Hidden but why

[natecull]

Oh, brrr. I remember reading that Louis Slotkin "tickling the dragon's tail" incident in a book about nuclear weapons in the 1980s. Gave me nightmares for years. If you see the blue flash you're already dead...

The late 1940s must have been a weird time for anyone who understood what was going on. Would have been hard to put an upper bound on just how strange things could get. Here was all this bare-knuckle Big Science going on with forces not very well understood, paranoia and tension all around, Atomic Secrecy pretty much overturning the Constitution but not actually acknowledged as such, the War Department rebadged as the shiny new Department of Defense and kicking off a state of permanent undeclared war... I can understand why George Orwell got pessimistic.

I have no problem imagining the DoD/AEC/DoE *hiding* huge new secrets in the middle of all their quite scary enough secrets. At least, if I were to write science fiction, that's definitely where I'd hide the weird stuff (see Charlie Stross's brilliant "A Colder War": http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm It helps if you know a little of H P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos.)

What I have difficulty with, is imagining those sort of people with a toy more powerful than nukes *and then not brandishing it from the hip*. As Dr Strangelove would say, "What's the point of a doomsday machine if you keep it a secret?"

So I have to assume that if there were any beyond-deep-black toys produced during the Cold War with absolutely no word of even the *basic theoretical principles* of their existence or capability leaked, then either

a) they weren't of the sort that could be fashioned by us into any kind of weapon that had any kind of useful deterrent effect. They weren't Weapons of Mass Destruction, in other words, or have any possible WMD-like side effects. Either we couldn't advertise publically 'don't mess with us or you get melted' or the effects were so, so, so scary bad as to make it politically unwise. And this is in an era where burning millions of people alive with radiation and potentially killing the *entire planet* was considered 'acceptable losses'.

b) they weren't of the sort that could win a war or political confrontation outright, even if you pushed really hard. Unless either both sides had them (and the USSR didn't lose control of theirs after 1991) or there was some really nasty side-effect of using them (and see a) above).

b) they might be the sort like cryptography or satellite optics that might give you a tactical advantage in espionage but ONLY if even their mere existence was utterly unknown (and if so, they're a 1940s secret that's way outlasted nuclear fission and fusion, public-key encryption, quantum encryption, radar stealth, lasers, television, solid-state electronics, rocketry to the moon and back, the Global Positioning System, the entire computer and software industry, genetics, and other wacky science projects which we at least know *about*, at least theoretically, even if we don't always know their full operational parameters)

c) otherwise they were not under the direct control of anyone with strategic decision-making power in the US, NATO or USSR militaries (and not even under the control of any third party who could be easily taken out by one or more of those superpower military machines - and is there anywhere on the planet from 1945 to 2008 that *couldn't* have been taken out by a serious superpower invasion, if they suspected the existence of WMDs?)

I'd love to believe that there's cool technology hiding in a warehouse in New Mexico next to the Ark of the Covenant that somehow misses this logical minefield... but how?

The best I can do to make sense of, is to think that whatever as yet publically unknown 'technology' existed during the entire Cold War was (and remains) NOT in a usable-by-us nuts-and-bolts hardware form. Or, either the technology was so scary-devil-bad as to be absolutely unthinkable, or the technology was so utterly benign (and utterly useless in any form on a battlefield) that it couldn't be used.

Palliative pain relief using Strontium-89? Classified, sure, but that's not going to help win a war, it's purely civilian and long-term, and affects a very small number of people so with a negligible economic impact, so I can see that easily falling under the DOE Born Secret blacklist.

But time machines, instantaneous teleportation, gravity control, infinite scalar space energy, any kind of instant rapid healing - those all seem like the sort of Lord of the Rings level Artifacts that you'd build an entire *war* around getting (or denying to the other side). And WW2 was not known for its hands off approach to technological development 'so as not to disrupt the existing economy'. Unless they came with some serious caveats that meant the technology was unpractical, any one of those in 1941 ought to let you build an infinitely powerful army and rule the planet instantly. No Cold War. No WW2, even, if you had it built that early.

So: if there's technology based on Townsend Brown principles that was deployed in the 1940s (as opposed to just theorised about and never successfully built) I can't see it falling into that category of device. It would have to be something very small and subtle, something that didn't appreciably change the balance of power, something that didn't make nuclear weapons obsolete - or something not fully predictable or controllable by us.

Or something not actually *owned* by us at all.

[Langley]

Oh, brrr. I remember reading that Louis Slotkin "tickling the dragon's tail" incident in a book about nuclear weapons in the 1980s. Gave me nightmares for years. If you see the blue flash you're already dead...

