E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

[twigsnapper]

What Mikado? You didn't think that I would be the one to throw those associations out there? You forget my fighting style.

Ask Bourne.

First go for the magazine, and when that doesn't make a dent on someones conciousness............ go for the book!

We are talking about first the article that was left on Cooks desk, of course and what we are talking about again with the same cast of characters,

Not enough of a dent?

Go for the book. twigsnapper

[H. Short]

I may have missed your exact meaning HShort but what I read was " If there is no " scientific fact" to prove out what Townsend Brown has done according to Pauls book , then the whole book ( and discussions springing from it) become invalid." About right?

Just about, except that in regards to your use of the term "scientific fact", I used the term technology. Meaning show me the picture of the fusor (starship / trans dimensional craft / whatever), demonstrate the principles of its operation, or better yet have a public demonstration of it and take people on afternoon champagne tours of the moon. When you talk about the pioneers of helicopters you can do things like that - it validates their importance.

My outlook is ..... if there IS scientific proof WITHOUT the story of Townsend Brown then ALSO the whole deal is a complete wash out.
Which one comes first???????

Well, your outlook and mine certainly don't match. As I've said, as far as I am concerned there is no book or story worth reading without the technology because the book and story is based on it - please don't tell me it isn't...

I read a lovely book one time about the history of dragons. There was a beautiful full page picture of a sheer mountain face with a ledge high up and set back a little was what looked like a cave. The caption read that this was an ancient home of dragons and that mating flights took place right over there. See? The whole book was like that. As I said, it was a lovely book, a delight to read, full of stories and dragon history. It gave scope, as Anne Shirley would say, to the imagination. But unfortunately no dragons. It was a joke.

AND whose responsibility is it to present the scientific facts to back up the book? Certainly not Pauls. He has his hands full! And he said at the very first that he was no scientist, yet with the material he has presented so far I can tell that he is causing a stir already. Things bubbling to the surface have to be noticed though, by the scientists who can put all of that to good use.

Its Paul's book, its his responsibility.

There are those who will couch themselves in the statement that you have brought up " Without Scientific Proof" The whole story is invalid! Oh theres a safe place.

I say, without an UNDERSTANDING of the story ... ULTIMATELY the entire scientific breakthrough will lead to NOTHING. or worse than nothing, perhaps even a negative of nothing.

Whatever happens , what would have the power of devaluing Pauls efforts here? And the resulting book? Our own old natures I suspect.

To suggest that retreating into the old " I didn't see scientific proof, therefore the whole thing is invalid .... it doesn't exist." Is precisely my point. Sometimes you have to "see" things with eyes you didn't know you had. Just my opening shot. Victoria

Well, am not sure if your tone or intent is hostile, if you are accusing me of trying to 'devalue' Paul's work, or if you're a little too intense while composing at the keyboard... From my perspective most of the forum members seem a little too involved to be able to understand how a non-informed or non-believer (read: most potential purchasers of the book) is going to view the effort. I also notice that most people never ask Paul a hard question or offer any hard critiques to his writing. All I said is that there seems to be a paradox, and if there is it would behoove Paul to address it now, rather than later or never. I reiterated it since the one response simply missed the whole point. I am not sure how that gets construed into an attempt to 'devalue' anything. Sometimes your bestest friends are those that don't just sit there and serve you tea and cookies.

[Mikado14]

I may have missed your exact meaning HShort but what I read was " If there is no " scientific fact" to prove out what Townsend Brown has done according to Pauls book , then the whole book ( and discussions springing from it) become invalid." About right?

Just about, except that in regards to your use of the term "scientific fact", I used the term technology. Meaning show me the picture of the fusor (starship / trans dimensional craft / whatever), demonstrate the principles of its operation, or better yet have a public demonstration of it and take people on afternoon champagne tours of the moon. When you talk about the pioneers of helicopters you can do things like that - it validates their importance.

My outlook is ..... if there IS scientific proof WITHOUT the story of Townsend Brown then ALSO the whole deal is a complete wash out.
Which one comes first???????

Well, your outlook and mine certainly don't match. As I've said, as far as I am concerned there is no book or story worth reading without the technology because the book and story is based on it - please don't tell me it isn't...

