Rock Electricity and the Source of Gravity
Editor's Note: This is an extremely important report which deserves ones fullest attention and careful scrutiny. It deals with the subject of gravity ~ what it is and what creates it. The orthodox view is that gravity is a function of mass. The greater the mass, the greater the force of attraction exerted. However, the conventional explanation falls on its face in a number of instances explained later in this article. To understand how gravity is created, we must recognize the existence of the Ether (or Aether), an extremely fine "fluid-like" substance, much, much lighter than an electron, which pervades and penetrates all things within our universe. You'll never find any of the concepts or observations mentioned here in any school curriculum or taught by any science teacher, yet the "shielding model" explanations given here fits the observed facts much better than that of the Newtonian view.
I'm grateful to the author, Waves Forest, for sending me this extraordinary report and giving me the opportunity to present it to a wider audience. I've taken the liberty to add bold type and italics to emphasize key words or concepts that are pivotal to its understanding. I've also embedded links to books, articles and videos that support the information being presented here. Interested readers or web site owners are encouraged to freely reproduce this article in its entirety provided full attribution be given to its author and this url source.
The quest for truth is at the heart of the human experience. The knowledge being explained here was known to Nikola Tesla in the latter half of the 19th Century and it could have greatly benefited all of humanity for more than a 100 years had it not been ruthlessly suppressed in 1904 by JP Morgan who stopped construction of Tesla's Long Island Wardenclyffe tower, which was based on Ether-extracted Radiant energy, and could have provided unlimited free electricity and telephone service for millions of American homes. Let's hope the 21st Century doesn't have to wait another 100 years to discover the truth that curious thinkers like T. Townsend Brown and dedicated investigators like Waves Forest, have worked so hard to preserve and make known to the world. . ..Ken Adachi]
Print / PDF
From Waves Forest (Winter 2019)
February 6, 2019
Rock Electricity and the Source of Gravity by Waves Forest (Feb. 6, 2019)
To post this article on Facebook, link to the TinyUrl seen below. Facebook will remove any article identified as coming from educate-yourself.org
Visiting Thomas Townsend Brown
In the Spring of 1978, Townsend Brown showed me around the lab at his home in Sunnyvale, California. It turned out to be just minutes from the patent library where I'd spent many hours studying and copying his and others' patents, while working on Free Energy: Healing the Earth. He liked the article, and that invitation to visit was extended through the publisher Tom Valentine, the first to print it, in the January 1978 National Exchange.
Most of Brown's lab at that time was devoted to his investigation into petrovoltaics, or rock electricity. This was an outgrowth of his earlier work with man-made dielectrics, which had led to his groundbreaking and sky-opening discovery of electrokinetics, aka electrogravitics or the “Biefeld-Brown Effect” (his professor Paul Biefeld got top billing).
His experimental setup consisted of several specimens of granite and basalt, each from several inches to a foot thick, with copper painted on their flat opposite faces. They were like big capacitors with thick rocks where the insulator would usually be. Each specimen was connected to an electrostatic voltmeter, for measuring low currents, via wires running to the copper-painted faces. The greatest output came from a specimen inside a sealed container, which he politely declined to identify.
The rocks we could see each emitted about one volt per foot thickness of rock. The current was proportional to the surface area painted with copper.
An aspect of the phenomenon that was fascinating him was the source of the variations in the amount of electricity emitted by the rocks. The daily fluctuation was the most pronounced. The peak output was around 30% greater than the minimum. All specimens showed the same regular variation in output, at the same time. Brown had hooked graph tracers to the voltmeters' output, to generate a precise continuous record.
Although the output fluctuation cycled over a 24-hour period, it didn't correlate with the sun's position. Brown had just recently established, to his excitement, that the rocks' electrical emissions peaked when the core of our galaxy was directly overhead.
This daily increase suggested a likely source for the rocks' electrical output. Brown tentatively guessed that the strongest emissions of gravity waves (or gravitons or whatever it turns out causes gravity) were probably coming from the heart of the galaxy. So the source of the electricity could be gravity waves being shifted into electromagnetic energy by the rocks' crystalline structure.
On hearing this, I had to wonder if this might be part of the mechanism under which a shielding model of gravity could operate. There could be huge implications for deep geomorphology and hydrology, planetary physics and even hollow or honeycomb planet theories. Absorption of gravitational “pressure” by rock layers converting it into electricity could account for the measured decrease in gravity at great depths underground, for subsurface waters emerging from rocks high above any likely aquifers, for small asteroids orbiting each other and generally behaving as if their surface gravities are far higher than standard theories predict, for a whole assortment of discrepancies in lunar observations, and so on.
However I did not at that time feel I could discuss these possibilities with Townsend Brown, for a few reasons.
First, I couldn't think of a way to pursue the implications without involving his electrogravitational work, which he'd gently made clear that he was still not free to discuss, beyond what was already known through his patents and early articles. We couldn't even talk about the particulars of whatever non-disclosure he'd agreed to. (Though he did provide a very oblique confirmation of his participation in the infamous “Philadelphia Experiment”, which we'll get to later.)
Next, it's one thing to obtain a new scientific insight, but quite another to have the technical chops to explain it persuasively. By any conventional measure, I wasn't even qualified to have written the article that sparked the invitation to visit his lab. Also I was both star-struck, or whatever the frontier science version of that would be, and excessively cautious. Here was this guy who basically invented anti-gravity about fifty years earlier, which we all still weren't allowed to use, for reasons way outside the scope of this report, but sufficiently paranoid readers are welcome to guess.
These factors still apply forty years later to the rather obvious question, why did this story take so long to write? Parts of it were set down years ago, then put on hold until now. I did address a few aspects in the Space-Age Snow-job section of the 1986 version of Further Connections, but since then have mostly left it alone except for a few radio discussions.
A more immediate concern is: should there be yet another digression to answer that question here, or should we get back to the main story already and digress later? Well what do you think?
Is Gravity Due to Masses Blocking Etheric Pressure?
In 1975, George W. Van Tassel advised me to consider a shielding model of gravity. I'm not indicating here whether I endorse all Van Tassel's claims, but in all fairness, it was also through his writings that I first learned about T. T. Brown's work.
The so-called standard model describes gravity's behavior, or much of it, but has never come up with a plausible cause for it. “Curved space-time” has long been the placeholder, but that's only provable through mathematical manipulation, not direct observation. We can't actually see that extra dimension through which that curvature would have to occur. And it just kicks the central question down the road; how exactly does matter or energy curve space-time? Everyone is expected to just take it on faith, along with the general relativity from which it is derived. The vast majority of humans don't speak higher math, and we have no way to directly verify or falsify the alleged curvature. And relativity's persistent inability to reconcile with quantum mechanics does not help matters.
Beyond invoking the gospel according to Einstein, mainstream astrophysicists have mostly shied away from this most basic question: what really causes gravity? The equations used to calculate orbits work well enough, why focus on embarrassing discrepancies? High on the list of such would be the conventional assumptions about various planets' and moons' surface gravities, which do not match actual observations.
A properly framed shielding model could explain not only the actions of gravity, but also its cause.
Over the past century or so, several researchers have independently proposed various versions of a shielding model. In this interpretation, rather than being "attracted" to each other by a force of unknown origin, masses are actually being pushed together by the pressure of the interstellar medium, from which they shield each other.
Now it may seem odd to describe a vacuum as exerting pressure. But here we are considering space as a very thin fluid, a “space-juice” so fine-grained that it permeates everything floating in it, whether matter, energy, plasma or nano-dust. Matter consists almost entirely of empty space, but let's say that space is ether in motion, exerting some drag on matter's subatomic particles, or wave patterns. Then the combined effects of this drag would include pushing matter toward other matter. (In case it isn't obvious, Ether in this usage refers to the Aether of classical physics, not the chemical compound called "ether".)
The effects of these permeating and dragging qualities of the interstellar medium could resolve many long-standing questions about what's really going on in outer space, and here on Earth.