You express your thoughts very well Natecull, much better than me.

I can understand where you are coming from. And I did permit the thoughts "hey what's all this about ions?" "Ions are old news" "ions arent secret" to fog what I was reading when I got to certain points in the book. Or to be skeptical. BUT when I came across things that I thought I connect with via parallel sources, well, it turns out that I learnt stuff about the paralllel sources as direct result of the book, (eg Gunn & Abelson, Philedephia, nukes subs, enriched uranium etc). There's others. Conventional science doesnt credit the Befield Brown effect with much. Chasing the positive its called in the book. But when I go to the Defence Technical Information Centre, they are onto it.
When you look back at the nuclear research, they reported beta bending in its emission from aligned cesium ions. (Wu, cira 1950 something), What's the BB effect? movement of the negative toward the positive. Obvious really. So nature is assymetrical. When ever there is a natural drive toward symetry, aka neutrality, there is potential energy. What happens when an electron does meet a proton? One of the options is - they disappear in a burst of energy.

The revolving capacitor thingy - the gravitator - all them electrons on one side - its just Wu. I look for Sidereal radiation and lo, I find some tech some place where theres lots of rocks finding that this gieger mounting monitoring system records variations in background radiation according to sidereal time. That's impossible. The guy carefully went through the variables. There are radiation detectors running 24 hours a day all over the world and this isnt reported. Except by Brown. And on and on it went. A clincher for me was on searching Brown's activities on Navy pages, I find the place Brown first lobbed in the Navy was the lab on the Potomac where radio sounding was first noted, that just prior to his arrival the guy known as America's father of radar had just retired. And Brown's first role was radar, then you follow that through in the book and you look up Gunn, who was at the same place as Brown in the book. And yea, he's a rad man and if you look at his bio and look at his interests and you look at Browns - they are very very similar. I spent a bit of time doing this, not because it took so long, but because there are so many avenues which concur. The patents are on the books. Then sometime popped up with neutrinos in the threads, around the time we were looking at the Germans.

And it turns out, on looking up Wiki (yea I know, but its handy and not that bad) (just cause uni students arent allowed to cite doesnt mean its all crap) that neutrinos are very fluid things. The types and their transformations once inside the field of the nucleus is determined (my understanding) by the state of the field in that particular nucleus. The manifestations of the sub sub particles as they are rendered into the structure of the sub particles is determined by the state of the nuclear field of the individual atom. On their long journey through the cosmos they act as infinite range radiation. When they manifest inside the nucleus they result in masses.
Now thats not unique. Electrons express as either mass or energy depending on conditions eg semiconductors.

Now, the when the electron and proton meet, as I said, both might disappear in a burst of energy. Which is : Electron + Proton + Place + Time = Energy. In other words, the is energy emitted by space when an electron and a proton occupy it at the same time. How big is that space? Pretty small. Is it a zero point? After the fact. Is it zero point energy? No. Its the wrong way round. Its basic atomic theory. What comes in the other way?

(Another option is the break up the sub particles into their component sub sub particles. And you get some neutrinos back. )

The neutrino does, and manifests according to its types and the state of the local field ie the state of the particular nucleus.

In what circumstance do free - ie neutrinos not captured and transformed by nuclei - exhibit the ability to undergo annhilation reactions among themselves?

In a high speed plasma field perhaps. Such a field induces neutrino transformations, I read somewhere in my hunt. But there might be others. Such as in the Gunn diode (yea, same guy) (funny that) and in perhaps, within the high potential fields of the capacitor plates found in Browns Gravitator. To the passing neutrino, they might seem congenial places in which to transform into electrons, boosting the BB effect.

Look, Im just smuck on the upside down side of the world. I cant possibly be right. I dont know enough. If I am right, well Im about to be abducted by aliens from the DOE with a cattle prod in their hands.......theres something out there. Look point at something thats not made of atoms. The AEC was pretty powerful.

I dont KNOW. I can try to make sense though. Apparently its illegal for me to tell you all this.
Does the Star Spangled Banner still wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?
I dont KNOW. But everyone's got their own answer to that one too. (Sounds a lot better than "God Bless our Gracious Queen" though.)