I read a lovely book one time about the history of dragons. There was a beautiful full page picture of a sheer mountain face with a ledge high up and set back a little was what looked like a cave. The caption read that this was an ancient home of dragons and that mating flights took place right over there. See? The whole book was like that. As I said, it was a lovely book, a delight to read, full of stories and dragon history. It gave scope, as Anne Shirley would say, to the imagination. But unfortunately no dragons. It was a joke.

AND whose responsibility is it to present the scientific facts to back up the book? Certainly not Pauls. He has his hands full! And he said at the very first that he was no scientist, yet with the material he has presented so far I can tell that he is causing a stir already. Things bubbling to the surface have to be noticed though, by the scientists who can put all of that to good use.

Its Paul's book, its his responsibility.

There are those who will couch themselves in the statement that you have brought up " Without Scientific Proof" The whole story is invalid! Oh theres a safe place.

I say, without an UNDERSTANDING of the story ... ULTIMATELY the entire scientific breakthrough will lead to NOTHING. or worse than nothing, perhaps even a negative of nothing.

Whatever happens , what would have the power of devaluing Pauls efforts here? And the resulting book? Our own old natures I suspect.

To suggest that retreating into the old " I didn't see scientific proof, therefore the whole thing is invalid .... it doesn't exist." Is precisely my point. Sometimes you have to "see" things with eyes you didn't know you had. Just my opening shot. Victoria

Well, am not sure if your tone or intent is hostile, if you are accusing me of trying to 'devalue' Paul's work, or if you're a little too intense while composing at the keyboard... From my perspective most of the forum members seem a little too involved to be able to understand how a non-informed or non-believer (read: most potential purchasers of the book) is going to view the effort. I also notice that most people never ask Paul a hard question or offer any hard critiques to his writing. All I said is that there seems to be a paradox, and if there is it would behoove Paul to address it now, rather than later or never. I reiterated it since the one response simply missed the whole point. I am not sure how that gets construed into an attempt to 'devalue' anything. Sometimes your bestest friends are those that don't just sit there and serve you tea and cookies.

A real hoot this discussion. One wants a story about a man and his life, one wants a story about his work and his discoveries.

And the twain shall never meet, and remember Victoria, don't tell him, please, but it is okay for him to tell you what the book is all about and your opinion and that of the writer means nothing, his opinion is the correct one so fall in line.

Mikado

[Mikado14]

Paul,

I believe I would like to know if possible what is the goal of this story. What is the heart of it all? Are you telling the story of a man? Is the story strictly about the technology? Is it the either/or or both or what?

After reading the book on Farnsworth, I am terribly disappointed. The book was more about the man, his triumphs as well as his tribulations. I would have thought you might have included some technical drawings of a fusor along with some schematics as well as construction notes etc. so that we all could build one in our basement.

Don't make the same mistake here. I want some more technology along with the basic theory, schematics, blueprints et al so that I can build whatever Dr. Brown built. Perhaps we could have something constructed in time for the debut of the book as a "proof positive".

Let's get on the stick.

Mikado

[Victoria Steele]

H. Short,

If I came across as hostile I do apoligize. Hostility was not my intent. I do come across as passionate about things because I can not hide true colors.

I still find it hard to believe that you actually, I take it, are ready to say that this story of a personal life of Townsend Brown has no real meaning unless there are blueprints attached to it. Are you entirely missing some of the lessons that seem to be floating around here. Are they totally lost without the technology attached?

When Paul is standing at a party celebrating his book someone is bound to come up to him and say ...... " So tell me what Townsend Brown was REALLY like." ( Does that mean that he has to pull out all of the patent applications? The blueprints? Would that person even CARE about the blueprints?)

I suggest that if thats all you personally care about then thats just fine, I can understand that, but it does worry me that you also then reduce personal relationships to accomplishments that are valued in a material world. As if thats all there is.

I think that you may be surprised at the future readership of Pauls book. There may be many who don't give a danged rip about the blueprints. Is the Ionic Breeze enough? .... the lifters being built all over the world? If there is more who says that we actually deserve to be taken on a champagne cruise if we can not see beyond the technology? What he has written so far is no long distant glance at a dragon hole. We are all challencged and welcomed to check out everything he has written.

But its a little bit like Coca Cola. Do I enjoy it less without knowing the formula?

It will all be up in the air and there is plenty of room for the romantics ( me) and the realists ( you) and a hundred thousand viewpoints somewhere between and beyond.

