Did "Morgan" ever "die" in a fiery car crash?

[natecull]

When Townsend replied to Gray Barker's queries, (or was it Ed Hull') he said he found Brush's work in the Pacific Aeronautical Library in Santa Monica. It is in one or the other of those letters, and both were once online somewhere.

Though Townsend would be in LA in 51/52, I have a feeling this event was sometime in the late forties.

Interesting! The "original" document of Mason Rose's The Flying Saucer in the Jess Fritch file collection is stamped with Pacific Aeronautical Library. (attached)

And yes the Ed Hull letter in the Gray Barker Collection mentions Brush several times. Attached also. I'm not sure though that Townsend says that *he* found Brush's work in the Pacific Aeronautical Library, but rather that someone found *him*.

I'll add a full text transcript of the letter because it's so important, but here's the relevant part for now:

I have felt for some time that you have been interested in continuing your study of this matter. Early this year, someone called to my attention a series of articles in Aviation Report. There was, I believe, a series of six articles appearing from August through November of 1954 which mention the study of electro-gravitics and touch briefly upon its potentialities. I felt, when I read these references, that you must have been behind it, inasmuch as it came from London and I knew no one else who could have had that information.

The publication in Aviation Report got results, for it was not long until a representative of a French aircraft company called me here in Washington. He had been sent by his company on a chase to obtain more information, and the man actually had travelled clear to California, not knowing any Washington address, had contacted several aircraft companies in California, and had finally gone to the library of the Pacific Aeronautical Institute at Santa Monica. There he uncovered an article on the subject, written by a friend of mine in California, subsequently contacted that person, and continued the search here in Washington.

You will be interested to know that the contact with the French aircraft company has continued and work is progressing in France at an ever-increasing rate. It would violate commercial secrecy to give the name of the company, or to say much about the program which is contemplated, but for your own information, and I am sure, deep satisfaction, the matter is being considered quite seriously in France, and actual work has begun. As a result of their invitation, I went to Paris last June and July to set up the project and start the ball rolling. If all continues as we hope it will, I will return next February to assist in the expansion of the project. I believe I can thank you for this contact, for it is clear that it came about through your mentioning this subject in Aviation Report.

The same report, incidentally, was read by Douglas, and undoubtedly by many other aircraft manufacturers in the United States. Martin, as you know, is starting a new project and I believe Lockheed will too. According to the grapevine, the studies in gravitation are already under way at both Northrop and North American. According to the New York Herald Tribune, Convair is now interested and so is Bell. Then, also, we must give credit to my old friend Bill Lear for continuing interest in the spreading of the good word.

This is a subject which the British should consider seriously too, and I am wondering if, in your contacts there, you have unearthed any special interest or activity in the British aeronautical industry.

So Townsend is here referring to Project Montgolfier, and "that person" who searched the Pacific Aeronautical Library must be none other than Jacques Cornillon. And the "friend of mine in California" must have been Mason Rose, and therefore the document that Cornilion found must have been that very same copy of "The Flying Saucer". As the editor of the Montgolfier report describes it:

Our interests were peaked by the appearance of a few foreign news articles which revealed the possibility of a new type of propulsion system. We contacted our U.S. technical representative Mr. J. Cornillon to inquire about this. The few fragmented documents we had found pointed to the existence of “Project Winterhaven,” which appeared to have the same importance as the ”Manhattan Project” had in the United States. The purpose of Project Winterhaven was to develop a flying vehicle using a new propulsion motor which was sometimes called Electrokinetic, and at other times called an Electrogravitic system. Mr. Cornillon started his document search from his location within the United States and subsequently communicated directly with Mr. T.T. Brown who seemed to be the original developer and whom was researching a new phenomena named the “Biefeld-Brown effect.” This phenomenon appeared to be at the very heart of "Project Winterhaven." The Phenomena is described as such: forces emanating from an electrically charged condenser are not “null” but the condenser itself has a tendency to move forwards on the positive end. After Mr. Cornillon’s first contact with Mr. Brown, it was determined that Mr. Brown was capable of performing an experiment which would demonstrate the reality of this phenomena, which prompted us to offer Mr. Brown an invitation to fly back to France to perform this experiment.