I have to say, I am leaving the Time Machine alone. I have trouble getting up at 7am. Let alone choosing which day of the week on which mount the attempt. (yesterday again?) Id rather have imagination than not though. If the gravitator works, well it tends to indicate a method of harnessing E = MC squared or M = E/c squared at low levels of mass/energy. Has anyone wieghed the gravitor plates as they rotate, charge, and discharge? If they ARE hiding stuff behind the bomb, it might be a high contrast hide - you might have to run around looking for a low energy device that works on an opposite principle. Maybe. Maybe you need fifty of them to run a VW. And maybe the geopolitics are not optimal for the official release. Yet. Imagine though if you could charge the atmosphere around an enemy position. And let loose an ion stream from yours. Zappo. The green flash weapon. No intrinsic big bangies though. The basic arrangement was in Lawrences lab in 1942. I wonder if they ever tried putting any of the rodents left over from Pecher's work bench into the uranium ion collection pocket? That'll make em pay their DU es. Ha, the wireless transmission of the radionuclides. Fluid Karma.

[JZimmer]

Hi Guys!

Thinking about the hidden "stuff". Maybe there is another set of reasons why some of this information is not being released.

1. Consider that in the 1940/1950 time frame our technology was still crude in many ways. Maybe we have discovered a super sciense as far back as then, but... maybe they could not control it safely and realized that using that technology was a greater danger than benefit until we progressed to a technological stage where we could safely control it.

2. This same concept applies to our social system as a entity as well. Because we could have used the tech even back then, were we ready to properly use it then? Look at the cold war as an examply. I firmly believe that we were on the threshold of destroying ourselves, even until a few years ago. Maybe some of this tech is so potentially distructive that it was thought (and rightly so) that we just were not ready for it.

Just some thoughts.

Jim

[Griffin]

JimZim et al.

This is something I'm touching on in my book project, which is proceeding slowly but surely. It's a somewhat complex matter, so I won't attempt to delve into it much here. But there's an old saying: "The secret protects itself." Also, some did know the dangers and took steps to avoid them where possible, IMO. Remember, too, that Teller still didn't know how it worked at a fairly late date. Also, that the Navy got what they wanted and the Group got what they wanted -- paraphrasing Twigsnapper (I hope to his satisfaction).

As ever,

Griffin

[natecull]

The revolving capacitor thingy - the gravitator - all them electrons on one side - its just Wu. I look for Sidereal radiation and lo, I find some tech some place where theres lots of rocks finding that this gieger mounting monitoring system records variations in background radiation according to sidereal time. That's impossible. The guy carefully went through the variables. There are radiation detectors running 24 hours a day all over the world and this isnt reported. Except by Brown.

Interesting. To me, I get a similar shock of recognition from reading about lunar dust fountains (apparently that's still cutting-edge NASA science today, but Brown wrote about it in his notebooks in the 1950s), and when I finally went and read the page about Kozyrev on DivineCosmos.com, I saw sidereal radiation and triboexcitation resurfacing there under different names. So I'm sure there's definitely 'something' there.

Townsend Brown definitely seems to have known far too many very serious people to not be on the right track with a lot of things. Though of course, being a hugely important defence scientist doesnt *assure* that he was right about all his speculations. Pretty much all major scientists in the 20th century seem to have been vocally wrong about something in their career. Is it possible his notebooks could be filled with workable ideas on one page, and unproven hypotheses on the next?

And Brown's first role was radar, then you follow that through in the book and you look up Gunn, who was at the same place as Brown in the book. And yea, he's a rad man and if you look at his bio and look at his interests and you look at Browns - they are very very similar.

That's very interesting, a name I haven't heard before. What kind of similar interests?

Now, the when the electron and proton meet, as I said, both might disappear in a burst of energy. Which is : Electron + Proton + Place + Time = Energy. In other words, the is energy emitted by space when an electron and a proton occupy it at the same time. How big is that space? Pretty small. Is it a zero point? After the fact. Is it zero point energy? No. Its the wrong way round. Its basic atomic theory. What comes in the other way?

Proton, or positron? Or are we talking about high-energy collisions?
[/quote]

Look, Im just smuck on the upside down side of the world. I cant possibly be right. I dont know enough. If I am right, well Im about to be abducted by aliens from the DOE with a cattle prod in their hands.......theres something out there. Look point at something thats not made of atoms. The AEC was pretty powerful.

I am quite certain that there are people, or entities, 'out there', but I'm not sure that they're made of atoms, at least not quite the same kind we're made of. And I think most of them are on our side, but not under our control. (My viewpoint here is a bit like Jacques Vallee, I guess. I suspect the critters that cause the 'abduction' experience are not strictly 'physical', but not totally 'unreal' either. One of the best writers I have read about that kind of experience is a lady called Palyne Gaenir: http://www.firedocs.com and http://www.bewilderness.com. She describes her experiences as definitely occuring within a dreamstate, but not a completely voluntary one. You could describe these things as being 'imaginary', 'psychological' or 'alien' and probably be true on all counts.)

