The Parallel Universe

Out of curiosity, i went looking for the discussion surrounding this article and found this thread at the skunkworks forum.

http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/v07.n081

I see that midway through a Tom Mahood chimes in calling the BB effect "nonsense" and saying:

As for the alleged "Biefeld-Brown effect", I can speak as someone who has
spent a fair amount of time looking into the subject. Beyond those
"effects" due solely to poor experimental protocols, it doesn't exist.
Zip, nada, nothing. If it did, it would be the easiest thing in the world
to demonstrate, and we'd have a hell of a lot more things floating around
than B-2s. A definitive report on the Bielfeld-Brown effect that the
fringe crowd is either unaware of or conveniently ignores (as it clearly
shows the effect doesn't exist) , was commissioned by Phillips Labs out at
Edwards AFB around 1990. Entitled "Twenty First Century Propulsion
Concept", by R. L. Talley, it was completed in May of 1991, and is
available through the NTIS or DTIC. It's an extremely comprehensive
report, and Talley's experimental procedures were first rate. A worthwhile
report to peruse through, for while Talley found no evidence of any forces
produced by static fields (ala the Biefeld-Brown effect) he did find hints
of what he called "anomalous forces" produced in certain experimental
configurations with TRANSIENT electric fields. But that's a whole 'nuther
story, and outside the charter of this list...

That is an extremely interesting and tantalizing statement, isn't it?
I'm seeing hand on a dial...

rose

Nice library you have there, Andrew!

I did a site search on LaViolette but did not find this article http://www.etheric.com/Downloads/Columbia.pdf

It's probably there, but I am aware of the dangers of ASSuming anything so I'm providing the link anyway. I doubt that there is any information here that followers of his work don't already know, but the picture of the electrified airframe of the B-2 in flight was awesome.

Rose (disappearing into your stacks now.)

Rose,

Interesting article.

"A definitive report on the Bielfeld-Brown effect that the
fringe crowd is either unaware of or conveniently ignores (as it clearly
shows the effect doesn't exist) , was commissioned by Phillips Labs out at
Edwards AFB around 1990. Entitled "Twenty First Century Propulsion
Concept", by R. L. Talley, it was completed in May of 1991, and is
available through the NTIS or DTIC. It's an extremely comprehensive
report, and Talley's experimental procedures were first rate. A worthwhile
report to peruse through, for while Talley found no evidence of any forces
produced by static fields (ala the Biefeld-Brown effect) he did find hints
of what he called "anomalous forces" produced in certain experimental
configurations with TRANSIENT electric fields. But that's a whole 'nuther
story, and outside the charter of this list..."

Being part of the "fringe" crowd, I was, in fact, unaware of this article; however, I was also unaware that the Biefeld-Brown Effect is produced by static fields, as according to the author.

Anyone who has any knowledge of the BB Effect and basic electrical understanding can see that the BB Effect relies on transient conditions. Perhaps this is a misconception born out of the lifter groups.

He he he...

found no evidence of any forces produced by static fields

Just for the reality record...

First: Well the effect is not caused by static forces. That is why it is called the "Biefeld-Brown effect" not Static Attraction nor Ion wind.

Note: Under certain circumstances, Static forces are a secondary product of the effect. But not what causes the effect.

Secondly: There is no such thing as "static". There is nothing "static", (meaning stationary) about energy. The term static electricity is very old and was coined when very little was known about it. Unfortunately, it is still referred to as "static".

Last: There are forces created by "static" energy. However, the Biefeld-Brown effect is not one of them.

How do I know? I spent the last 15 years hands on experimenting. It can be easily duplicated for proof to anyone, anytime. In fact, it has been recorded on tape! I demonstrated the effect on stage in front of 300 people back in the 90's. A few of you in this forum where there.

Fringing on the fringe,

Mark Bean, Fringalatus Maximus Rex

...falling in to the vacuum of no "proof."

Mikado14 wrote:How about this, the results were way beyond what they expected and they had to keep it quiet. Sounds like a "Hull" type answer to me....closed minded.

Sure.

You can believe whateverthefuck you want when there is no evidence to the contrary (nor any obligation to reveal any). Once you have been shown the curtain, you are free to imagine whatever you want behind it.

As a "documentarian" I don't have that luxury.

And, since you seem not to have read the entire post: "implies a failure to seriously consider the results they did get" leaves a LOT of wiggle room.

Or, maybe, more accurately, "wobble" room.

--PS

Rose wrote:Mr. Clarke notes that the force of gravity is powerful enough to generate many thousand times more electricity than now is generated at Niagra Falls and every other water-power centre in the world - if it can be harnessed. This impending event, he maintains, will make possible the manufacture of anti-gravity 'power packages' which can be bought for a few hundred dollars. These would provide all the heat and power needed by one family for an indefinite period.

One thing I have always found intriguing (baffling? befuddling?) is how we get from "anti-gravity" or any kind of "gravity control" to an "anti-gravity 'power package.'"

There is a tendency in much of this discussion to conflate our desire to "manipulate" (for lack of a better word) gravity with the equally compelling desire to "draw energy from the vacuum" -- those "new energy" solutions that have been alluded to elsewhere in the forums (and across the Internets).

I have never fully grasped how the discussion of one leads to a discussion of the other, except that both reside in a large field of esoteric and allegedly "suppressed" science.

I mean, Tom Bearden, for example, talks a lot about "zero point energy," but I don't ever hear HIM talking about "anti-gravity." And Nick Cook's Book is called "The Hunt for Zero Point" with a subtitle that promises to go "Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology" -- but does he ever draw a clear connection between the two?