I do agree with you that Paul has not in fact been hit with some highly dismissive and critical words from " out there". I have wondered about that. Where are those critics? Its probably just because Paul has not really stepped on anybodys agenda just yet. Its pretty obvious that most of us are his fan club ( though I joined up just ready to blast away at him. So far though he hasn't given me too much of a target. I think that he can handle the hard knocks.... but only time will tell. Victoria

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

HShort, Victoria and Mikado,

You will appreciate this I think.

Just a couple of years before he died Dr. Brown received a letter from a very ernest young man ( who is a member of the forum but who I think watches more than says much. He will recognize himself I think) Anyway he wrote a very passionate letter about how Dr. Brown should tell him " Everything you know" and "Include drawings" because , after all .... "You are old now and are going to die soon".

Dr. Brown sent a sweet letter in return ( which we also have in our "letter box" )thanking the kid for his concern but declining his offer.

I think that " give us all your blueprints" to build up and prove this book might be regarded in pretty much the same vein and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the answer might come from the holder of those blueprints .... thankyou for your concern, but no thankyou. Elizabeth

[Mark Culpepper]

HShort,

I can't stay out of this. Your quote:

"Well, your outlook and mine certainly don't match. As I've said, as far as I am concerned there is no book or story worth reading without the technology because the book and story is based on it - please don't tell me it isn't..."

And I am trying to see here where Paul may have let anyone down on the technical aspects of this story. I know that Victoria is more interested in the romance and the personal side but I also think that Paul has done an admirable job on spelling out the " technology" so far. Is there a particular point where he has disappointed so far? In the spirit of helpful criticism always.

Personally, I have probably been told more about the Biefeld -Brown Effect than I could ever even absorb. Lets see, I have been supplied with Patent numbers and even background history on the science that led up to the notice of that effect. I have links to working models of the Electrohydrodynamic effect ( lifters) and papers in Dr. Browns own words have been posted too.

For the things that I absolutely don't understand Paul has given us Andrew Bollands site which seems to be standing , ready, willing and able to help us with difficult explanations and technical papers. Understandably from his end of it .... (since some of this has to be propriatory ) we can't REALLY expect to be told everything, can we? I suppose you could ask.

So .... if all of this has to be linked to the story to make it " Valid" then I think that Paul has already exceeded expectations. Am I wrong in your opinion?

And as for getting a champagne ride on the FTM. Well, I understand that there already is a pretty long list of people who want to go. Maybe thats just a matter of time <g> and anyway, Paul really hasn't spoken very much about that yet. Dr. Brown told Morgan that such a thing was possible sometime in the future and that I believe was 1966 ..... so in Pauls story we have to get back to that before he is vunerable to the claim of not saying enough.

And the line forms on the right for that ride, somewhere behind Rex <g> MarkC

[twigsnapper]

HShort,

In response to your statement here

"However, I seem to be the only one who sees the paradox here. If the technology exists but there is still enough danger surrounding it that Paul can't be given specific details, then how the hell can you have any sort of serious discussion here? If forum members X and Y suddenly have a serendipity moment during a discussion and it all becomes clear, what happens when they try and post that information? "

There is an old expression I am sure that you are familiar with.
Its " No guts, no glory" and I would hope that they would do far more than just talk. twigsnapper

[Mikado14]

HShort,

In response to your statement here

"However, I seem to be the only one who sees the paradox here. If the technology exists but there is still enough danger surrounding it that Paul can't be given specific details, then how the hell can you have any sort of serious discussion here? If forum members X and Y suddenly have a serendipity moment during a discussion and it all becomes clear, what happens when they try and post that information? "

There is an old expression I am sure that you are familiar with.
Its " No guts, no glory" and I would hope that they would do far more than just talk. twigsnapper

HShort,

If I might add a morsel of thought, if forum members X and Y do have a serendipitous moment that would also mean that both sides of the good/evil uses of the technology would come to light. What if they choose to just keep their mouths shut? Who/whom are they providing a disservice to? Themselves? Their country? The inhabitants of Earth? or just you?

And Mr. Twigsnapper, if one were to go beyond the "talking" stage and let's presume that they went so far as to construct several different devices based upon this technology. I believe that there are others that would know when the switch was turned "on". Then what? It's the what that concerns me.