But that seems like quite a different ball of wax than the sort of phenomena the AEC were interested in. Quite possibly overlapping, though, in the sense that a lot of not-entirely-physical 'UFO entities' seem to have opinions on nuclear science, a lot of psychics/mystics seem to have had interesting visions of alternative physics (people like Walter Russell, Otis Carr, and even Buckminster Fuller). And every now and then, some random crank somewhere claims to have been visited by aliens, or angels, or dreams, telling them to build weird devices... and some of them seem to have worked. So maybe they weren't so cranky after all. Which suggests that yes, there's a whole living universe out there waiting for us to uncover its *real* principles and gettin a bit impatient with our extended stop at the Relativity/QM plateau.

And the recurring thread both in the mystics and the spooks and the UFO aliens seems to be 'the real universe is directly affected by your thoughts, so think happy thoughts'. And that seems to be too trite and cloying for many people to cope with... and you sure can't weaponise something that you need to smile and be nice to make it work... but what if it's true?

I wonder if there are 'alien devices' which are sort of just mental artifacts 'from the next reality level up' (could be the same thing as 'from our future selves', or 'from God' or 'shown to me in a dream') which produce effects, maybe built by visionaries on the spur of the moment and then they can't remember how they did it, but we still haven't the foggiest how to operate them, and probably won't as long as we persist in pulling things apart rather than taking the whole universe as context, and isolating our mental state from our experiment. Both of which our current science is built on... though the smarter psi hackers like Dean Radin and Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff seem to be inching toward the kind of universe-view that would accept that sort of 'technology' as possible.

If such devices existed (thinking like stuff like the Methernitha generator), and some military labs had a few of them, I could seem them scratching their head over them for decades with little result. And yet knowing there's a secret there, so classifying them. Desperate to get some kind of insight about how they work, but afraid to relinquish control because the whole mission of the DARPA system was to get monopoly control over the Next Big Science Thing, and here's at least one and maybe more that they just can't crack... so a program of quiet planned leaks, perhaps? Try to subtly stir up interest without showing their hand? Hope some garage hacker solves it and then quietly buy them out? All the time knowing that Them Upstairs are watching and being a bit freaked out by that, because the other mission of the DoD is to have monopoly control over surveillance and airspace... and *knowing* that there's an upper level of reality with living beings in it, one above space and time, that you don't and can't control would really mess with that. It would not be a career-enhancing thing to believe in.

I dunno. Seems a bit too Roswell cliche. I don't buy into most of the crashed UFO occupant stories, I think the universe is a lot more subtle than that. But if you look at the literature, 'communication from upstairs' has been happening a *long* time (see Swedenborg, for instance) before WW2, and often with this weird scientific-mystical sort of crossover that we see here. Sometimes the results read like garbage, sometimes they make a surprising amount of sense.

But of course, the modern mind can't accept 'spirits', so the 'contact' story gets recast in terms of physical alien biological beings from space, or physical human time travellers from the future... but I don't think the evidence necessarily bears out either of those concepts in quite that form. I think contact exists and is quite common, we actually swim in it all the time, but is usually primarily mental. But physically materialised artifacts from 'upstairs' are *very* rare, and I'm fairly skeptical that it happens at all.

[Langley]

Interesting. To me, I get a similar shock of recognition from reading about lunar dust fountains (apparently that's still cutting-edge NASA science today, but Brown wrote about it in his notebooks in the 1950s), and when I finally went and read the page about Kozyrev on DivineCosmos.com, I saw sidereal radiation and triboexcitation resurfacing there under different names. So I'm sure there's definitely 'something' there. ...


That's very interesting, a name I haven't heard before. What kind of similar interests?

Now, the when the electron and proton meet, as I said, both might disappear in a burst of energy. Which is : Electron + Proton + Place + Time = Energy. In other words, the is energy emitted by space when an electron and a proton occupy it at the same time. How big is that space? Pretty small. Is it a zero point? After the fact. Is it zero point energy? No. Its the wrong way round. Its basic atomic theory. What comes in the other way?

Proton, or positron? Or are we talking about high-energy collisions?

[/quote]

Im was thinking of the annhilation reaction. Im rusty on the rudiments I learnt. But its basically a mass to energy transaction.

