spoke to you not too long ago about his experiences with Dr. Brown OR Josh Reynolds lll, the fellow who died a few months after the conference and whose ties with Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and A. Puharich were unusually strong? A strange world here folks. Elizabeth
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE7.html
The conference program advertised the following topics: "A Review of Advanced Energy Devices: Evidence, Promises, and Dangers" by Patrick Bailey (VP INE); "Thomas Townsend Brown's Electro-Gravities Research in the 1950's" by Tom Valone (Integrity Institute); "The Role of Electro-Statics" by Charles Yost (Electric Spacecraft Journal); "Thomas Townsend Brown's Research: A Challenge to Modern Science" by Elizabeth Rauscher (Tecnic Research Laboratories); "Electro-Gravitic Theory: Explaining the Operating Principle of Brown's Electric Disks" by Paul LaViolette (The Starburst Foundation); "A Panel Discussion on Biofield-Brown and Beyond;" "Vortices in the Zero Point Energy" by Moray King; "Design of a Compact Marx Generator Triggered by a Blumlein Capacitor" by George Hathaway; "Thomas Townsend Brown's Final Gravito-Electric Research" by Josh Reynolds (New Wave Partners); "Townsend Brown Effects Reviewed" by Ron Kovac; "Pushing the Boundaries: Electro-Hydro Dynamic Potentials ..." by Henry Monteith, and "Gravity Drop Tests" by Don Kelly (SEA).
and this is the part I found most interesting (again)
Looking back at the conference, most of the lectures were concerned with summarizing the known information from Brown's patents and well documented experiments. Very little information was given regarding his private experiments and the vast amount of theoretical ideas and experimental data that he probably has documented in his research notebooks. It was repeatedly suggested that a responsible committee or networking group needs to be setup to be able to go over all of the details in Brown's existing documents to distill what important information may be there. Josh Reynolds, Tom Valone, and myself volunteered to chair this committee and get this investigation going. Since Brown's experiments with disks appeared to be able to defy gravity (somewhat like John Searl's disks), there was some discussion at the conference regarding flying saucers, UFOs, the Philadelphia Experiment, and the Montak Project. While these areas were held as fringe areas at this conference, they could have information that may relate back to Brown's discoveries. In my summary during the panel discussion, I presented my views that: (1) We do not know what T. T. Brown really did, and we need to organize and distribute his patents and materials to a committee (or a company) to find out; (2) Individuals will not be allowed to accomplish much within U.S. - instead we need teamwork, networking, corporations, and an international corporation to distribute results; (3) Commercial applications of any advanced technology were not possible 3 years ago, and should easily be possible now;........................." well, maybe not. Note the date of the conference.
And the other guestion for Paul maybe. The "Josh Reynolds" that is mentioned at this conference ( NEW WAVE PARTNERS) Could be one of two people I figure. The Josh Reynolds who spoke to you not too long ago about his experiences with Dr. Brown OR Josh Reynolds lll, the fellow who died a few months after the conference and whose ties with Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and A. Puharich were unusually strong? A strange world here folks. Elizabeth
I get the impression
That you Elizabeth are after something. I wish I could see what it is.
I remember your post about the " two Joshs" and how upset you seemed to be. I don't know why your interest in this area fascinates me as much as it does.
Ever notice the way big cats hunt? One of them hunkers down and stares and even though the others don't know what the first cat has seen, the immediate response is to hunker down and look in the same direction. Thats what I am feeling right now. So, what are we looking at here? Can I get in on this hunt? huh, huh?
And boy Mikado, you are sure right on top of information. Kudos. grinder
I remember your post about the " two Joshs" and how upset you seemed to be. I don't know why your interest in this area fascinates me as much as it does.
Ever notice the way big cats hunt? One of them hunkers down and stares and even though the others don't know what the first cat has seen, the immediate response is to hunker down and look in the same direction. Thats what I am feeling right now. So, what are we looking at here? Can I get in on this hunt? huh, huh?
And boy Mikado, you are sure right on top of information. Kudos. grinder