But first we have to acknowledge that there's really no way to unfold this report in a linear fashion. The many side branches sprouting from the subject have to at least be pointed out along the way, if not actually explored. And some of the ideas involved have been around a long time, but were dismissed due to misinterpreted observations and mis-applied equations.
If space acts like a fluid then we might expect it to be in motion, forming nested whirlpools of all sizes and carrying matter along with it. Later we can take a closer look at the nature of these vortexes, which occur on all scales from subatomic to galactic. For now, we need to address an error that sent physics off on a wild particle chase over a century ago: the assumption that the ether does not exist.
Here it will save time to just stitch in the relevant section from the 1977 free energy article mentioned earlier. So, if I may quote myself:
“This space-juice is very tenuous, with a density around 10 to the 20th times that of water, thin enough to appear to us as a hard vacuum when it's not pretending to be air, water, earth or people.
“Dr. John A. Wheeler of Princeton calculated the wavelength of the ether to be 10 to the 32nd cm. This is about sixty octaves above the top of the known electromagnetic spectrum, bounded by the diameter of an electron, around 5x10-13 cm across. This allows an incredibly high energy density, calculated by Wheeler to be from 1094 to 10127 watt-seconds per cubic centimeter, meaning that a tiny fraction of the energy potential in one cc of space, converted to electricity, could power entire cities.
“The ether, then, penetrates even between the atoms, into the pores of matter. It moves jointly with physical bodies floating in it and dragging it along, or vice versa. This is why the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 could find no “ether wind” in the direction of the earth's movement and thus caused physicists to assume there was no ether. They didn't consider that the local ether could be moving right along with the earth's surface.”
And what if the “missing mass” needed to explain galactic behavior is space itself rather than the “dark matter” commonly invoked? Even the thinnest space imaginable, with a density of practically - but not quite zero - could on a cosmic scale add up to quite an appreciable mass.
Shielding Models Go Way Back
Alongside ether-based models of gravity, several more mechanistic and elaborate particle-based shielding theories were suggested, as far back as the 1690's. As these contained assumptions that are more easily dismissed, these versions have been the focus of conventional attempts to collectively discredit all variations of the shielding model, without acknowledging the distinctive features of theories in which the ether itself is the source of the pressure.
Fundamental truths in all fields of science are routinely concealed or misrepresented, whenever such misdirection could provide any strategic or economic advantage for those in a position to control public access to information. Over the years we've learned to watch for strident denunciations of certain exotic science theories, as these invariably turn out to be worth investigating, in direct proportion to the vehemence of their dismissal by the enforcers of orthodoxy. Wherever there is a large mass of observations contradicting the standard model, but disregarded by those committed to it, those observations deserve a closer look.
The major inventions defining our modern age only exist thanks to scientists like Newton, Bernoulli, Huygens, Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla, whose discoveries presumed the reality of the ether. What if re-introducing the ether to our collective conceptual framework could unblock a fresh wave of insight and innovation?
How Would It Work?
Under the shielding model, the “pull” of gravity would actually be a net effect of the combined matter-repulsion forces coming from all of space, partially blocked or shielded by any masses large enough to absorb a significant fraction of the force. The interstellar medium, the carrier-wave of physical reality, would be fine-grained enough to penetrate miles of matter before scattering, absorption and translation could measurably reduce its pressure. This applies whether we think of it as consisting of extremely narrow wavelengths, sixty octaves above an electron's diameter, or as particles smaller than electrons by similar orders of magnitude.
At such a high frequency, the ether has a potential energy density so vast it's hard to believe, which is very convenient for whoever might wish to convince everyone that it's inaccessible. Attempts to calculate it come up with more potential energy in a handful of space than the combined output of all the stars in our galaxy.The ratio of empty space within matter to the particles composing it is the same as that between outer space and the matter occupying it: about ten to the thirtieth power (a billion billion trillion) to one. That'spretty empty. So the ether can pass between particles of matter with little resistance, but not quite zero. The remaining resistance is enough to allow the pressure of space-juice to push matter together.
All observed gravitational behaviors are consistent with such a process. The less space there is between masses, the less combined etheric pressure there would be to hold them apart. Gravity strengthens not only with proximity, but with the size of the bodies whose fields are induced by their interruption of the pressure from space.
Consider what happens if gravity is actually caused not by masses but by the space between and surrounding them. The stronger gravitational fields of larger planets or stars, as observed from a distance, would result from the total amount of etheric pressure they block.
But beyond a certain threshold, the local gravitational force on the surface of a planet will not necessarily continue to increase. To produce the orbital characteristics we observe around larger bodies, we don't have to assume ever-greater surface gravities, only the combined shielding effect of their greater size.
This would certainly increase the percentage of planets that turn out to be suitable for life. The less extreme range of surface gravitational fields would also allow more planets' atmospheric pressures to be within habitable limits.
There's another reason why bio-zones may turn out to extend much farther than previously believed. Evidence for the “electric universe” model is still chipping away at the mechanistic standard astrophysical model's dominance. One of its implications is that a star's vital energy doesn't simply radiate outward equally in all directions, but also flows preferentially toward its planets along conductive paths. It will be fun to see how the EU model eventually integrates with gravity when understood as a shielding effect, since etheric energy would be the underlying source of the electrical phenomena it seeks to explain.
Different conditions would apply in the case of bodies of collapsed matter, which are still just theoretical constructs anyhow, once all the assumptions are peeled away. With so little space between the particles in degenerate matter, it would be less permeable by etheric pressure, and would obstruct it more completely than any amount of ordinary matter could manage.
This exception is only mentioned for the sake of completeness however. The Electric Universe team has elegantly summarized a lot of evidence against the existence of neutron stars and black holes. (This and the entire body of work at the Thunderbolts Project channel are among the most valuable contributions on YouTube.)
Back to the Lab
Having raised the topic of black holes, which is one of the more notorious examples of theory widely presented as fact, let's take another look at T. Townsend Brown's lab. There was a significant detail in his rock electricity output graphs that applies here. The daily increase and drop-off was not a sharp spike as one would expect if the cause was “gravity waves” from a point source like the giant black hole alleged to occupy our galaxy's core. Instead it was a gradual rise and fall corresponding to many degrees of sky producing the effect.
In fact, it looked as if the increase roughly matched the combined interstellar wind output from all the stars in whichever direction our part of the earth was facing at the time. The highest density was at the core, but something about the surrounding mass of stars, thickest near the center, also apparently contributed to the heightened effect. This suggests that the interstellar winds may be not just riding on the ether but contributing to it.
The minimum size required for a mass to shield other nearby masses from a significant fraction of the surrounding etheric pressure may be only a few miles. This would account for the observation that as many as one in six asteroids have smaller asteroids orbiting them, despite the standard gravitational model predicting that their fields should not be strong enough to attract and retain satellites.
To reiterate, the interstellar medium has some characteristics of a fluid, so thin that it's nearly a vacuum. Something basic to its nature induces it to circulate, on all scales, forming concentric vortexes or whirlpools that carry along the matter floating in it. The ether penetrates planets and stars like water through a sponge. Their rotations and orbits are induced by the flow of the ether in the local space they occupy.
If the force of gravitation is caused by etheric shielding, and is not just an attraction between masses, the surface gravity, though not the entire gravitational field, of all planets, moons and asteroids above a certain size will turn out to be in the same general range. Our own moon will have a surface gravity closer to earth normal, with all this implies for lunar science and the moon program.
This would explain why there are so many discrepancies between lunar conditions alleged by conventional textbooks and actual lunar observations. There's a lot of other ground to cover, and it would be better if this report doesn't get too huge, so let's just mention some highlights.
The Neutral Point Discrepancy
The neutral point between the Earth and the moon, their common center of gravity where their pulls are equally strong, was originally reported to be between 22,000 and 25,000 miles from the moon. This is consistent with the moon having only one sixth the gravity of the Earth. But in the references published after the late 1960s, following several lunar probes, the neutral point was reported to be between 38,000 and 43,000 miles from the moon. This new position would require the moon to have a surface gravity nearly two thirds that of the Earth's. Landing and taking off with rockets alone would be impossible, given the amount of fuel the lander would need to carry.