Ross Gunn

http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/rgunn.pdf.
From 1927 to 1947 Gunn was a research physicist on the
staff of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. In 1934 he was
appointed technical adviser for the entire laboratory. In
that role he interacted with important naval personnel. In
March 1939 he wrote a memorandum to Admiral H. G.
Bowen, chief of the Navy’s Bureau of Ships, outlining the
tremendous advantages that could be expected from the
use of atomic energy in submarine propulsion.
In the latter years of World War II Gunn was simulta-
neously superintendent of the Mechanics and Electricity
Division, superintendent of the Aircraft Electrical Division,
and technical director of the Army-Navy Precipitation Static
Project, as well as technical adviser to the naval administra-
tion. He also fostered development of the liquid thermal
diffusion method for separation of uranium isotopes. This
led to large-scale use of the process by the U.S. Army’s
Manhattan District at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
In February 1947 Gunn became director of the Weather
Bureau’s Physical Research Division, where for ten years he
conducted and supervised important research related to
severe weather phenomena. Until his death in 1966, he
remained active in research and consultation while a pro-
fessor of physics at American University.
And
"We had the hose turned on us!": Ross Gunn and the Naval Research ...
1939 and Ross Gunn, a research physicist and technical advisor at the Naval Re- ... SCOA, 364-365; Ross Gunn, “The early history of the atomic powered ...
caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/hsps.2003.33.2.217
Thats a must read to me anyhow. The real phillie experiment, and Groves nicked the uranium.
Barry Commoner was Navy, he came out of it and the first thing he did was get involved in the testing
of St Louis baby teeth for Radio Strontium. Lots of anti bomb people in the Navy then. Loops through to Oppie
and Pauling. And Shank and Brown. I ve tracked it to my satisfaction. Im not trying to convince anybody
but I'd say Paul's record is pretty tight. Not many books can you track the secondary figures and find them
as primary sources. Id never heard of Gunn before. Ive stuck all this up before as I read the book so this is brief.

Theres more on the net.
Point being the record holds up. There was some higher level coordination of personnel in the Navy which resulted in
Brown being assigned with Gunn. And through the rest of the book the theme of silent subs keeps popping up. etc. And planes and radio. etc. Brown might have left the program but he didnt leave the program. in my view.


I wasnt thinking of aliens, I meant the AEC took control of everything, as if
everything was in their domain, just cause its all made of atoms.
How dare they. Is what I meant.

I want to add this, from "They turned the hose on us!"

"Inside the Navy,
Gunn was alarmed at the nation’s disappearing coal and oil reserves. To him, the
Navy had an obvious interest in new forms of power given its position as one of
the world’s largest consumers of petroleum.3
NRL’s Mechanics and Electricity Division was responsible for investigating
new power sources and their application. During the early 1930s the division, headed
by Gunn, studied new power plants for submarine and torpedo propulsion. Among
those under consideration were the fuel cell, the hydrogen peroxide-alcohol steam
turbine, and diesel engines operated in a closed cycle. The central limitation in all
of these methods was the need for adequate oxygen for propulsion under water
and a means of regeneration when running on the surface. The possibility of nuclear
energy was very intriguing. According to Gunn, “t was recognized immediately
[after the discovery of fission] that perhaps here was an answer to the submarine
propulsion problem.” Nuclear power would simultaneously remove the oxygen
problem and provide the submarine with a long cruising range. Gunn’s division
had numerous discussions about the application of the nuclear energy to naval
problems but decided not to present a research program to the no-nonsense Navy
bureau chiefs until they had significant data to back it up.4
While scientists at NRL theorized about the use of nuclear energy, it was Enrico
Fermi’s meeting with Navy representatives in March 1939 that gave nuclear en-
ergy research its start at the laboratory. On March 16, George Pegram, dean of the
Graduate Physics Department at Columbia University, wrote Admiral Stanford C.
Hooper, director of the Technical Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, about the possibility of using uranium to create a nuclear weapon.
Although Pegram doubted that the project would succeed, he, Fermi, and Leo
Szilard thought that the potential should not be ignored. “[T]here is no man more
competent in this field of nuclear physics.” Pegram wrote two months after Niels
Bohr had discussed the discovery of fission with Fermi; his letter to Hooper was
the first attempt by scientists to get the United States government involved in nuclear
research.5"

Now, is this in context with the relevant chapter in Paul's book or what?

I get some stick for a lot of my posts, if people dont like em, dont read em.

