From Chapter 41 - Still In Development to What The Bleep...?

[Paul S.]

After finishing Chapter 40, I started thinking a lot about what all was going on in the world during the late 1930s. Consequently, I have spent the past week with my nose buried in a pile of books that address some the major scientific and political developments during that period. Consequently, writing has had to take a back seat this week to research.

I am trying to get my bearings before the story turns the corner into the global conflagration that was first half of the 1940s. I'm looking, broadly, for evidence suggestive of the Caroline Group's influence in world affairs; And, more specifically, I'm trying to find places where it might be reasonable to presume that our protagonist is hiding in the shadows.

For example, there are references in some of the Navy files to Lieutenant Brown's service at the Navy's Radar school in at the Norfolk Naval Base. There is a statement elsewhere that "Brown knew more about radar than anybody in the Navy" but there is no evidence I can find of where or when he might have obtained such knowledge. (And remember, the NRL 'never heard of the guy...')

That reminds me: when we obtained Lt. Brown's Navy records a while back, the archivist who secured them for us made a point of asserting that we would not only be denied access to anything marked "classified," we would not be allowed to see anything that even referred to anything classified. So if there was a document that said "See that other document? That's classified." then we would not be permitted see either document.

That comes to mind when I try to fathom what exactly Townsend Brown's involvement might have been in the field of radar, which was just coming to the fore in the period that interests me now, i.e. 1938 - 1940. Because, as one correspondent recently pointed out, where there was "radar" being developed, there was likely "radar detection" and evasion techniques also being developed. And THAT would certainly have been even more highly classified than the radar itself. But you know where that leads, and... well, I'm still not going there...

Where am I going is into the pile of books on my desk, which titles include:

"The Invention That Changed the World" by Robert Buderi - a history of Radar;

"Tuxedo Park" by Jennet Connant - a biography of financier Alfred Loomis, which has many cross references to the Buderi book;

"E=mc2" by David Bordaris - a "biography" of Einstein's famous formula, which delves into the discovery of nuclear fission;

"The Man Called Intrepid" - William Stevenson's biography of Williams S. Stephenson, which discusses the geo-political forces in the world during the 30s and 40s;

"The True Intrepid" by Bill Macdonald - another Stephenson biography, but this one has more personal accounts of various individuals' relationship with "Intrepid;"

"Reich of the Black Sun" by Joseph P. Farrell -- which investigates some of the technological developments in Germany during the war;

"Himmler's Crusade" by Christopher Hale -- which discusses the Nazi expeditions to Tibet in the late 1930s, ostensibly to 'find the origins of the Aryan race,' but which others have suggested were actually intended to find the evidence of advanced technologies left behind by a long-lost civilization.

How's that for a head-spinning collection of titles?

What does the song say? There are times to reap and times to sow, This has been a week to sow. So, there's no new chapter this week.

I am trying to develop a context for where the story goes from here: I am particularly interested in the two realms of science that took root during this period, radar and nuclear energy. And I note with some interest that some of the scientists investigating these two seemingly different fields in fact came from the same 'mixing bowl.' I wonder what other ingredients might have been mixed in?

All of these events and developments are intricately woven into the fabric of the times. Great scholars have devoted their lives to sorting out the intricacies of these developments; I'm going to need at least another week.

But I'll be around... and would love to hear what you all might have to say about the subjects being contemplated here.

Thanks,

--PS

[twigsnapper]

So, you got some extra time. I agree with you on that. Better to wait.

I have been watching the forum though and I find that there is an interesting cross link that seems to be developing.

Linda B. and I have started a discussion about the Mandarin Chinese language. Mandarin Chinese is derived in some part by the ancient language of sanskrit.

And so there is that strange little thread and then here you come Paul, mentioning Himmlers expeditions to ancient worlds in pursuit of "secrets" ..... and what was the language spoken there? Sanskrit, I believe.

Now this is a world of co-incidences but is it really?.

So whats the common denominator here Paul? Its there. Twigsnapper

[Martin Calloway]

I know that you must be nearly overwhelmed by the amount of information at your fingertips.