However, I put forth that an enormous amount of information has already been presented. I am reminded of a photograph I saw as a teenager. It was taken by a chaplan during the Korean War. It was a snowy hill side but if you looked at it long enough the face of Christ would appear. Perhaps most are staring at the words and cannot see beyond it or the meaning of the words for their mind is too grounded or they do not know why laminated plates are used instead of a solid iron core.

As for me, I'm waiting for Paul to present the blueprints along with the formulas. Next chapter perhaps?

Mikado

[grinder]

I know the two of you well enough through your posts to know that there is alot of tongue in cheek posturing going on around here. Just saying that so that the newbies to this forum can catch on to whats really going on and won't think that some of these statements are dead serious.

I worry about the WHAT too Mikado because I am standing on a slightly different platform. I am ASSUMING ( Victorias favorite word here) that something WILL BE DEVELOPED through the discussions that are inspired here. In fact, other than seeing the story of a respected man out there I see no other real reason for the information to be getting out like this.

And Trickfox and Mikado are really right HShort. Lets just assume that the good developments are somehow intertwined with the horrendously bad ( as in atomic energy) WHAT THEN. We are not talking champagne rides to the moon here. We are talking about the development perhaps of a bomb that would make the hydrogen bomb look like a firecracker. You would then be willing and be encouraging of the people with that kind of knowledge to post it on a website for all to see ? In todays world? Are you really sure that you have thought this through said Rex to his handlers! grinder

[Victoria Steele]

HShrot,

I just wanted you to know that I am trying to give you a fair shake here regarding what you wrote .... but I have to admit I am still having a hard time swallowing the premise that "without scientific fact to back up the story of the book, the intrique and everything else ... there is really no value in all of the rest of the story. Trying here, honest.

But it sort of reminds me of a friend of mine who has raised horses for as many years as I can remember. A person may come to her and after hearing her quote on the price of a particular horse react by saying " Oh! Thats too much money! That horse isn't worth that!" Her response was always. " A horse is only " worth what someone is willing to pay .... and someone is willing to sell him for" ...... his worth is just that. Now the fact that you don't happen to have that much in your pocket is no reflection on the horse because someone behind you most likely has the price. Soooooo If I am not willing to come down .... and you are not willing to come up. I guess the discussion is at an end."

And I see that here to. The fact that FOR YOU you have a need to see the blueprints to make this story valuable in your mind, well, that really has no bearing on the fellow who is standing behind you.

We all have slants here. Thats what makes this forum the lively thing that it is.

I am still wondering though why you feel that Paul needs to adress this "problem" . I guess thats really up to him but to see it as a problem he would have to subscribe to your viewpoint. Its a curious situation.

And as far as people being critical of what Paul has written. Like I said, he just hasn't said anything yet that raises some red flags. We are not stumps out here and hopefully there will be more challenges! Victoria

[Mikado14]

As the title says, dreams. Whether they be when you lie down in the arms of Morpheus or just lying in a meadow and staring at the clouds. One inspires and one can haunt.

I had a dream last night, actually there were three. In the first, I was back in Ancient Greece and I was watching Heronas at work. He was building a steam turbine. Of course there was no way to maintain the water in the sphere and when it was all converted to steam it eventually stopped. At which time the sphere needed to be refilled and the process started all over. I told him that he had nothing more than a novelty and how did he plan on adapting or applying his turbine. He became quiet and I left, not of my own accord but I found myself awake and staring at the ceiling. I drifted off again and found myself with George Stephenson. I watched as he worked in his foundry and I immediately recognized what he was building, it was the Rocket. I walked up to him and mentioned Heronas' steam turbine and he replied that the only similarity was steam. I then asked him why he thought the Greeks didn't build the first locomotive and his reply was that they lacked the engineering know how and that the basic principle was easy, it was the application that was the hardest. I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity and ask a few more questions and even tell him of what his invention would do but again, I found myself staring at the ceiling. After tossing for awhile I again, fell into slumber. My next dream found me with a young man named Townsend. I saw him in a room drawing on a piece of paper. It appeared to be a series of capacitors on a wheel that would cause the wheel to rotate in an application of the Biefeld-Brown effect. I asked the young man how he intended to maintain the charge to the seperate capacitors and his answer was that the drawing was just a representation of a hypothetical application and that the end result would look nothing like this. I mentioned Heronas and the steam turbine and his comment was yes, just as certain skills and materials were lacking then and yet to be developed, the same was true with this. At that point he asked who I was and I said, no one in particular, just curious and I found myself in my bed.