Just one of the many things that come to mind that occurs to me to mention at the moment.

--PS

grinder wrote:So heres the thing. Was Dr, Brown more interested in this " antigravity program" or was he finished with that and already on to the next thing on his plate? You have to remember that this man was a good fifty years ahead of everybody. So maybe all the hype about " Adamski Saucers" and " flame jet generators" and other things like that were already old hat to him?

a new place to view the story from, thats for sure. grinder

I think you have made a very astute observation there, grinder.

Given the ever-mercurial nature of our subject matter, and its seemingly infinite capacity to bend off in myriad tangential directions, the many layers of subterfuge on top of obfuscation, I often wonder if ANY of what we are inclined to take for granted is in fact camouflage for something.... we haven't even thought of yet.

As you have just suggested, I often entertain the possibility that much of what we have learned -- starting with the whole "wounded prairie chicken" routine, is not a cover for things that we (think we) know about, but cover for things we haven't even considered.

Like I said elsewhere, once the curtain has been shown, it's easy to imagine any number of things behind it. The hardest part is separating the tantalizing quality of what we want to believe from the invisible thing that is really being concealed.

--PS

If gravity doesn't exist, except as a by product of an electrical occurance called the biefeld Brown effect, where the negative is attracted to the positive inbetween two capacitor plates?
Then gravity is electrical.
If you can capture both the positive and negative aspects of this occurance near the surface area of the planet, then hey presto you will have A/C.
Dependant on the ratio of positive to negative that exists at any given point, it will also surely be possible to influence the PUSH direction by varying this ratio?
I am assuming that the A/C ratio utilised at present is equal?
If so ,then it will be a requirement to equalise the vastly out of balance at present, where there is a vast downward flow of negative in relation to the small amount of produced positive.

It's been rainng all day here in the UK, low pressure results in clouds been drawn into that area, and then rain falls, the whole thing is because of an alteration in the ratio of positive and negative, presssure is caused by the ratio of positive to negative.
I think this is what viktor Schauberger realised with water, especially at night in relationship to the moons position, because it's field alters the balance of positive and negative, hence the more positive water bubbles up and is able to transport heavier logs , because the logs only weigh whatever the balance of positive to negative push there is, if you were to remove the negative downward push altogether, then they would be pushed upwards.

When it rains, there is less upward push to keep the water up there, hence there is more negative about which makes it feel fresh etc.
I think?
Kevin

Rose wrote:while Talley found no evidence of any forces
produced by static fields (ala the Biefeld-Brown effect) he did find hints
of what he called "anomalous forces" produced in certain experimental
configurations with TRANSIENT electric fields. But that's a whole 'nuther
story, and outside the charter of this list...

Which point, coming on the heels of a dismissive discourse on the Biefeld-Brown effect, would seem to echo what appears to be my theme for the day:

Everything thing we THINK we know is camouflage.... for something we haven't even considered.

What did Szent-Gyorgi say? "Genius is seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought."

Might be time.

--PS

Paul S. wrote:...falling in to the vacuum of no "proof."

Mikado14 wrote:How about this, the results were way beyond what they expected and they had to keep it quiet. Sounds like a "Hull" type answer to me....closed minded.

Sure.

You can believe whateverthefuck you want when there is no evidence to the contrary (nor any obligation to reveal any). Once you have been shown the curtain, you are free to imagine whatever you want behind it.

As a "documentarian" I don't have that luxury.

And, since you seem not to have read the entire post: "implies a failure to seriously consider the results they did get" leaves a LOT of wiggle room.

Or, maybe, more accurately, "wobble" room.

--PS

Being gone from the forum for the past few days I wish I could figure out what post of mine you are referencing. But what the hell, it's your sandbox.

Mikado

PS: Don't assume too much, the bridge may not hold your weight.

Mikado14 wrote:Being gone from the forum for the past few days I wish I could figure out what post of mine you are referencing. But what the hell, it's your sandbox.

It's back on page 2 of this thread, from Thurs July 3:

viewtopic.php?p=16083#p16083

--PS

No fair Paul. First you complain about people not leaving links and then when someone asks you to do the same because they are lost in the mass of material you respond with " here we go again" ... because he said it was your sandbox? Lets see..... I sure hope that it is your sandbox.... but fair is fair, and the same should apply to everybody, < smiling here guys> Elizabeth

...I'm branded on my feet....

Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:No fair Paul. First you complain about people not leaving links and then when someone asks you to do the same because they are lost in the mass of material you respond with " here we go again" ... because he said it was your sandbox?

"Here we go again" was the original subject of the post Mikado was responding to. It appears because Mikado used the "quote" button to reply.

My earlier request for links elsewhere was a request for a link to an external site, not something within this thread.

Repeat subject header ad nauseum.

--PS

Paul wrote:Repeat subject header ad nauseum.

--PS

I am sorry that I have made you ill, if you send me your address I will forward you some of my remaining Prochlorperazine for I also concur, you have me weary as well. However young man (figuratively and you figure out why I say it), let me inform you of this, you throw sarcasm out and it will come back to you on a wave, how well you take it or don't take it, will speak reams about the person you are.

As to the sandbox, well, it is, isn't it? For I was under the impression that you began the forums, if I am wrong, I apologize and request that you inform me of who the comment should be directed to so as to thank them for this opportunity to have this BBS going.

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote: inform me of who the comment should be directed to so as to thank them for this opportunity to have this BBS going.

...and you're welcome.

--PS