In the spirit of helping out I just have this to say and I hope that you might remember this little bit of advice. You can't tell everybodys story. Townsend Brown, though talented probably beyond measure, was physically able to do only so much. I suspect that even what he managed to do under those restraints will astound people but please remember that you are just trying to tell HIS story, not all of World War Two.

You made an interesting comment that Townsend Brown was an "expert in radar". Is this something that William Moore said? Or someone else? Radar someone said once was "what won the war" ......." the bomb just finished the job."

I would throw in there too that advances in communications also helped mightily ..... as well....... and as specially every man and woman in and out of uniform fighting the good fight. They all won the war . But you can't tell all of their stories, so even though you might be cutting back on what you want to say, I would cut your comments to the bone and let others "go there" at some later date.

We have already figured that Townsend Brown was highly regarded by the military and by the Navy Research Lab. I knew that the moment that I read that they had said to you ...."Never heard of him". Martin

[grinder]

I understand that the possibilities of a concerted and well planned disinformation system does exist around the work that Townsend Brown got involved in. How could it not? Radar, deflections? Stealth? Strange propulsion systems that are silent? Communications that go through the earth? The dude was into everything that would have been considered Top Secret. Look at the way that he lived? All those moves? Since I believe others when they say that he was not a fugitive from justice , then you have to come to the conclusion that he just didn't want anybody to have time to draw a "bead" on himself or his family.

But there is the possibility too that with the passage of time someone could say "Never heard of him" and actually mean it. Thats why I think that Pauls book is going to be such a great thing. It will cut down on the number of people who will be able to honestly say that.

I got in a discussion with someone about the Ionic Breeze, the other night. They were willing to bet (and did) that the technology was invented by "Sharper Image". After all, thats what he had been told . I just have a feeling thats not the only Image thats going to get looked at again.

I am not a religious person so I would just as soon let the debate rage over on the other post area .... but like my friend, maybe we have bought into what we have been told without ever discovering YET the real truth. Just a thought to add to the pot. grinder

[Paul S.]

I got in a discussion with someone about the Ionic Breeze, the other night. They were willing to bet (and did) that the technology was invented by "Sharper Image". After all, thats what he had been told . I just have a feeling thats not the only Image thats going to get looked at again.

Well, since we know who's gonna win that bet, I hope you'll be buying a round in Vegas...

I am not a religious person so I would just as soon let the debate rage over on the other post area .... but like my friend, maybe we have bought into what we have been told without ever discovering YET the real truth. Just a thought to add to the pot. grinder

I don't blame you for wanting to steer clear of that debate, but it is serving a useful purpose. Examing "belief systems" gets to the heart of how many of us -- most of us -- live on this planet.

Religion is just one area where belief systems form and become entrenched, then calcified, and then are no longer recognized as belief systems.

Another area where that happens is..... science.

But please, let's not debate THAT here <g>.

--PS

[grinder]

And thats really funny Paul.

The two areas that have become the most "calcified" as you put it, Religion and Science are the two areas that REALLY need to open their eyes and take a hard look at what is all around them. And yet they share the same type of ego assisted blindness! Wierd to say but its almost as if they were both blinded the same way.

Don't know what I really meant by that, but it does seem that scientists and religious leaders share the same type of intolerence for thinking outside of the boxes that they have made for themselves. And the same terrible persecutions if they are "crossed".

I have to give it to science though,science does generally "update" its views. It may be slow but it generally attempts to progress to the next level of understanding. I am not a religious expert but my understanding is that Buddism is one of the few religions that takes on that attitude also.

Understanding that concepts are a living and constantly changing thing is a valuable point of view. Just the opposite then from calcification.

grinder

[Trickfox]

Paul, Mr. Grinder, Mr. Twigsnapper

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articl ... eory_I.pdf.

Trickfox

[Trickfox]

Paul, Mr. Grinder, Mr. Twigsnapper

Well I'm glad that you are resolved in the Science/faith issues. Better off resolving these issues right away and move on with practical maters.

Let me tell you about Science and Religion mixing together however.