Before the moon landings, the program's publicists often claimed that since the moon's gravity was only a sixth that of Earth's, the astronauts would be able to leap great heights and distances. Such feats were never demonstrated.
Any evidence for a lunar atmosphere is also evidence for a higher lunar surface gravity, and vice versa. Along with photos of clouds on the moon, there are films from the moon landings of dust drifting sideways behind the rover, and of breezes moving the flag around.
Clear photos showing the undisturbed dust under the lunar lander caused some to think the whole landing was a hoax; shouldn't the landing jets have blown it around? Why had no dust settled on the landing pads? And why were no jets visible under the ascent module when it lifted off? The film shows it rising at a constant rate, instead of the gradual increase in speed typical of a rocket launch.
But if rockets were only used for getting out of the Earth's gravity well, and the moon landings and takeoffs were actually accomplished through electrogravitation, these discrepancies become more comprehensible. Given the military advantages provided by such an option, the astronauts would have been bound by strict non-disclosure agreements concerning electrokinetics.
This also would explain why, for the last few decades, all officially acknowledged manned space activities have been restricted to low Earth orbit. This would allow for a firewall between personnel in the official space program, relying solely on rocketry, and secret space programs with far greater capabilities. And it furthers the conditioning of the public to believe that space travel will always be impossible for anyone but huge corporations or governments to manage.
For a more complete account of this part of the story, I highly recommend Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the US Space Program (1982) by Bill Brian. (This was only a decade after the Watergate break-in so it wasn't yet such a cliché to indicate a cover-up with the “-gate” suffix.) Meticulous calculations, solid reasoning. Yet in phone conversations in the 1980's he said that despite thousands of copies going out, it was like he never wrote it. Zero acknowledgment. Crickets.
Another very helpful book is Gravitational Force of the Sun by Pari Spolter. She corrects widespread mathematical errors and assumptions concerning gravity, validates Kepler's third law, and explains the flaws in Einstein's Relativity and Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Without ever mentioning the etheric shielding model, she provides strong evidence for it, demonstrating that gravitational attraction is not caused by inert mass, and its force is not proportional to the density or quantity of the matter involved.
In case the unavoidable non-linearity of this story wasn't already obvious, now let's finally get around to explaining just what is this electrogravitics Townsend Brown discovered. Once again, since Brown apparently found the original description from the 1977 free energy story to be adequate, I'll save time and stitch that section in here:
“Back in 1923, Thomas Townsend Brown began working with Dennison University's Professor Biefield, who was a former classmate of Einstein's in Switzerland, in experiments to understand and overcome gravity. Tests performed to find the electrical relation of gravity to charged objects proved that a charged condenser, or capacitor, suspended from a thread tended to move in the direction of its positive pole. Brown realized then that this tendency of charged condensers toward motion could grow into a new method of propulsion.
“Brown constructed flying condensers shaped like saucers. A high positive charge on the leading edge caused thrust to be generated in the direction of the region of low flux density. Brown's saucers required no jets or propellers, no moving parts at all. They modified the gravity field around themselves to produce, in effect, the incline of a “hill” under the craft, which they slid down like a surfboard on a wave. Larger versions might take their own “hill”, which is a local orientation of the field around them, in any direction, at any speed, with acceleration limited only by the amount of voltage they could muster.
“The electro-gravitational craft would provide great maneuverability without shaking up passengers or payload, because no outside inertial forces can reach inside the field. The local gravity anomaly excludes any centrifugal forces caused by direction changes. Also, there is no skin friction heat, since there is no air resistance. The positively charged area in front of the craft repels the air molecules away to the sides, creating a vacuum ahead of the leading edge, thus pulling it forward.
“At one point Brown built a rotor with end-to-end condensers encircling it. When a charge was applied to the condensers, the wheel accelerated in the negative to positive direction. Being in an almost frictionless local field, the rotor kept accelerating until voltage had to be reduced because of the danger that it would fly apart.
“Townsend Brown was granted several US patents and his work was ignored, officially. A discovery that could render most present-day aircraft obsolete is not likely to be met with great joy by the aircraft industry. The same lack of interest greeted the Northrop Corporation's announcement in 1968 that wind tunnel experiments with charged models indicated that sonic booms could be eliminated with strong positive charges on the leading edges of conventional aircraft wings. They found that “electro-aerodynamics” not only removed shock-wave booms, but also greatly reduced turbulence, fuselage stress and fuel consumption, because of the canceled wind resistance. One danger of introducing such a concept to the aircraft manufacturers is that someone might realize they could discard the existing propulsion system and use a much higher voltage on the leading edge.”
Here's another paragraph from later in that article, included because it made a connection that hadn't been pointed out elsewhere, as far as I know, which he seemed to appreciate:
“One would expect to find principles this basic used in nature, and sure enough, some discrepancies that have long baffled zoologists might be explained in terms of the Biefield-Brown effect. Dolphins, for example, have often been observed and filmed coasting for some distance underwater at the same high speed as their initial thrust, as if they were somehow nullifying the drag of the water. Likewise, Peregrine falcons have been clocked diving at speeds over 200 mph, which should have blown their feathers right off. This prompted researchers to strap miniature air speed indicators to the birds' shoulders, in order to double check. Although their speed relative to the ground was still over 200 mph, their air speedometers showed that air moving past the bird never exceeded 80 mph. In both cases these animals may be altering their bioelectric fields to produce a strong positive charge ahead of their bodies, thereby inducing the respective fluids they move through to slide past much more easily. Could this also be how bumblebees can persistently defy the aerodynamicists' calculations?”
Since writing that I've also watched salmon swimming straight up waterfalls, and it sure looks like something similar is going on there.
So What Happened?
It should now be clear that any attempt to explain the cause of gravity has to be able to account for the implications of electrogravitics. Yet mainstream science has long closed ranks against the concept. When forced to acknowledge any experimental evidence supporting it, defenders of the standard model misrepresent the phenomenon as solely due to “ionic wind”. Even the wiki page for T. T. Brown claims he didn't understand his own discovery and that the effect couldn't occur in a vacuum. Yet in fact he repeatedly demonstrated electrogravitation in a high vacuum, where there could be no ionic wind, only an electrical strain directly upon the ether. He also operated his devices submerged in oil, which is very hard to ionize. So, Wikipedia, sloppy research or deliberate disinformation? Well, examine the entries for other great scientists and inventors who went way beyond the prevailing narrative, and see if you notice a pattern.
Just recently some folks at MIT said they'd developed a model aircraft with no moving parts. It's propelled by, you guessed it, ionic wind. The announcement had to acknowledge Brown's prior work, since this was basically a copy of his electrokinetic fan with no moving parts, built into a simple airfoil. However they repeated the claim that he was “an eccentric who thought he'd invented anti-gravity but was wrong, of course”.
And the Apollo landers' ascent modules took off from the moon using rocket power alone, of course.
Here's where we have to consider two different possible storylines.
Both involve deliberate suppression of major breakthroughs in energy production and transportation, among other fields. Inventors who go too far off the reservation get bought off or bumped off or otherwise persuaded to shut the hell up. Speculating about just who or what is doing this and what might be their agenda has to wait for now, or this report will take way too long to finish.
In one storyline, discoveries and inventions that undermine basic assumptions of mainstream science are routinely suppressed, and no one ever actually builds and uses them.
In the other storyline, such discoveries are suppressed as far as the general public is concerned. But the best of those inventions are developed and deployed in secret, for the exclusive use of an elite subgroup of humanity, and never shared with us peasants.
In both cases, inaccurate fundamental scientific assumptions are deliberately promoted throughout the mainstream education system to make disallowed realizations and inventions less likely.