I'll get into the Brush references (they are many) after I transcribe them.

Nate

[Jan Lundquist]

Thank you, Nate. "That person" was most certainly Cornillion, by his account. And Mason Rose was a "pyschologist to the stars" (as I have been told by our family doctor who knew him then), who, like L. Ron Hubbard, bought his Ph.D from the Sequoia University diploma mill. He never wrote a technical, scientific document in his life. (But a couple of quirky facts about him emerged during my research: he owned an experimental seaplane, and was a modern cattle rustler, once arrested in AZ for stealing a truckload of beef headed for a Phoenix steakhouse)

I have always thought Townsend wrote it for him. I

I think the reference I remember, or perhaps, misremember, was in an enumerated series of answers to questions asked by Gray Barker.

Another curious fact, revealed in Townsend's letter to Hull,was the reference to a dinner party the two had attended with Sarbacher, before Hull departed for England.

Both of these letters were part of the Gray Barker package (re)uncovered in the Charleston W.VA. library by poster Pladuim. I don't believe that Hull "just happened" to write the Inter Alia article on antigravity. It was part of his assigment from one or both men.

I squint my eyes, when I read Townsend's replies, trying to read between the lines, knowing that he well knew that anything he put in print would be seen by other eyes, present and future, friend, and foe. What was true and meant to last? What was a feint?

I feel the same way about the whole elaborate story Cornillion told his employers, about how he spent 1995 trying to chase down Townsend Brown.
But I know from Linda that he was the Brown's landlord during their Embassy Laundry period (1993-94). So who was his elaborate charade meant to convince, and why?

Jan

[natecull]

I feel the same way about the whole elaborate story Cornillion told his employers, about how he spent 1995 trying to chase down Townsend Brown. But I know from Linda that he was the Brown's landlord during their Embassy Laundry period (1993-94). So who was his elaborate charade meant to convince, and why?

(1953, not 1993, right?) Ok, yes, that's very weird, isn't it?

Ok, checking the Hull letter again. The letter has "11-1955" handwritten on the top and refers to "Your letter of November 8th" and "the last issue of Life magazine, dated December 5th, 1955". Magazines however sometimes are released before their dated month. So let's say it's November 1955. "There was, I believe, a series of six articles appearing from August through November of 1954... The publication in Aviation Report got results, for it was not long until a representative of a French aircraft company called me here in Washington... the contact with the French aircraft company has continued and work is progressing in France at an ever-increasing rate... As a result of their invitation, I went to Paris last June and July to set up the project and start the ball rolling. If all continues as we hope it will, I will return next February to assist in the expansion of the project. I believe I can thank you for this contact, for it is clear that it came about through your mentioning this subject in Aviation Report."

Townsend says "last June and July", but in fact the Montgolfier report (I just checked it) states clearly multiple times that Townsend's first visit to Paris was June-July 1955. So Townsend presumably here means "June just passed" rather than "June last year".

Cornillon writes to his employers on 14 April 1955 (translated Montgolfier Report p107)

With respects to the second issue, after extensive research in the ‘Pacific Aeronautical Library’ I have found the enclosed photocopied document... The paper from the Pacific Aeronautical Library happened to include contact information for the author. I immediately scheduled a meeting with him to find out if these people were serious researchers or hoaxers... Rose suggested we meet the next day with someone who had a more intimate relationship with T. Brown. This resulted in our second meeting at Dr. Rose’s residence. There, Dr. Rose presented me to a prominent nuclear physicist named Dr. Shank... I responded that I would greatly appreciate meeting Brown to discuss this possibility. They don’t have his present contact address however they know that he was employed as a consulting engineer at Brash Electronics, and so they will make contact with him and pass along the request for him to call me... A bit later on I obtained Brown’s telephone number in Washington. Unfortunately I was unable to work due to a foot injury therefore I was unable to go to Washington until the 7th of April. There I met Brown for the first time... He told me that he had to be at the Franklin Institute on April 14th and he asked; -would there be a possibility for us to meet again in Philadelphia? I agreed to meet with him because I live near Philadelphia and perhaps we could continue this discussion at my house afterwards. Thus, I met Brown Yesterday in Philadelphia. This time around, I noticed a distinctive change in Brown’s character. Unlike our previous meetings Brown had become more reserved and enigmatic for various reasons, and he politely refused to come to my home afterwards because, -as he said, -he had an urgent meeting to attend to in Washington.