[Griffin]

Langley-

You wrote:
Now, is this in context with the relevant chapter in Paul's book or what? I get some stick for a lot of my posts, if people dont like em, dont read em.

My comment:
Stick to it, mate, despite getting some stick. This is part of the pertinent historical background to Townsend Brown’s story -- the prevailing environment in which he had to function in developing a technology which can eventually lift us beyond reliance on atomic fission energy. But, after all these years, we still seem to be stuck there. In this election year, considerable attention is being paid in America to our crucial need for alternative energy sources to get beyond the control of Big Oil. But a primary part of the proposed energy policy of one of the presidential candidates is nuclear fission energy, in the form of numerous new nuclear power plants. A Yahoo! News – AP web item entitled "G-8 To Fight Oil Prices With Efficiency, Tech" by Joseph Coleman (retrieved 6-8-08) gives the G-8 perspective:

There were clear rifts, however, on how to approach the expansion of nuclear energy. The carefully worded joint statement called for assurances on safety and security of nuclear materials, but several nations said they were enthusiastic about building new reactors.
The International Energy Agency, in a report issued last week, estimated the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year from now until 2050 as part of an effort to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
"I think we're on the verge of a new nuclear age and that will be a positive thing for the world," said John Hutton, British secretary of state for business enterprise and regulatory reform.
Germany, however, said it would not join the effort. Jochen Homann, Germany's economics minister, said Berlin was sticking to its decision to phase out nuclear power.

Congratulations, Germany! Viktor Schauberger would be proud.

The poisonous nuclear radioactivity issue, which you have touched on in your various nuclear posts, is still with us and will possibly increase unless pigs and other unlikely things begin to fly, defying gravity. Our iconic aeronautical pigs, one of whom is among the Flow Forum’s unofficial mascots, were mentioned this month (June 6, 2008) in this quote from an article in the Los Angeles Times newspaper:

“pigs will fly before the cask[s] stay put…”

The casks in question are the containers of nuclear waste the Energy Department wants to transport and “cool down” before burial at the proposed Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada. In the event of a serious earthquake there -- which the government even expects, according to the article -- the casks and their lethally toxic contents could be at serious risk without seismic anchors or other restraints. This is how the government proposes to store them during the cool down periods, which can last for years in some cases. The “pigs will fly” quote was cited by the L.A. Times from a newsletter, of a major manufacturer of nuclear waste storage systems, which contained a “blistering critique” of this government project. The executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects stated: “It shows a lack of attention to safety.” An Energy Department spokesman, who said he had not seen this critique, had no immediate response.

It should be no surprise that an ET contingent, concerned about our welfare, would make not only the use of nuclear weapons but also nuclear fission power a primary issue. I think this is a bigger part of the TTB story than most folks realize yet. Fortunately, there are other ways -- as we’re seeing here on the Flow Forum.

Letters to elected representatives could be helpful. America is, after all, still a democracy.

As ever,

Griffin

[Langley]

Langley-

You wrote:
Now, is this in context with the relevant chapter in Paul's book or what? I get some stick for a lot of my posts, if people dont like em, dont read em.

My comment:
Stick to it, mate, despite getting some stick. This is part of the pertinent historical background to Townsend Brown’s story -- the prevailing environment in which he had to function in developing a technology which can eventually lift us beyond reliance on atomic fission energy. I think this is a bigger part of the TTB story than most folks realize yet. Fortunately, there are other ways -- as we’re seeing here on the Flow Forum.

Letters to elected representatives could be helpful. America is, after all, still a democracy.

As ever,

Griffin

I didnt say but should have, that I get lots of support here too. (hangs head)

"think this is a bigger part of the TTB story than most folks realize yet"
No argument from me on that one Griffin.

Does that Star Spangled Banner Still Fly over the Land of the Free?

Take a poll?

[natecull]

This is part of the pertinent historical background to Townsend Brown’s story -- the prevailing environment in which he had to function in developing a technology which can eventually lift us beyond reliance on atomic fission energy. I think this is a bigger part of the TTB story than most folks realize yet.