I have pondered upon this all morning and I see the answer. Perhaps too many of us are looking at the principles, and the applications look nothing at all as the original concepts.

Just a thought.......er maybe a dream or a juxtaposition of time lines.

Mikado

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mikado .... Whatever you are drinking before you go to bed .... I want some of it ......

I had a similar dream the other night where I was in ancient Mexico. I don't know why my subconcious picked that ( other than the fact that I have been reading alot about Morris Jessup and apparently he was very taken with the ancient cultures and mysteries of that area)

But I dreamt about litters. I guess thats what you call them. You know boxes on poles. The poles shouldered by a slave on each corner. Very Egyptian looking .... similarly used in Mexico and South America.ya sit in comfort ..... very Cleopatra like.

Now I asked myself why didn't the Mayans develop the wheel for transport? Maybe they did and I am just not aware of it but it seemed that they stuck with this slave borne transportation. And then I thought, well. Slaves were cheap. And the terrain was rugged. They didn't need to build smooth roads and the beasts of burden were Llamas who didn't need that smooth road ..... so why mess with the cultural development of a wheel?

Not sure where I am going with this other than to say that maybe the need for these developments has to be there first. And perhaps earlier was jsut too early to talk about a technology that didn't need or use oil. Oil was there / like those slaves and the economy already was accustomed to them.

And then going back to Jessup and wondering what it was in the Yucatan that he found so fascinating.

Elizabeth

[Paul S.]

...that I just made up...

HShort,

In response to your statement here

"However, I seem to be the only one who sees the paradox here. If the technology exists but there is still enough danger surrounding it that Paul can't be given specific details, then how the hell can you have any sort of serious discussion here? If forum members X and Y suddenly have a serendipity moment during a discussion and it all becomes clear, what happens when they try and post that information? "

There is an old expression I am sure that you are familiar with.
Its " No guts, no glory" and I would hope that they would do far more than just talk. twigsnapper

I'm back in my chair now after a very pleasant weekend with old friends and lots of good music. Sometimes I just love living in Nashville...

I got a heads up to this exchange and will revisit it more closely when I get done with the task before me. But in the meantime, I'll side with Twigsnapper by way of citing a bit of a platitude that perhaps fit here:

"Somethings have to be seen to believed. But some things must first be believed in order to be seen."

I sometimes wonder how that applies in the scientific realm, where "seeing" = "proof" and "believing" - "faith" -- which is antithetical to science.

But by the same token, sometimes you just have to be tuned to the right frequency before you can pick up the signals...

--PS

[flowperson]

But by the same token, sometimes you just have to be tuned to the right frequency before you can pick up the signals...

--PS

Paul:

That reminds me of an REM tune about one of Dan Rather's experiences.

Anyone Else:

At the suggestion of someone close to me I've been tuning into a blog by a Canadian writer recently. The most recent post, August 9, regarding an experience had By Jacques Vallee' in the late 70's in LA is reminiscent of experiences I've had personally, and I thought that the writer's explanation of it with regard to information theory is very prescient.

Also you should scroll down to his july 26 entry. Go about halfway down the article and click on the info having to do with Theresa Duncan's ( a blogger who recently committed suicide, and so did her partner soon thereafter ) interview with Rev. Moreno. The interview concerns a Pentagon program called Operation Garden Plot which dates to the 60's anti-war protests, and by all indications is still alive and well under the aegis of Northern Command at Colorado's Peterson AFB.

Since so many secrets are NEVER revealed to ordinary citizens, one can only speculate on how the Government is technologically implementing the program these days. No wonder Congress recently bolstered the administration's snooping powers and then scampered for their vacation spots.

Just trying to fill our time before "the monster" comes out.

Oh, and if after reading this stuff anyone wishes to know about Vallee' or the significance of the name "Melchizedek", just ask.

And Kevin...if you read the 8/9 blog recommend here, be sure to scroll down to read the comments section. Lots of info concerning time/space, mathematics, harmonics, and crop circles.

flow....

http://www.rigint.blogspot.com