For me at least, it looked pretty obvious by 1980 that the second storyline was the one we were dealing with. Further decades of artificial scarcity and technological retardation have reinforced that conclusion, to put it mildly. Later we can consider a few implications of this situation, and whether our chances of correcting it may have recently improved.
For many years, the high probability of this scenario has been a strong disincentive against writing all this down and spreading it around. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble and expense to prevent such ideas from being widely considered, let alone applied. The controllers have demonstrated vast resources and very low tolerance for uppity independent researchers who haven't learned to keep their insights to themselves.
Yet there must also be a very different group or force that encourages people to seek truth and share it around, since it keeps happening.
Or maybe that push is coming directly from Nature herself, or from the cosmic information field or the sea of awareness or whatever you want to call it. But someone or something out there must be trying to counter the forces of deception and suppression, or we'd all be in far worse circumstances.
A further effect of this whole situation is evident in the style of this report, although “style” might be too generous a term. Until we see an all-ideas-welcome information revolution, there's no hope of getting notions like these into any formal scientific journal. And anyhow, if I tried to write in the manner such publications presently find acceptable, I'd bore myself to death, and not finish the story.
What About UFO'?
Back to electrogravitation. There's often a high-voltage corona observed around unidentified craft, whether from secret terrestrial programs or extremely elsewhere. Just pointing that out. This report will be long enough without adding speculations on UFOs. As far as I know I've never been inside one, so for details on those, better ask someone who has.
Of course, since memory manipulation is a common part of UFO contact accounts, none of us can say for certain we've had no such contact. And even benign visitors with off-planet capabilities could have sound reasons for letting most of us think it's entirely up to us to overhaul our crude technology and dysfunctional social order, and that we have no chance of outside intervention or rescue if our ecosystem croaks.
Nothing motivates one to prevent a planet's destruction like being stranded on it.
Could the Earth's Gravity Vary with Charge?
But here's a question that does call for a whole lot of speculating: is there an upper limit to the size of bodies in space whose gravitational field is altered by their electric charge? The interactions in this part of the story have been especially difficult to visualize and explain.
The simplest demonstration of electrogravitics, and the only one I've done personally, involves a high-voltage low-amperage power source, a balance beam , a small umbrella-shaped pair of conductors separated by an insulating strut, and a tripod to hang the balance beam from. The device hangs from one end of the beam, with a counterweight at the other end. Very thin wires connect the positive charge to the upper arc-shaped electrode, and the negative charge to the small conductor at the lower end. For the one I made, the arc electrode was around four inches in diameter and the small one was about a quarter-inch across. I got the design from one of Brown's patents (USP # 3,187,206; see RexResearch.com).
When the high voltage was switched on, the device got lighter and lifted as high as the balance beam would allow. Reversing the wires so the negative charge was on top made the device heavier. This experiment took place early in 1977.
Over the last couple decades, a number of experimenters have made small electrokinetic “lifters” out of aluminum foil and balsa wood, and applied enough voltage to cancel their devices' weight entirely.
Numerous video demonstrations are online.
To get to the point, what happens to the surface gravity of a planet carrying a strong charge relative to the surrounding space? Here's where extrapolating and speculating may be all we can do. Even if we could figure out how to conduct such an experiment, altering the charge on a whole planet to see what happens to its gravity could yield suboptimal results.
OK, so a strong positive charge on the upper end of a properly shaped array of conductors and insulators makes it lighter, relative to the gravity field it's in. Are there any naturally occurring gravitational anomalies whose explanation could involve strong electrical charges?
Tornadoes and Dinosaurs
So here's yet another reason why I waited so long to write this whole story, despite the fact that finding a plausible cause for gravity is actually kind of a big deal. I really thought by now this task would be taken care of by someone more qualified. And how hard could it be to find one of those?
I've long been enjoying the marvelous work of the Electric Universe team, and I thought surely they'd be the ones most likely to accomplish this. And a few of them have gotten very close to implying that the effects we've long been told are caused by gravity might actually result from some quality of space itself.
However, the EU team is managing something quite rare in science. Their predictions are consistently outperforming those of the standard model, just as mainstream theories are being upended by countless astronomical and geophysical observations. There's a very real chance they'll force a complete overhaul of these fields over the next few years. But to be taken seriously by mainstream scientists, two things you don't talk about too early are ether and electrogravitation, especially considering the implications mentioned earlier.
So that leaves this job up to someone who's not all that concerned about losing scientific credibility, what with not having vast quantities of that in the first place.
Accordingly, I have not directly contacted any of the EU team about these notions. At this stage, it could be an unhelpful distraction, and a few of them may already suspect something along these lines anyway and are merely exercising professional restraint. But none of that stops me from referencing their work in this next section.
Tornadoes are potentially as big a threat to mainstream science as they are to trailer parks. Conventional explanations utterly fail to account for the many weird effects observed.
Occasionally solid objects have been found imbedded through each other without shattering, as if they'd partially dematerialized or phase-shifted then re-solidified after fusing together. Two-by-fours stuck through cement curbs and steel plates are dramatic examples. It would take a very intense transient electromagnetic field to distort atomic structures enough to allow such interpenetration. (If anyone wants to compare this with a certain gruesome detail in the alleged “Philadelphia Experiment”, go right ahead, but we aren't getting to that yet.)
Far more common, and the reason we're even talking about tornadoes, are the cases where massive heavy objects like cars and trucks float up into the sky as if their weight had been sharply reduced. We're expected to accept that high winds alone are responsible. But some cars routinely drive faster than the winds measured in tornadoes without becoming airborne. Very high winds can blow a vehicle over and tumble or skid it along the ground, but it does not float away. Look at the lateral speed of cars and even big rigs that have been filmed drifting around a tornado's perimeter; they are not moving fast enough to fly. Something else is going on here.
Massive charge differences build up in storm clouds that produce tornadoes. Corona glows are even seen inside the clouds. And powerful positive charges can occur on the ground around the base of a tornado.
There's a great summary and explanation of this part of the story in the Thunderbolts Project video by Andrew Hall, “Tornadoes – The Electric Model” at
The point that applies here is that an electric field powerful enough to levitate cars and trucks sure sounds like electrogravitation. To be clear, as far as I know none of the EU team is suggesting this, so don't blame them. The connection struck me back in 1982 while watching a tornado video, but I couldn't decide what to do with the idea, and anyhow, it seemed so obvious that it must have occurred to others, and if they weren't talking about it, maybe there was a good reason.
And now, dinosaurs. In modern times there are no land animals anywhere near the size of the largest dinosaurs. How they were able to exist and move around in our familiar gravitational field has been a puzzle since their remains were first discovered.
The short answer is they didn't. For the biggest ones to even stand up, let alone walk or run, Earth's gravity had to be much weaker then; a third or less of its present strength. Here we must again invoke something akin to electrogravitation. If Earth's electrostatic field was far stronger back then, whenever “then” was, that could have produced a much milder surface gravity.
There's another big hole in the official story that needs to be acknowledged in passing. Our whole geological dating system relies on assuming that radioactive isotope decay rates have remained constant throughout the ages, and so have the average rates at which matter accumulates on the Earth's surface. But decay rates vary with ambient electrical field strength and fluctuations in solar radiation and cosmic ray intensity and who knows what else. And slow steady matter accumulation relies on gradualist geological assumptions that the EU team has pretty well blown out of the water.
For years I grappled with how or even whether to try and explain some of this. Now Peter Mungo Jupp has done a vastly better job of it than I'd ever have managed, and his presentations can be seen here:
“Upheaval: How Old Is the Earth and Its Species?”'
and “The Evolution of Life on the Electric Earth”
The other part of this subject concerns the role of the ether's formative forces in creating matter, and how the pace of that creation may vary widely at different times and places. That sub-topic will need its own section later in this report.