Indeed. Again, despite my skepticism, I keep seeing these strange 'in the background' connections. Maybe I'm just seeing patterns everywhere, but:

I just went Googling on Walter Russell, and I found this on the PES PowerPedia Wiki. I don't see any previous references on this forum in the Search page so:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Walter_Russell

Russell, Norad, Energy from the Vacuum

In the fall of 1959, General Chapman, Colonel Fry, Major Sargent, Major Cripe, and others from NORAD in Colorado Springs, attended a meeting at Swannanoa, Virginia (University Of Science And Philosophy) at the invitation of Walter Russell. At this meeting Russell explained the workings of a device he proposed to build to take advantage of the vacuum state energy, and the two directional movement of energy from gravitation, (generation), to radiation, (degeneration). During the following year Russell, his wife, Lao, and their assistants built the device. The prototype that was built consisted of two sets of dual and magnetically-sexed coils. On September 10, 1961, Walter and Lao Russell reported to their contacts at NORAD,that the coils had worked and that the President of the United States could announce to the world that a "greater, safer power than atomic energy" could be provided for industry and transportation. (KeelyNet/energy/fe_revw.asc)

* On September 10th, 1961, Walter and Lao reported to their contacts at NORAD that they had succeeded. They were convinced that they had found, and demonstrated, a new source of energy, and a conversion process for what is now known as the zero point energy.

* From "Space Energy / Vacuum Energy and the government", a rare Jeane Manning article translated from german into english using google-translate
o Russell also built equipment, which he called "Russell's Optical Direct Current Generator" which, as stated, caught space/vacuum energy. Toby Grotz found original plans of this equipment, in a cellar in Colorado. The owner of the cellar was a colleague of a general within the NORAD.
o Russell collaborated with scientists from NORAD and from the company Raytheon.
o Grotz said that NORAD was interested in the generator - because in addition to the device producing more energy than it required to run, one could also adapt its functioning to an extremely efficient new type of radar device.

I haven't followed all the links so I can't vouch for the sourcing of any of these allegations, but they seem very suggestive considering the time period and context. Is it worth following up any of these names?

'University of Science and Philsophy' is not a real university, it's just Russell's private organisation. But the others...

Who is Toby Grotz?

Who were General Chapman, Major Fry, Major Sargent, Major Cripe?
What was the Raytheon connection? Are there any documents of project names or personnel involved?
What was Townsend Brown doing in 1959-1961?

"two sets of dual and magnetically-sexed coils" sounds reminiscient of Tom Bearden's cadeuceus coils for "scalar waves"
"an extremely efficient new type of radar device" - hmmmmm

Bearing in mind that Russell, despite being a mystical artistic sort of fellow considered by most scientists to be a crank, was very closely involved with IBM (personal friend of Thomas Watson, and gave a series of 'THINK' speeches to IBM employees), so he'sonly a few links away from that defense establishment circle of that era. But I hadn't heard of him being involved directly with NORAD and Raytheon before.

Apologies if I'm mentioning things discussed before, but I didn't find much on the search function in regard to Russell.

Oh: and the other thing that jumped out at me. I just started reading Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics ( http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html ) and again I got strong resonances of Russell. For instance, as mentioned above, Russell has this weird thing about 'gravity' and 'radiation' being two mirror-opposite forces or processes. Which seems bizarre by mainstream science. But then Buckminster Fuller, in the opening chapter:

000.113 Gravity is the inwardly cohering force acting integratively on all systems. Radiation is the outwardly disintegrating force acting divisively upon all systems.

Coincidence? But Pretty. Darn. Interesting, to me.

[natecull]

Sorry to keep harping on about Walter Russell and Buckminster Fuller, but I keep stumbling over things that make me think those two were smoking something similar (and Fuller, like Russell, did in fact claim to have had a sort of cosmic enlightenment experience which sent him down this path):

Russell's 1939 'Space and the Hydrogen Age'
http://www.scene.org/~esa/search/frank. ... ussell.htm

Space is not empty -- nor is it an "ether." The space which surrounds every particle of matter in every wave field is the negative half of the wave field. The solid nucleus is the positive half. Both halves are equal in potential but vastly unequal in volume.

The greatest error of science is in relation to space. Science thinks of space either as a void or as an ether through which solids of matter travel. Sir Oliver Lodge tried to find a drag in this ether caused by the earth’s passage through it, but could not; therefore, he came to the conclusion that there was nothing there. The fact is that space travels with its solids, for each solid is surrounded by a minus zero equal-and-opposite vacuity of the plus zero which we call matter. Matter floats in these insulating spatial counterparts. Positive electricity is accountable for the solids and negative electricity is accountable for the space.