So yeah. Cornillon definitely claims to have met Townsend Brown for the very first time on April 7, 1955. If Linda's memory of Cornillon being their landlord for two years before this is correct, both Townsend and Cornillon must have been lying. That doesn't say good things about the honesty - and the trustworthy testimony - of either one of them. Either that, or Linda is misremembering or lying herself. There don't seem many more options.

Edit: Checking the timeline though, I see Linda makes TWO SEPARATE claims about Cornillon: One, that the Brown family spent time at Cornillon's cabin in "Spring 1955". That's consistent with Townsend first meeting him in April that year. The second claim is the problematic one: that Cornillon was Townsend and Josephine's landlord in Washington DC during 1954 (perhaps late 1953). However, Linda also says she was NOT living with Townsend and Josephine at Cornillon's house in 1954, but rather with Josephine's parents, the Beales. Then in November 1954 the family moved to Leesburg, Virginia, while Townsend continued working in DC.

I think the reference I remember, or perhaps, misremember, was in an enumerated series of answers to questions asked by Gray Barker.

I happen to have a copy of the Gray Barker documents, so as you've been mentioning missing them, I've just put them up on the Internet Archive (they might already be there, but better to be sure). Here's the link: https://archive.org/details/townsend-br ... rker-files

I've scanned all the docs and while there are a couple of letters from Barker himself to and from Townsend, the only one which is an enumerated series of answers and which mentions Brush is the Hull letter. Here's the mentions:

Section 6: Charles Francis Brush did not use dielectrics as such. His work did not include electrical phenomena. He was primarily interested in rates of free fall and in the non-equivalence of weight and mass. After the phenomenon of “retarded acceleration in free fall” seemed to be definitely established, Brush went on to discover the spontaneous generation of heat in complex silicates and other materials. His third significant achievement was the correlation of the retardation of gravitational acceleration and the spontaneous generation of heat. He reported a consistent, proportional relationship between the two phenomena.

I might add at this point that, during the last year, we have made a further study of this phenomenon in the light of electro-gravitic theory, and find it to be consistent, although somewhat different than we had first suspected. Perhaps it can be explained in this way: gravitation is related to electrodynamics in two ways; the dynamic and the static. In the dynamic relationship, which in the main, is that part of WINTERHAVEN where effects are obtained by charging or discharging capacitors or the like, and where electric current is involved; and the static phase, where a fixed condition exists, or the effect is “built in”, so to speak. In the static phase, the relationship is essentially between the gravitational field and the electrostatic field, and the energy relationships are fixed, or static. Phenomena of the latter class are those involving materials which are either lighter or heavier than they should be, if the effect did not exist. This is simply an extension of Brush’s concept of the non-equivalence of mass and weight. It may be said to be the non-equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.

It now appears that many materials are lighter than they should be, relative to the amount of interial [sic] mass which they possess. Aluminum and silicon, certain of the aluminum silicates, and barium aluminate appear to be examples. Recent study has indicated that many of the rare earth elements are of this nature, perhaps even more strongly than the materials with which Brush was familiar. It is believed that many of the rare earth elements such as erbium and ytterbium, and to some extent, even the metal tantalum displays the compound Brush Effect of being both lighter than they should be and of generating heat spontaneously.

We now have included in the WINTERHAVEN program a special research project for the study of the rare earth elements in regard to their anomalous gravitational characteristics, and this may actually turn out to be one of the more important aspects of the whole WINTERHAVEN Project. In brief, it would appear at this point that the rare earth metals and tantalum may prove to be the most important spacecraft materials, and form the basis for a whole new family of super-light materials of construction.

