Philadelphia Experiment

[Mark Culpepper]

I noticed as I wrote the last post .... another strange point .... When you write "Townsend Brown" .... on the net ... the mention of "The Philadelphia Experiment" is not far behind. And yet .... the official biographer .(the only one of true merit, my opinion) Paul Schatzkin... has studiously avoided even getting into a discussion of that area. Which makes me wonder ... Why the silence?

I have a feeling, because of the careful way that he has presented his material ... that he does not want to participate in wild eyed speculation ... which is generally what the book " The Philadelphia Experiment" was all about. So ... what is going on here, you think?

Nick Cook (in his The Hunt for Zero Point) says that he believes that the entire Philadelphia Experiment story was a fabricated situation ....to cover what was really happening. So now that the story has been out there for so long .... what do you guys all think? Was it a diversion? The author William Moore once admitted that he was a "disinformation agent" ... What the heck? Maybe he can explain what he meant by that?
Mark

[Paul S.]

Paul Schatzkin... has studiously avoided even getting into a discussion of that area. Which makes me wonder ... Why the silence?

I have a feeling, because of the careful way that he has presented his material ... that he does not want to participate in wild eyed speculation ... which is generally what the book " The Philadelphia Experiment" was all about. So ... what is going on here, you think?

Mark,

First, note that I have relocated your post from the "Extended Website Discussion" to a new topic heading I've just created for discussion related specifically to the book; I'm not 100% certain that this is where the topic belongs, but I think that with continued moderating of topics like this I can make the forums much more useful, so let's try this and see how it works.

And, second, yes, you have observed correctly that I have avoided any mention of the so-called "Philadelphia Experiment" (aka "TPX") around here, other than to observe that, yes, Brown's name has been associated with it in the past. You also correctly observe that so far, I have tried to confine my writing to what we really, truly know about Townsend Brown, not what is so often speculated about him.

I have a list in my head of what I consider "weasel words" like "perhaps..." and "maybe..." and "it seems..." and "could it be that...." -- which are the kinds of expressions that preceed other writers' forays into what they really don't know.

Like I said, I really want to write about what we do know, so every time I see one of those weasel words show up in my writing, I reach for the "delete" key and start over.

I imagine that at some point I will have to address the subject of "TPX," but, hopefully (which, by the way, is another weasel word...) by the time I get there, I'll be able to address just why Townsend Brown's name has come to be associated with that ghost story, rather than rehashing the particulars of what did or did not happen on a ship called the U.S.S. Eldridge sometime during World War II.

Actually, you'll be surprised how the name "Eldridge" enters the story... but.... heheheh... that's all I'm going to say now!

--PS

[Victoria Steele]

I love it Paul! That last chapter was great! but the romantic in me is yelling ... but the lovers are GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION1

I agree with your mention of "weasel words". I trust in you to hit the delete button ... when you can ... when you see those words in your own work. I understand that you are at least TRYING to get to the truth and I appreciate that. But how far are you going to be able to go without having to use some of those words? ....like ...."It seems likely" ...Every indication, to me, shows that the man was involved in some very secret stuff. To me, its OBVIOUS .... thats not a weasel word but it is my own conclusion. And I guess each reader has to get there on his/her own.

I have in the past gotten really peeved at other writers (Moore and Vassilatos particularly) beating me over the head with their weasle word backed conclusions ...and then not backing themselves up. In fact that was one of the first things I did when I entered this discussion, challenge Vassilatos on the validity of his statements ... and even of HIMSELF .... but where is his response? Where is he? I am still waiting on that one .... and how about Bill Moore? The self admitted disinformation guru ... Where is HE? Victoria

[Gabriel]

I am new to this site but what an interesting place. Brown was a busy fellow. As far as the Pa Experiment goes I actually finished reading this book by William Moore last week. There is a nice chapter devoted to Brown but my impression upon reading it is that there are alot more questions that don't make sense. I got the impression that this might be a smoke screen for whatever reason to disassociate anything with Brown and his work. Some of the sources seem almost too unbelievable. Moore even says that Brown may have had not much to do with it. More questions than answers. Indeed this book being written on Brown is much needed as there is very little else out there about him and his work to read up on. I can't wait to get a copy. Thanks Gabe.

[Martin Calloway]

Paul,

I am new to this. I might be in the wrong place. Just a few questions.

Obviously there are alot of people out there who THINK they know what was going on with Brown But no one has the details like you do or so it seems ... so ....How did you ever get all that inside information?You said that you contacted Browns daughter but why is it that people like Moore didn't already speak with her? How do we know that you are not making all of this up? The Charles character, for example, reads like someone out of James Bond. How do we know that he actually existed?

People call me a doubting Thomas but being slow to believe is a good trait I think. You seem to be methodical. But how do you know all of this! Others, like Vassilatos, seem to know alot too. Martin

[Chris Knight]

Martin,

You're in the right place.