On the dinosaur size problem, there's a two-part video that covers it so well I'll just consider it a prerequisite for understanding this part of the story. No way could I do it justice with a short written summary. The presentations are from Ted Holden:
“Do Dinosaurs Pose a Gravity Problem?”
and “Could Dinosaurs Have Existed 'Recently'?”:
By now it should be apparent that the electrogravitation discovered by T. Townsend Brown is a potential factor in far more than UFO propulsion, as if that wasn't enough. And understanding it requires in turn that we comprehend the ether.
And it turns out the explanations for both dinosaurs and UFOs may have something in common. Fill in your own sci-fi joke here.
What All This Means for Geophysics
Let's get back to the rock electricity discovered by Townsend Brown, before spronking off in another direction. The rocks' electrical output would be a by-product of their absorption and translation of an infinitesimal fraction of the etheric forces passing through them. This absorption or deflection causes the shielding effect we perceive as gravity. This has implications that could force a complete overhaul of contemporary geophysics, which is overdue for it anyway.
The prevailing description of conditions deep within the earth depends on assumptions that are not only unproven but contradicted by countless observations. The central premise behind the standard model is that gravity is caused by a still-unidentified force that causes masses to pull each other together, and that this force is not attenuated by intervening matter. If it turns out that's all wrong, as I've been suggesting for the last nineteen pages, this could radically alter conditions below the Earth's surface from what we've been told. Do any of these changes match the actual facts on and under the ground?
Sprawling as it is, this report is intended as a preliminary summary only, so for now here's just a sample of relevant discrepancies. Each item might eventually generate its own more expanded article, hopefully by someone else, with the time and patience for that level of detail.
Gravity in Deep Mines, Boreholes and Caverns
Let's say the rock composing Earth's crust is absorbing etheric pressure and translating some of it into electricity. If so the downward pull of gravity should get weaker as one descends below the surface. This decrease would be greater than expected from just the “attraction” caused by rock layers above the location where gravity is being measured, as predicted by the standard model.
This did in fact turn out to be the case, when the downward “pull” of gravity was measured at the bottom of a two-mile deep borehole in the Greenland icecap, and in deep mines in Australia, and probably elsewhere; I haven't checked lately. The icecap findings are especially persuasive, since unlike rock the ice could be assumed to be all of equal density. So the deviation from expected results could not be attributed to variations in the surrounding rocks' densities.
To put it more briefly, you get lighter as you go deeper underground,
to a degree that adherents of the standard gravity model could not explain.
This is what we should expect if some of the etheric pressure upon the crustal surface is being absorbed as it penetrates, and partially converted to electricity.
There's a related item that will sound crazy, but in the pursuit of truth we must not be afraid to consider any ideas that might blah blah blah (Sorry, but one does get tired of having to keep pointing that out over and over for nearly half a century).
Anyhow, in one of the mid-1980's phone calls with Bill Brian mentioned earlier, he told me to find and read a very strange book called Etidorhpa by John Uri Lloyd, published in 1895, from a manuscript presented in 1865. Lloyd relates the account of a mysterious fellow who claimed to have journeyed deep into the earth, starting from somewhere in the Mammoth Caves complex of Kentucky, guided by an amphibious type of human who could see in total darkness.
Tempting as it might be to dismiss the tale as fiction, it contains scientific details and explanations that are disturbingly advanced for a story from that time period, though phrased in terms that now seem archaic. It is alternately enthralling and exasperating, especially the way his adventure ends just as he reaches what appears to be his destination, with no explanation of what he saw there, let alone how he returned to the surface. (Or maybe that part was simply missing from the edition I found.)
One striking feature of his story applies to the way gravity changes within the Earth. As he traveled deeper, he could feel his body getting lighter. What's more, below about ten miles, the zone of darkness ended. A diffused non-directional light made the surrounding caverns visible for the rest of the journey. Perhaps enough of the ether passing through the crust had been absorbed to noticeably reduce the apparent gravity, and some of the resulting rock electricity was raised into the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Or maybe not, it's just an idea.
We're all told early and often that our planet is a ball of mostly molten rock with a comparatively thin solid crust. Supposedly the deeper we go, the greater the pressure from the layers above. Though this is widely presented as fact, it's still just a theory, with many holes in it.
Here and there molten rock emerges from volcanoes, sure, but that does not automatically mean there's molten rock everywhere under the surface. Actual temperatures as measured underground vary widely from place, depending on local radioactivity and differences in pressure, porosity and especially electrical charge.
Andrew Hall lays out some evidence for the role of huge electrical discharges, both in the atmosphere and within the Earth's crust, basically underground lightning, in the formation of magma pockets and volcanic features, summarized here:
and Electric Sun, Electric Volcanoes:
If etheric shielding turns out to be the source of gravity, the compressive forces are strongest near the surface, and diminish as we go deeper, as described earlier. Subsurface conditions would be radically different from what we've been told to assume.
We already know of huge caverns far underground, with gigatons of rock pressing down on them, yet they are not squashed flat. Even larger caverns could continue on down to great depths below the Earth, surrounded by masses of rock with the same strength as surface rocks. But the rock would weigh less and less per a given volume as we descend, due to absorption by the layers above, of the etheric pressure that induces gravity.Every year deep earthquakes occur with epicenters calculated to be hundreds of miles below the surface. Seismic events should not be possible at such depths if the heat and pressure are as high as the standard model claims. While theorists have proposed various mechanisms that might get around this problem, there seems to be
no consensus on which apply, if any. They're working under the handicap of having to stipulate contradictory initial conditions: At such depths the rock is far hotter than its known melting point, but it must be solid if quakes are happening there, so it must be the extreme pressure that far down that's making the alleged mantle act like a solid, but other parts of the standard model require vast slow fluid-like convection currents, and so on. All of which hinges on assumptions that have never been proven, about the basic nature of gravity.
But if zones of solid rock continue down for hundreds of miles below the surface, seismic activity there is easier to explain. Especially if we consider the Earth as a vast organism, experiencing something akin to the growing pains in our bones. More on that later.
Tidal effects raise a further difficulty with conventional descriptions of earth's interior. We are told the force called gravity is not reduced as it penetrates matter. We are also told the Earth's solid crust is only one percent of its total volume, surrounding what amounts to an ocean of mantle thousands of miles deep, that collectively acts like a very thick fluid. On our surface ocean, which averages only two miles deep, the tides raise bulges several feet high that sweep around the planet every day.
Now scale up the mantle tide accordingly. See the problem? How does our thin crust keep from fracturing constantly under the force of a mile-high bulge of mantle moving a thousand miles an hour? How was it ever able to solidify in the first place, under such colossal stresses? A magma tsunami a mile high? Seriously?
Once again, gravity as a result of shielding etheric pressure comes to our rescue. As that force is absorbed on its way into the Earth, it becomes less able to exert tidal effects on any large bodies of liquid rock, including a very hypothetical entire planetful. Lucky break there, we get to exist.
Consider the water emerging from holes in the ground, at millions of locations around the world. Many of these are fed by the water permeating rock layers in higher ground nearby, above the level of the discharge. Others are explained as coming from water squeezed up from underground by the pressure of surrounding rock layers.
There's another possibility if the force we call gravity is strongest at the Earth's surface, then diminishes with depth, however slightly.
Water always seeks the lowest level. At the surface we can see it sinking into porous ground.
But one implication of the gravity model proposed here is that water, like any other matter, will be heaviest at the Earth's surface, and lighter underground. So if the gradient of a subsurface stream is slight enough, close to level, the water in it may flow toward the surface, where it is ever so slightly heavier. In mountain areas where springs are most common, this effect may be more pronounced when water flows beneath ground at lower elevations toward the spaces under mountains. This would be due to the greater reduction of the water's apparent weight because of the added thickness of the mountain mass above it.
In steeper underground streams, water still flows downward of course. And one might have to reach a considerable depth to measure it falling more slowly than at the surface. But where tubes and crevices
form nearly level passages, who can say? Nearly all of what water gets up to underground is invisible to us. It may turn out that for water within the Earth, under the right conditions, down is up and up is down.