We are currently engaged in the examination of several methods of beneficiating these materials to enrich their content of the lighter gravitational isotopes. In section 6, you asked if we had any specific comment on this phenomenon of the bismuth and zinc bobs observed by Brush. The answer is yes, and it is simply this; that the effects observed by Brush provide the clue for the existence of gravitational isotopes as distinguished from mass isotopes. The heating effects observed by Brush are concomitant with the deficiency of gravitational mass, so that the amount of heat generated reveals the richness of the gravitational isotope in that particular element.

This is where Townsend's (and Brush's) science falls way, way off the modern map of the universe. Splitting apart inertial from gravitational mass requires invalidating General Relativity: this generally gets you laughed out of the Academy. But Townsend seems to be talking about real experiments.

This section also gives a succinct definition of what Townsend means by the distinction between "static" and "dynamic" (although he doesn't actually use the word "counterbary" in this document). Here Townsend is thinking particularly about electrostatics. The current work by Exodus Propulsion ( viewtopic.php?t=752 and previously viewtopic.php?p=22263#p22263) appears to be putting "anomalous center of mass shift" with electrostatic fields back on the table. But it's worth being reminded that Townsend was working both static and dynamic in 1955 - and, that his concept of "static" also involved the idea that some materials might have a static electrostatic field and/or electrogravitational field "built in".

OK, there aren't that many more Brush references. Here's the second section about him:

Section 10: To my knowledge, Dr. Brush was not aware of a diurnal variation in the thermal activity of barium aluminate. A longer term variation was clearly observed in Harrington’s work at the Bureau of Standards. Harrington used an ice calorimeter and made every effort to maintain conditions rigidly constant. He observed that the spontaneous generation of heat in any material did vary from day to day and, had he taken readings more often, probably would have observed an hour-to-hour variation. This, it seems to me, is very significant, for it does reveal a close relationship between the dynamic phase of electro-gravitic theory and the static phase. It may provide a very precise and convenient way of measuring all of these cycles referred to above, simply by utilizing a continous recording calorimeter and a material which is highly active thermo-gravitationally.

Harrington observed that the active materials in the calorimeter such as Sandusky clay, barium aluminate, etc., ranged around .002 of a degree warmer than the environment, and that the heat given off by any one sample did vary from day to day, increasing and decreasing. He actually gives a set of curves which shows the variations in heat observed by the various materials which he tested. As to the exact amount of the retardation of gravitational acceleration exhibited by the materials which gave off heat spontaneously, I don’t recall that Brush actually determined it. In this respect, his experiments were purely of a qualitative nature, although he did record that he had made enough tests of a prcise [sic] nature to be convinced himself that there was a close parallel relationship between the materials which fell more slowly, i.e., with less gravitational acceleration, and the materials which gave off heat spontaneously. He refers to this relationship again and again in his published reports.

The "Harrington" Townsend refers to is Elmer A Harrington, who published a report "Further Experiments on the Continuous Generation of Heat in Certain Silicates" dated April, 22 1933 in the "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society" published by University of Pennsylvania Press.

See: https://www.jstor.org/stable/984697

The Charles F Brush Sr papers at Case Western Reserve University are digitized and downloadable:

https://digital.case.edu/islandora/obje ... pcbru01105

That's just one section of correspondence; it's a bit incomplete, but contains some letters about his thermogravity experiments and just part of Elmer Harrington's 1933 paper. The top of the Brush file is here: https://digital.case.edu/islandora/object/ksl%3Abrush

Google has a copy of Harrington's full paper in the Proceedings, though the Proceedings isn't downloadable as a file.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=fFU ... ton&f=fals

I've now downloaded all of the paper's pages as PNGs and put them also on the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/townsend-br ... ngton-1933 Harrington's conclusion:

In conclusion, a positive heating effect was indicated for which there is no complete explanation. The fact that the indicated effect was observed both in the experiments of Dr. Brush and in those of the Bureau of Standards lessens the probability that it was due to experimental error. Therefore, while not excluding the contingency of experimental error common to the two methods accounting for the effect, the possibility remains that it may be due to some process as yet unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author desires to express his appreciation to all who aided in this investigation. The idea was original with Dr. Charles F. Brush, and he not only supported generously the work at the Bureau of Standards, but he also contributed much by his active interest and advice. Dr. Brush's heirs, Mr. Roger G. Perkins and Mrs. Dorothy Brush Dick, made it possible to continue the work. Mr. E. F. Mueller, under whose direction the experiments were performed, and Dr. M. S. Van Dusen made many valuable suggestions during the course of the investigation and in the interpretation of the results. Miss C. L. Torrey examined the materials for radioactivity and Dr. H. Insley made the petrographic analysis.