'Positive electricity' equalling mass? 'Negative electricity' equalling space? Sounds wacky (or is that an inspiration for Townsend Brown's 'dielectricity'?), but here's Buckminster Fuller on something very similar in Synergetics:

100.62 This moment in the evolutionary advance and psychological transformation of humanity has been held back by non-physically-demonstrable__ergo non- sensorial__conceptionless mathematical devices and by the resultant human incomprehensibility of the findings of science. There are two most prominent reasons for this incomprehensibility: The first is the non-physically demonstrable mathematical tools. The second is our preoccupation with the sense of static, fixed "space" as so much unoccupied geometry imposed by square, cubic, perpendicular, and parallel attempts at coordination, rather than regarding "space" as being merely systemic angle-and-frequency information that is presently non-tuned-in within the physical, sensorial range of tunability of the electromagnetic sensing equipment with which we personally have been organically endowed.

100.63 The somethingness here and the nothingness there of statically interarrayed "space" conceptioning is vacated as we realize that the infratunable is subvisible high- frequency eventing, which we speak of as matter, while the ultratunable is radiation, which we speak of as space. The tunable is special case, sensorially apprehensible episoding.

Again, weird language, lots of neologisms, but between the lines I'm sure he's saying the same thing. Matter is geometry or frequency or waveforms, which somehow *creates its own space* -- and 'infra' frequency is matter while 'ultra' frequency is space. There is no such thing as 'empty space' inhabited by 'matter', rather both are simply patterns in a substrate.

It's weird but it meshes. What were these two guys getting at? I've heard lots of people reference Buckminster Fuller, but hardly anyone except the KeeleyNet free-energy crowd namedrop Russell. I'd love to see a serious comparison.

[AM2]

DELETED

[AM2]

DELETED

[AM2]

DELETED

[natecull]

Sorry to keep harping on about Walter Russell and Buckminster Fuller, but I keep stumbling over things that make me think those two were smoking something similar (and Fuller, like Russell, did in fact claim to have had a sort of cosmic enlightenment experience which sent him down this path

This is the first time that I hear about this. I mean Walter Russell having a sort of cosmic enlightenment is fairly known, but Buckminster Fuller? Very interesting! Do you perhaps know where to find more details on Mr. Fuller's enlightenment? Where did you come accross this fascinating piece of information?
AM

You're welcome. I'd not heard it before either, or if I had I'd forgotten. I got it from this New Yorker article about a new exhibition of his work, which brought Fuller back into the news:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... t_kolbert/

Despite the general prosperity of the period, the company struggled and, in 1927, nearly bankrupt, it was bought out. At just about the same time, Anne gave birth to a daughter. With no job and a new baby to support, Fuller became depressed. One day, he was walking by Lake Michigan, thinking about, in his words, “Buckminster Fuller—life or death,” when he found himself suspended several feet above the ground, surrounded by sparkling light. Time seemed to stand still, and a voice spoke to him. “You do not have the right to eliminate yourself,” it said. “You do not belong to you. You belong to Universe.” (In Fuller’s idiosyncratic English, “universe”—capitalized—is never preceded by the definite article.) It was at this point, according to Fuller, that he decided to embark on his “lifelong experiment.” The experiment’s aim was nothing less than determining “what, if anything,” an individual could do “on behalf of all humanity.”

Edit: The timing between the two is also interesting to me. I could be a little off on the exact dates, but I think Russell has his enlightenment experience in 1921, and writes an incomprehensible, mostly rejected, treatise to scientists in 1926 called 'The Universal One' - http://www.dowsers.com/page2.html Fuller has his experience in 1927, and writes an incomprehensible, mostly rejected treatise to scientists in 1927 called '4D Time Lock' - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... t_kolbert/

Russell I believe later re-edits the core of 'The Universal One' into 1947's 'The Secret of Light' and tries again. Interesting year, that.

[Langley]

Sorry

Edit: The timing between the two is also interesting to me. I could be a little off on the exact dates, but I think Russell has his enlightenment experience in 1921, and writes an incomprehensible, mostly rejected, treatise to scientists in 1926 called 'The Universal One' - http://www.dowsers.com/page2.html Fuller has his experience in 1927, and writes an incomprehensible, mostly rejected treatise to scientists in 1927 called '4D Time Lock' - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 ... t_kolbert/

Russell I believe later re-edits the core of 'The Universal One' into 1947's 'The Secret of Light' and tries again. Interesting year, that.

Natecull and Am, Nice little nested set there. Platteville

One of the earliest ionospheric heating facilities was at Platteville, Colorado, capable of radiating about 100 MW ERP. Early experiments included HF heater induced air-glow, heater-induced spread F, wide band heater-induced absorption, and heater-created field-aligned ionization. The Platteville heater operated from 1968 - 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequ ... ch_Program

Once the high altitude nuke tests were under threat, Teller looked for an alternate.