Thank you for bringing up a point that has always bothered me regarding the whole fringe science scene. You've hit a nerve, so I'll explain a few things.

I read Moore's book, The Philadelphia Experiment" in the fall of 1986, and also found the chapter on Brown interesting. I originally tried to contact Brown (not knowing he had just recently passed away). I was priviledged enough to meet his wife, Josephine, though, and now it's going on 20 years that our two families have been close friends.

The site I put up, http://www.qualight.com, to disseminate a portion of Brown's work has been around for probably 10 years now.

The problem is that in this "field" different "researchers" will pick up anything said by just about anyone and speak of it with authority as if it were provable, insider information (whether or not it is true), and that you can feel comfortable buying their books, tapes, or whatever drivel are pushing. These people make their living doing this, and especially like to frequent UFO, exotic research, etc. conferences, but look for the people who ask questions and keep their mouths closed - they're the real researchers.

The Brown website mentioned above has been the leading source of most of the information regarding Brown out there. If you see a book, tape, photo out there, the information probably came from that website. Entire "books" have been made from material entirely lifted from the site (I don't remember any royalty checks coming to the Brown family, though...).

As a matter of fact, I went to a UFO Conference in Las Vegas last fall, and was I surprised to hear an "expert" I had never met before mention something that I had said a few years ago to another "researcher," but now I was referred to as "Them." The "Men in Black" perhaps? Apparently I now have large laboratories and black budgets. True researchers who have a passion for the truth are fewer and far between.

In any case, Paul originally contacted me through the site, and eventually he, the Brown family and I got together and began this project. We all do our bit of nit-picking at each other on some details, formatting, etc., but I can vouch for Paul and his sources. Their credibility will become crystal clear over time.

I guess my point is that you _should_ question everything. Everything Paul writes is based on knowledge that can be backed up. That was one of the stipulations he and the Brown family agreed upon.

Believe me now, I'm a "Man in Black."

Andew

[Martin Calloway]

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I have noticed your site for a long time. Good spot.

So, another question, which seems to be in the vein of what others have been talking about.

How is it that you decided to do all of that? I mean .. Set up the website you did ... what convinced you that Townsend Brown was at all a valid scientific figure instead of just a crackpot with flying saucer ideas?

I mean, its enough to turn you sideways, if you read far enough. Theres the Philadelphia Experiment ... then theres the Adamski saucer ... you have seen that ... what was that? a photogragh of an ACTUAL flying saucer ?I have seen that same thing on the net with Townsend Brown references to it ... your site? probably so Don't remember ... so you have to admit ... its confusing out there.

Pleased that you are willing to step forward and vouch for Paul. Ten years carries some weight. And I can see now how things have been "borrowed" from one site to the next. Still studying. thanks for the input. Martin

[Martin Calloway]

I joined up. So now you will probably be hearing more "BUT NOW , HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?" from me. Can't say I didn't warn you! Martin

[Paul S.]

I joined up. So now you will probably be hearing more "BUT NOW , HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?" from me. Can't say I didn't warn you! Martin

Believe it or not...I truly welcome that kind of contribution to this process. I may not be inclined to reveal all my "secrets" right off the bat -- this is, after all, an unfolding process, and you don't see Penn Gillette stop in the middle of a routine and say "this is how we do it..." -- but it's important for me to know that there are people out there who are paying attention and want to believe as much as I do in the "credibility" of what is being compiled here.

So, Martin, by all means, when you see something that you think requires further substantiation, don't hesitate to chime in -- so long as I can reserve the right to "reveal my sources" when it suits my story-telling priorities.

Sound reasonable?

Thanks,

--PS

[Martin Calloway]

Thanks for the welcome. I have been putting in my two cents worth where I can. Hope I don't make a pest of myself. I am not the worlds greatest communicator, and I have to be reminded sometimes to stay on the more positive side of the positive/negative balance beam. And I hate typing, which doesn't help. Martin

[Trickfox]

Thank you for bringing up a point that has always bothered me regarding the whole fringe science scene. You've hit a nerve, so I'll explain a few things.

The site I put up, http://www.qualight.com, to disseminate a portion of Brown's work has been around for probably 10 years now.
As a matter of fact, I went to a UFO Conference in Las Vegas last fall, and
was I surprised to hear an "expert" I had never met before mention something that I had said a few years ago to another "researcher," but now I was referred to as "Them."

You had to expect that this would happen Andrew,
They want MIB's in their lives. They even make movies about them.

Anyone involved with Qualight will probably turn out to be the next generation heros, remember they are kids, and you know the truth about your own life and those around you so I'm sure It's not going to be a problem, -but it will be rather funny anyway.

I'm very impressed with your objectives, and I certainly hope I can help you in some fashion. I was absolutely impressed with the proffesional look of the websight.

Apparently I now have large laboratories and black budgets.

Just tell those people your budget is not as big as other budgets.