The Speed of Gravity
Before Einstein came along, it was obvious to most researchers that whatever causes gravity had to propagate more or less instantaneously. If it only moved at the alleged speed of light, planets would be trying to orbit the place where their star had been when the light now reaching them first set out, rather than the actual location.
Stable orbits could not last long with errors like that piling up. It would be especially obvious with the outer planets. Neptune is four light-hours from the sun, which in four hours moves more than twice its diameter along its orbit around our galaxy.
And the problem gets weirder when we consider all those stellar orbits around their common center of mass. Our solar system is said to be moving more than half a million miles per hour in its roughly quarter-billion year orbit around the galactic center. The whole galaxy travels about twelve billion miles per year relative to the cosmic background, or three sextillion miles in the time it takes our star to complete a galactic orbit. That's more than half a million light years, around three times our galaxy's diameter, and nineteen times our distance from the galactic center.
Put another way, in the time it takes gravity to “get here” from the core, over twenty-six thousand years at light speed, that core has moved twenty-five thousand light-years elsewhere. Multiply that craziness by our one hundred to four hundred billion stars, and how could galaxies hold together at all?
While we're at it, how can we even know for sure that the speed of light is as slow in interstellar space as it is around our planet or near our star? We already know that photons slow way down while passing through certain otherwise transparent materials. What if they also speed way up after entering free space beyond the heliosphere, and no longer have to push through whatever interference the solar plasma presents? Or what if they speed up even sooner, while leaving local gravitational fields?
And what if there are other factors besides the Doppler effect causing the red shift used to estimate galactic velocities and distances, and the presumed expansion of the universe? What if it turns out the interstellar medium has a refractive index like other fluids? That could throw our distance estimates way off, while our general sense of which stars are closer or farther could still be fairly accurate.
I realize all that may sound naive, but there are some weird contradictions in the very concept of light as consisting of photons. Basic physics texts assert that photons have a rest mass of zero. That seems a bit disingenuous since photons are never at rest.
But photons have to be declared to have no mass since, according to relativity, if they had any mass it would become infinite when they reached light speed, which by definition they're supposedly moving at all the time. Yet photons demonstrably exert pressure on whatever they encounter, despite having no mass with which to accomplish that.
Now let's temporarily stipulate that Einstein was right about no time passing for anything moving at the speed of light. That must also apply to photons, being, you know, light. So photons would have to be ageless, eternal, experiencing zero passage of time, and not subject to entropy.
But in practice, photons obviously do experience sequential events.
They bounce off things, change directions, cause changes in whatever they hit and are in different places at different times. How do we reconcile a photon's subjective experience of sequential events with the claim that from its viewpoint zero time has passed in which any events could occur? Or, if a photon's entire history is compacted into one timeless instant, how does that coexist with our
experience of its activity? How can time flow at different rates in the same place without ripping apart space-time itself?
Sorry if this sounds like piling on, but if we've all been misinformed about gravity, every other core assumption in astrophysics needs to be re-examined as well.
Somewhere some actual physicists may have addressed these issues, without retreating into some fog of complex equations, but if such explanations are out there I haven't found them yet.
In modern conventional astrophysics, gravity's wagon is still hitched to general relativity, even as that theory staggers toward a cliff.
“But the math is so beautiful it has to be true.” That claim has persuaded generations of astrophysicists to spend their lives trying to prove various assertions of the theory, or reconcile their observations with it, while bringing us no closer to being able to fly among the stars, or tap into the free energy that oozes from every pore of the universe. Wherever that has been accomplished, it was not by applying the sabotaged science allowed to us surface dwellers.
In striking a compromise between thoroughness and brevity, it may sound like I'm blaming Einstein personally for sending astrophysics down the wrong track. But the current spiral of confusion had many contributors, interpreting and elaborating on general relativity, and massaging observational data to fit the theory. While Einstein was no Nikola Tesla, putting the whole mess in his lap would be like blaming Tesla for our global disaster of an energy grid, just because its owners seized on and monopolized the alternating current system he invented.
And it's important to note that for a time Einstein did consider the ether a vital part of his theory. In Sidelights On Relativity (1922) he said: “According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities...space without ether is unthinkable.”
After nearly fifty years of failed attempts, the much-celebrated detection of gravitational waves in 2016 was declared a confirmation of general relativity, a century after that theory predicted gravity waves. Accepting that finding as valid requires accepting the existence of black holes, which themselves depend on accepting the validity of general relativity. Now I'm no astrophysicist, but that sure sounds like circular validation to me.
The actual detector has two arms four miles long at right angles, and the detection itself consists of a ridiculously tiny deflection, reported to be something like a billion billionth of a nanometer. Seldom has so much been spent to find so little. (Here it's tempting to throw in a snarky remark about CERN and the modestly named “god particle”, but until that facility's alleged creepy hidden agendas are definitively ruled out, it's probably better not to snark at it.)
The Ether's Formative Forces
All right, let's get back to Earth. Specifically rocks, and how they came to exist. We've all been told the story of how massive clouds of dust and gas are supposed to have slowly clumped together over eons and solidified into entire planets. A couple problems with that: The disruptive forces that would disperse such clouds are much stronger than the gravity that's said to pull them together. Gas spreads out in a vacuum, stellar winds push dust away, and collisions among larger accretions are far more likely to break them up than stick them together.
And though we call them “protoplanetary discs”, the ones around the stars we've observed have not actually shown that happening. Once a planet is big enough to generate some gravity, dust can fall in and add a bit of mass, but we've yet to catch a so-called accretion disc in the act of starting planets from scratch. Even the recently imaged planet in the disc around PDS 70 in Centaurus, though described as “newborn”, does not prove the disc formed the planet. It's already a few times bigger than Jupiter and we have no way to tell if it's newer or older than the disc. For all we know such discs may be flattened-out remnants of micronova debris.
Regarding micronovas, the recent “Earth Catastrophe” series at the Suspicious Observers site is one of many reasons to check in there often.
Ben Davidson's daily crash summaries of space weather, seismic and climate events and alerts, and related science news, along with more detailed reports, are a priceless public service.
I should mention though, one of the catastrophic scenarios in that series, that the Earth's crust could unlock from the mantle and shift violently, independent from the interior, would not be possible if the alternative geophysical model outlined earlier turns out to be correct.
Amusingly enough, the long-ignored etheric shielding model of gravity could make it easier to get around at least one of the problems with the accretion disc theory of planet formation. The meter size barrier is what astrophysicists call the tendency toward destructive collisions that would prevent dust aggregates from getting above a certain size.
As shown earlier, etheric pressure from space at large might help masses drift together even if they are much smaller than would allow them to have any gravity under the standard model.
There's another problem with the story of Earth forming from the slow accumulation of falling dust. According to the figures from NASA, on average a hundred tons or so of space dust and debris lands on Earth each day. Let's say that this time the official numbers are accurate, just to see where they lead. A hundred tons times 365 days per year times four and a half billion years is nearly 165 trillion tons. Sounds like a lot. But the Earth supposedly weighs nearly 6.6 sextillion tons. Oops.
That means the total estimated cosmic debris landing here over the estimated time the Earth has existed amounts to one forty millionth of its current mass. Either that or the density of available dust was once billions or trillions of times thicker than it is now, depending on how long we're guessing it took, which presents other problems. Like, it's hard to see where all that came from, nine billion years after the universe allegedly boinked into existence.
What we can see is that crystals, like plants, can start from a tiny seed and grow, adding matter from the space they occupy, and they don't always require a chemical solution around them to do this.
First let's look at what happens as plants grow from seeds. The experiment described long ago by Paul Dirac sums it up well:
“Take a clear test tube and insert a piece of sterilized cotton saturated with distilled water. Put a bean or pea in the initial stage of germination inside the tube and seal it carefully with a glass stopper and wax, making it absolutely airtight and moisture-proof.