There is a society of "new religions" who also accept the aetheist manifesto as a valid statement.(at least they claim to) The loosely knit group of non-traditional religions was formulated by SCIENTOLOGY, RAËLIANISM, RAMPTHA FOLLOWERS, and Various OCCULT organizations.

I would like to point out that (even though I never saw the movie) The Famed GURU RAMTHA ( aka: JZ Knight www.ramtha.com is a credited contributor of the philosophy behind the new science explanations in the new film "What the bleep do we know". (which is now the rage of popular science at the moment)

Here is another instance of Science and Philosophy being the controlling factor in someone's bubble of reality. The GURUs, -be it RAMTHA, L.Ron Hub-bard, or RAËL (the guru who claims to have clonded baby humans), all have claimed to know exactly what the scientific truth is. They claim they are the only ones who know what the scientific truth is, and that all religions are simply rehashed ancient DOGMA. Take the lot of them and mix them up with Nazi ideology the high priests of Sata-nism and Setia-nism -Anton La-Vey, and -Michael Aq-uino www.eper.org (put an "X" in front of the first "e" in eper).

It makes any kind of faith based on "Intelligent Design" look totally subjective to me! "Who's design is it?" What about natural beauty, and discordia? How about "Truth is in the eye of the beholder" if it has beauty then however different it may be it can become objective to a great degree amongst it's believers (Yes, Marilyn Manson is talented).

It makes me want to think that everyone is god in their own bubble of reality, because someone's DISCORDIA www.fnord.org can be LINKED
www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/Link_Theory_I.pdf
and become beautiful truth in a fraction of a second.

I am looking forward to seeing this truth written in math and logic simply because I feel that it has allready happened and is in the process of a hiccup. The experiment is repeating itself, and it is simply proof of it's own creation. That's the only truth that needs to be shown to the world.


My bubble of reality is a "SET" anyone else's bubble of reality is a "SUBSET". Can anyone here understand the difference between these two?

So now that I've guessed what the CHASE for Sanskrit based truth is all about then I allready know that it's simple and True. Finding it is not that important to me any more. I am too busy playing Monte Carlo style roulette.(playing with Shore's algoritm and Q-bits)

It's the learning process that is pleasing. It's the teaching process that's rewarding, and it's the practical applications of future technology that will be profitable (for someone). The people who are participating in the creation of this process will find happiness in all three aspects.

The pages in the book are turning by themselves Mr. Trickfox, http://www.psychopropulseur.com/necromicon/
and so I will do as it is in my nature to do, and trust in my fellow readers to critique my path and remain forever a logical positivist.

Trickfox

[Chris Knight]

Grinder,

You are right about science being slow to change. Since science is made primarily of theories, so when we go to school, we are taught the most current dogma. After a few years, you have a significant part of a generation steeped in that dogma. Plus all of the teachers / professors / proponents entrenched in the system who subscribe to that dogma teach it to their students.

A good example is the Big Bang Theory, which seemed like a really good idea at the time, but has fallen into disuse by most scientists due to issues with it that really make it unworkable. Ask anyone on the street how our present universe began, and you will probably get that answer.

Superstring Theory is still becoming popular, but has been coming for years. I understand it also has some issues, but for now it may be the best we have to work with although there are a great number of competing theories.

I heard a saying once to the effect that a new discovery is front page news, but if it turns out wrong, it's 4th page news next to the obituaries.

As far as religion, they do change (albeit slowly) over time as well - in the "mainstream" Church and the "fundamentalist movement" (those I'm most familiar with living in Saddleback Country in So. CA). Partcularly the fundamentalist movement with Rick Warren, has bent over backwards to incorporate management styles based on total quality management to make church "fun and exciting" by downgrading the importance of many of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

That "movement" has caught on in the mainstream" churches where pastors / clergy are always trying to bolster their numbers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the other major religions of the world are moving in a similar direction whether they admit it or not. You mentioned Buddism, but I'm not familiar with how that is changing.

I think that whenever people get involved in something, it's going to get messed up - science, religion, politics, a really good bagel, whatever.

Andrew