Show them another black budget lab like the Z machine
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/sto ... 12,00.html

Look Andrew you are exploring FRINGE SCIENCE and the price you must pay is to be regarded odly.

Trickfox

[Paul S.]

Show them another black budget lab like the Z machine
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/sto ... 12,00.html

Trickfox

As my faithful know, the whole idea of "fusion" is sorta what got me here in the first place, so I followed TF's link to read the article about the "Z Machine." I think I've read about this particular approach to the problem before, and I find it as maddening (if not just outright mad) as the other big-budget approaches to slamming hydrogen atoms together.

One thing I found curious about this article is that the only approach to "Inertial" confinement that it discusses are the laser-bombardment concepts like "Z." It completely ignores the more elegant "electrostatic" approach -- which, it should be added, draws from the same "well" of electrical phenomenona as the Biefeld-Brown effect, etc etc.

The reason I'm commenting, though, is to ask this question: this article describes something that would, ostensibly, appear to be quite out in the open. Do you mean to suggest that the project might in fact be a "cover" for something else, that the "black" work is done under the cover of this (ridiculous, in my estimation) "white" project ?

--PS

[Trickfox]

Show them another black budget lab like the Z machine
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/sto ... 12,00.html

Trickfox

Do you mean to suggest that the project might in fact be a "cover" for something else, that the "black" work is done under the cover of this (ridiculous, in my estimation) "white" project ?
--PS

There are White Projects then Green Projects, then Black Projects.
Our's would be a BROWN project if and when things got started.
Here is another Brown Project:
www.aetherwire.com/CDROM/General/AWL/execsum.html
(by the way, we are light years ahead of this group)

I was explaing all these terms in detail , then suddenly PT interceeded and I subconcsiously clicked too fast and wiped out the details of my post.I guess I'm not suppose to talk about some details until the time comes when someone specifically asks me about it. It's called "need to know through role based access" First I suppose people have to undergo their own particular Psychogenesis to be prepared to accept the TRUTH.

http://www.psychopropulseur.com/truth.html#XA

Click the left button too fast and wiped out half of my first message....
Trickfox has been tricked by the fox. It happens often so I just flow with it.

Ha Ha.

Trickfox

[Victoria Steele]

Precisely Paul,

Electrostatic confinement regarding fusion IS elegant, another mark of pure genius! The more simple and elegant the thought is, the higher the thought process behind it.

And why is it being ignored? Because it IS TOO ELEGANT, TOO SIMPLE, TOO PURE. It takes a matching intellect to even SEE it. And obviously .... its just not out there at this time.(and I am not being a snob here or even pretending that I have more grey matter than anybody else. But I am just smart enough to make observations and then to voice them AND SO IS EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT MOST ARE SILENT.)

But take heart. Someone tried to tell Von Braun that his rockets wouldn't work because once they got out into space there would be no air to push against. (and Goddard before him) which is a point that I sort of see rearing its head in the Lifter groups sometime .... It has to be ALL ion wind alone they try to say . And yet why doesn't anybody notice that Dr. Brown (thanks for your discussion on the fact that Mr. Brown never got his Doctorate out there. I don't care . It FEELS better calling him Dr. and so I choose to make that call. You are off the hook, Paul . You have told everyone he never got his degree. It doesn't really matter)

Anyway . Why don't they pay attention to the fact that Dr. Brown ran his units in oil ... and in a vacuum. It just goes against everything that most of us have been taught SO WE CHOOSE NOT TO SEE IT. Can't compute. Kick it out

A discussion? Victoria.

[Chris Knight]

Victoria,

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. Nature is elegant.

Nature is designed to follow simple rules. Whether we understand them or not is beside the point - when you have trillions and trillions of simple rules interacting with each other things get pretty complex.

A path a leaf falling from a tree takes may seem completely random, but is is simply based on the weight of the leaf, the area of the leaf, the ambient gravitational field (based on the gravitational fields of all other masses and motions int he universe), the wind resistance (velocity, direction, turbulent flow, etc.), etc. So the path that leaf takes from the branch to the ground is intimately associated with the entire universe. It just seems random and chaotic, but I'm pretty sure that leaf really minds that we can't comprehend it's path - it's just following it's nature.

We are likewise in the same position. We make choices based on our life experiences, talents, personality, but everything we do and experience affects everything else.

But I digress. Brown, like Farnsworth, had a talent for bringing the complex down to the common denominator. That's what I look for when I see someone's work. The BB Effect is basically two plates of metal with something in between them and an opposite charge on each plate.

On the other hand, something so simple lends itself to being discounted. I once turned an Ionic Breeze into a speaker and showed my father-in-law (PhD EE and BS Physics). He didn't know how it worked, but he knew it was something that someone else had already figured out and discounted. I've seen that a lot over the years from professors to scientists to governments. What the latter do on their own time and budgets may be quite diffferent, however.

Andrew