“A careful chemical analysis of the seed which has sprouted in the test tube, as compared with an identical seed, will prove the sudden appearance of new chemical elements in the sprout not present in the original seed, which cannot be logically explained by contemporary textbook science. The mineral substance found in the sprouting seed will show a gain of 20% to 100% over the identical seed before the sprouting test. We know the tube was sterile, the water was distilled and contained no mineral substance that can penetrate the glass wall of the test tube. The only logical explanation for these surprising results is of course the assumption of the existence of formative or 'etheric' forces which are able to penetrate the molecular barrier of the material of the test tube.”
And the Mount Wilson astronomer Gustaf Stromberg described the formative, organizing capacity of the ether in this way:
“It has been found that all living things are imbedded in complex electrical fields which determine the structure and structural changes in developing organisms. The fields guide certain kinds of molecules in such a way that they fit into a preexisting complex pattern. The organizing electric fields in a fertilized egg cell apparently expand from a point of zero dimension to full size at maturity; and later in life the fields contract and dissolve, a process which we describe as death.
“When the fields have completely disappeared, there is no longer any organized activity. The unorganized fields inherent in all inorganic matter will quickly cause a breaking-up of fluid matter in the organism. It can be shown that these mysterious organizing fields are not 'anchored' in the matter from which the organism is built. The form-producing fields have inherent properties which can in no way be regarded as a result of the arrangement of the electrically charged particles of the incorporated matter. On the contrary, the molecules are incorporated in a preexisting autonomous field of force, which may well be called 'a living force field'.”
The concept of morphic resonance developed by Rupert Sheldrake is enormously helpful in comprehending how this occurs, along with many other phenomena. Visit Sheldrake.org for details. His book Science Set Free is one of the most useful so far this century.
Growing Crystals, Growing Planets
The most familiar way for crystals to form is in a saturated solution of whatever compound one is trying to crystallize. But there are times when they grow where no solution is present.
Occasionally those who collect crystals from pockets in the Earth, especially in desert regions, notice that there is no sign of there having ever been any liquid solution from which they could form. We've seen this in the high Mojave desert where aragonite crystals have grown in small dry cavities. They are too far up the mountain to have been under water, and surrounded by cracks that would have drained off any moisture that could have accumulated. Even vapor deposition, the conventional explanation, would have been hard to manage in those confined spaces.
Here's an experiment many of us have performed without intending to, and often without realizing it. Take a crystal, usually quartz, that has a broken end where it was taken from its original location. Place it somewhere it can be observed and appreciated, because whatever its other attributes or possible interactions with human energy fields, it's rather pretty. Let some time pass, maybe even several years. Now notice that the broken end is slowly healing, growing outward to where it can eventually form another point. This might not happen every time, especially if the crystal was seriously traumatized in some way. And it seems to happen even when nobody is paying attention, though it might take longer. But I know, from comparing notes with others, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. And in any case “double terminated” crystals are not all that rare, and often show no sign of having been attached to a parent cluster or any sort of starting matrix.
So what is going on here? There's no source of silicon dioxide in the air for the crystal to draw from, let alone a liquid solution. There is only the ether's formative forces, which could be thought of as the ultimate solution. It is like a field of reality pores, through which virtual particles can emerge into solidity, if there is even a tiny seed with which to resonate.
It also appears that both matter and energy find it easier to well up into reality if the space they are starting from is extremely small.
More about that in the next section.
Over large areas and given enough time, could crystals and minerals in general accumulate enough substance in this manner to account for the growth of an entire planet?
Maybe we should first review some of the evidence for the Earth's growth during its lifespan.
Seafloor spreading is perhaps the most obvious, particularly in the Atlantic, though the East Pacific Rise is spreading much faster than the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Seafloor material is youngest along these ridges and gets older as it approaches the continental margins. And the oldest seafloor material found so far is less than a tenth as old as some of the continental rock.
If the rate of expansion has been more or less constant, which is a big if, the ocean basins have grown from nothing to their present size in around a twentieth of the time the Earth has been solid. Note that the oldest fossils of aquatic life have only been found on land, where there were once shallow inland seas.
To get these facts to conform to the long-standing belief that the Earth has been the same size throughout its life, the theory of subduction was developed. With both of the largest ocean basins expanding, either the excess seafloor has to be made to disappear somehow, or we have to allow that our planet has expanded considerably over time. Though it's widely treated as fact, not theory, evidence for subduction isn't nearly as robust as that for seafloor spreading.
A major weakness of the subduction theory is that there's been no convincing explanation for how the seabed can sink under denser landmasses into mantle material said to be even more dense. And
the serpentine and other cooked rocks cited as evidence for subduction, which have somehow pushed back up to the surface, all have other possible explanations, including intense electrical discharges.
In images of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian ocean seafloors, huge stretchmarks are clearly visible. Most are between ten and twenty miles wide and run for hundreds or thousands of miles in all directions, but especially east-west. Don't take my word for it; spend some time on Google Earth and see what those lines look like to you.
The land masses all fit together neatly with almost no rotation or distortion if they are wrapped around a much smaller globe that excludes the oceans. Years ago, Neal Adams put together some very persuasive animations to illustrate how that might look, such as this:
There are places where it looks like the continental crust is expanding as well. There are the rift valleys of course, but local examples on a smaller scale are visible on the surface in some places.
I first noticed this long ago near Mount Shasta, driving on older blacktop roads that had gone many years without resurfacing. There were hundreds of gaps a few inches wide, not just cracks, regularly spaced, some twenty feet apart, at right angles to the road's direction. No asphalt fragments were in the gaps or off to the sides. Some of the old roads in the high deserts showed similar gaps. It looked as if the ground had expanded under the road, which could not stretch of course, by at least one percent since it was first laid down.
In mountains in the Mojave region of southeastern California, I've seen long deep crevices that look as though the rock was cracked apart by intense expansion pressure from underneath. Similar cracks are sometimes visible in the coastal ranges to the north, though erosion and vegetation often cover them soon after they form. The thing is, compression is claimed to be the main force shaping those landforms, rather than separation, due to the crustal plates getting mashed together. Yet even on a much larger scale, the crust instead looks as if it's being pulled apart by expansion of the layers underneath it, as shown in the shapes of bays along the coast.
The Earth's local rate of expansion will be found to vary greatly, from barely detectable in zones where the life energy is depleted, to quite noticeable where there are still healthy forests or other expressions of high vitality.
To be clear, if the etheric shielding model proposed here is correct, the Earth's smaller size would not have been the cause of a milder gravity during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. As described earlier,
a much stronger electric field would have been the more likely cause. Once above the minimum mass needed to absorb enough etheric pressure for shielding to occur, a planet or planetoid's size would be less a factor in its surface gravity than its charge relative to the surrounding space.
Now remember the experiment described by Dirac. The sprouting seed as much as doubled its substance within a week or so, and the increase was not water weight, but new mineral substance emerging from the ether's formative forces surrounding it, guided by the sprout's organizing fields. This process continues throughout a plant's life. Once the growth process is launched, it needs a basic growth medium, sunlight, water and a life energy field, and up it goes. Once past the sprouting stage, as long as there is a sample available of the elements it requires, to use as a sort of template, it can make more, drawing new molecules from the ether's potential.
This is why the action of certain plants can measurably increase the amounts of various elements in the soil, even though others may deplete them. Biological Transmutations, as delineated by Louis Kervran (bio 2) , are still ignored within mainstream science, despite vast experimental evidence supporting them. We'll briefly explore these in a later section of this report. His work helps clear up a great many puzzles in biochemistry. Basically the processes involved enable living systems to bootstrap their way into having more of the elements they require, starting with just a few basics. Recall that the sprouts in Dirac's experiment developed not only extra matter but also elements not present in the original seeds.
On a larger scale, notice that over time the ground rises around the base of a tree as it creates new matter, instead of sinking as one would expect if it was pulling more matter up out of the ground than it was contributing.