Edit: Charles F Brush's papers to the American Philosophical Society on gravity are available online, and most are downloadable: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSea ... %22&so=new

Harrison's paper was presented in Philadelphia in April 1933. Townsend was in the Navy at this point, a freshly minted Lieutenant (Junior Grade), just off the Caroline cruise, but about to lose his Navy job due to cutbacks in May. But what city was his "desk job" in? NRL Anacostia, we think, in DC? I suppose that's not too far away. Of course, he could have just read the Harrington paper later.

Edit: Duh, actually Charles Brush was a huge deal in the Ohio electrical world, and Townsend was from Ohio and in the electrical world, so he probably came across Brush much, much sooner than 1933. I think it would've been very hard to miss the guy - and his weird theories, which Brush had been proclaiming since 1911 (kinetic gravitation) and 1915 (spontaneous generation of heat).

Elmer Harrington apparently received his PhD, in chemistry, in 1915 at Clark University in Massachusetts (see: https://acshist.scs.illinois.edu/bullet ... p15-19.pdf ) Not much else seems to be known about him.

Incidentally - and this is probably a huge distraction - if one Googles "Harrington Bureau of Standards", one discovers a much more interesting east coast Harrington: a person named Roger F Harrington, born 1925 in Buffalo, New York, who was a young instructor during WW2 at the Navy Radio Materiel School in Dearborn, Michigan, then went to Syracuse University and got a PhD in 1952. He went on to do all sorts of very clever radio antenna design for military systems and is 98 now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_F._Harrington )

I would love it if Roger F Harrington turned out to be related to Elmer A Harrington. It would tie a whole bunch of Townsendian interests together. But sadly I don't have any data to justify that.

In conclusion, I wish to say: CLEVELAND ROCKS!!! (Are Observed To Exhibit Correlation of Continual Generation of Heat, and Impairment of their Gravitational Acceleration). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDkZnpOiS8

Regards, Nate

[natecull]

I have finished transcribing the Hull Letter, and added it as an attachment to the post a couple back.

I've also put it up on the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/townsend-hu ... transcript

One more note which has always bugged me about Townsend's Winterhaven-era off-the-map gravity theories. In the very same letter he first talks about invalidating the Equivalence Principle (not by that name, but in terms of different values for inertial vs gravitational mass). And also suggests that the "longitudinal waves" produced by his "electrogravitional communications system" would very likely travel faster than light, which, he is fully aware, "brings us face to face with an embarrassing situation with the limitations imposed by relativity." Then later, he references Václav Hlavatý as someone interested in electrogravity.

Section 16: The New York Herald-Tribune articles, the three of them, give a number of references to individuals and organizations currently interested in the electro-gravitic concept. One in particular, which I have know [sic] about for some time, and mentioned also in the Tribute articles
is Hlavaty, of Indiana University, a mathematician. There have been a number of articles about Hlavaty’s work in newspapers and the like, but I am unable, at the moment to give you any technical references, i.e., references to technical papers which he has written.

But Hlavatý (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Hlavat%C3%BD) was a colleague of Einstein, and worked with Einstein on the final version of his Unified Field Theory, which he published in 1957 as "Geometry of Einstein's Unified Field Theory" (up on the Archive: https://archive.org/details/geometryofeinste029248mbp ).

I've always struggled to reconcile Townsend's attitude towards Relativity. On the one hand, he liked ether theories and proposed faster-than-light waves and a room-temperature, measurable, electric-gravity connection - and on the other, seemed to have a personal connection to a noted relativist!

All I can figure is that, in 1955, the informal rules of the physics elite towards speculations about Relativity must have been much more relaxed than they are today.

Regards, Nate