Crystal structures of all sizes also have self-organizing fields, though they work more slowly. Under the right conditions these fields can be seen, especially under a microscope. Pull up a few crystallization videos and see for yourself. In clear footage of crystals growing, if we watch closely, we can observe a sort of ghost or aura surrounding and preceding their formation, reaching out just ahead of where the next layers of crystal will appear.
A common objection to this whole line of thought will be that, while living things are increasingly acknowledged to somehow reverse entropy, inorganic matter should not be able to. The mechanist description of Nature, still dominating mainstream education, maintains that rocks, crystals, water and air are not alive. My reply to the mechanists is, you really should get outdoors more often.
Awareness Composes the Universe
The prevailing mainstream worldview has yet to adjust to the full implications of observer effects on reality. At the most obvious level, it's well-documented that expectations affect experimental results and have to be adjusted for.
And consensus among explorers of quantum mechanics still seems to be a way off. There are several conflicting interpretations, and a lot more misinterpretations, of the notorious double-slit experiment, which has more recently been performed with molecules containing over 800 atoms. Evidence of observer influence applying at a much larger scale includes placebo and nocebo effects, the role of confidence and visualization in human performance, and basic luckonomics, which means just what it sounds like.
Back down at the quantum level, observing the process is what induces the probability waves to settle on what and where they are going to be. Unless one has been heavily conditioned against such ideas, this all adds up to an impression that some awareness able to observe the process is a prerequisite for solid reality to emerge from the realm of mere possibility, from what might be, to what actually is.
More and more evidence from other fields is pointing to the same conclusion: Life is not some accidental result of random interactions in an otherwise dead universe. Awareness, or life in the broadest sense, is what created physical reality, not the other way around.
And if awareness came first, the only raw material it had with which to create universes was itself. So to this day, whatever we are looking at is ultimately composed of awareness, looking back at us. It doesn't matter how unaware any given specimen of reality may appear to our senses; it's still made of awareness. So let's, you know, try to be nice to it.
Fresh Squeezed Space-Juice
Again this story wanders far afield, but it does eventually circle back to rock electricity and gravity, which anchor the evidence-hunting side trips.
Let's peer deeper into what exactly might be happening to generate rock electricity, right down into the spaces within the atoms composing the rock. Recall that whatever the ether is made of, its substance is fine enough to permeate those spaces. But it's also a sort of carrier wave for a whole range of frequencies. Many of these have short enough wavelengths to easily fit into subatomic spaces. The higher the frequencies, the greater their potential energy. Much of this vacuum energy may be at frequencies too high to interact with matter. But that still leaves plenty that can.
Vacuum energy is often called zero-point energy, for perfectly valid scientific reasons, but vacuum energy is more intuitively obvious so we'll stick with that for this section.
Whatever we call it, it's everywhere. So for it to be induced to flow into a local system, or even be detected, there needs to be some sort of potential difference between two parts of that system. Even a momentary potential difference will work, especially if it's repeating. So pulsations are a key feature in naturally occurring systems that tap into it, like organisms.
And tap into it they must. All sorts of creatures expend far more energy than they could be obtaining by converting whatever they're ingesting and inhaling, especially during long migrations wherein they eat nothing. This has been repeatedly measured, puzzled over and then mostly ignored.
There's a thing called the Casimir effect. I will now oversimplify what that is and speculate wildly about its implications, to a degree almost guaranteed to further exasperate any mainstream scientists who've actually read this far.
The effect works like this: Place a pair of thin uncharged conductive plates extremely close together, say about ten nanometers. They will be pushed together by the combined force of all the vacuum energy wavelengths outside the plates, which is greater than the force holding them apart, because the wavelengths too long to fit between the plates are excluded. The effect also occurs at slightly closer and wider spacings of the parallel surfaces, though it's reported to be strongest when the gap is about ten nanometers. It also works with dielectrics, which suggests some intriguing possibilities.
Even if the plates are held apart by some means, the pressure is still there. If it's prevented from expressing as movement, can it express instead as electrical energy?
There's quite an assortment of naturally occurring micro-structures where Casimir forces might be in play. The first one I thought of is the double membrane around mitochondria, since the function this organelle is most known for is energy production. While this has been attributed solely to chemical energy via the ATP cycle, it's interesting that the space between the outer and inner membranes of a mitochondrion is right in the range where a Casimir effect might occur. The structured fluid between the membranes keeps them from being pressed together, and it has some properties in common with liquid crystal, so is there something akin to piezo-electricity occurring there? Whatever the method, one has to wonder if that force could be contributing energy to the cell, and collectively to the entire organism.
Another provocative detail about mitochondria is that their inner membranes have many convolutions, so they have up to five times the surface area of the outer membranes. They are in a sense bigger on the inside than the outside, like some sort of micro-TARDIS.
Close-spaced double membranes are a very common feature in cellular structures. And the structured water within those spaces develops small but significant bio-electric potential differences. If we combine implications of work done by Ken Shoulders, Gilbert Ling, Gerald Pollack and Moray B. King, a clearer understanding emerges of how living creatures could be drawing in some of the ether's potential energy.
There is a thorough summary of Ken Shoulders' High Density Charge Cluster discoveries here: http://rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm
Apart from his books, a great example of Moray B. King's work is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAPlJqw_lGM
and his papers and powerpoint presentations are at:
Gerald Pollack's discoveries about the functions of electrically structured water in biological processes (exclusion zone water) as well as weather and hydrology are described in several books and too many videos to pick out a favorite. Dig in and follow your instincts.
Gilbert Ling's contributions have been too great for even wikipedia to completely ignore. His association-induction hypothesis and polarized multilayer theory of cell water, developed in the early 1960's, are credited by Dr. Pollack with inspiring some of his own work, and in 1977 by Dr. Raymond Damadian with providing the origination of his invention of the MRI. They present a persuasive alternative to the dominant membrane-pump model in conventional cell physiology.
But since much of the pharmaceutical empires' profits depends on everyone believing the membrane-pump hypothesis is correct, dethroning it seems harder than ever, no matter how many observations and experiments disprove it. Dr. Ling is now 99 and still pursuing the truth. See
Microtubules are another cellular structure where energy inflow related to the Casimir effect might be occurring. It will take some mighty fine detectors to verify this hunch. But if it is happening it could help clear up some persistent mysteries in cell function, and the nature of the interface between consciousness and organisms. And all animal and plant cells contain them.
I'd never heard of microtubules until Art Aho told me about them in 1977. I was doing the illustrations for his book Tomorrow's Energy Need Not Be Fuel (1979) and he wanted some depicting the arrangements of microtubules in cilia. One of the odd facts he brought up was that if a cilium is severed from its parent cell, such as a paramecium, it continues to swim around on its own for a while.
It contains no nerve or muscle fibers, so how is this possible?
In 1994, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose proposed that consciousness depends on biologically orchestrated coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within neurons.
After years of resistance from orthodox quarters, there's growing experimental evidence supporting the idea. A recent summary is here:
and a deeper dive here:
And since even life forms with no neurons display some sort of awareness, the principle will likely turn out to apply in some fashion to all cells with microtubules.
The inner diameter of a microtubule is around twelve nanometers, right in the Casimir effect sweet spot. Current flows within them, and they've been found to act like semiconductors, whose attributes include the ability to capture noise energy. Vacuum fluctuations are the most wideband noise there is, and if even the tiniest portion of their potential is made temporarily coherent so it can leak into solid reality, that's more than enough to power living cells.
All this sub-cellular preamble ramble should now make it easier to visualize the upwelling of vacuum energy within and between atoms.
Smaller space, similar principle. There must be something keeping all those whirling electrons and vibrating nucleons in motion. Or we can choose to visualize atoms as composed not of particles but as interference patterns of intersecting vibrations in the ether.
Even mainstream physics acknowledges that spin is an intrinsic property of vacuum energy. And there perhaps is the genesis of the vortexes we observe on every scale.
As Bob Einstein used to say, “Golly Mister Science!”
There's been a great variety of water-based inventions that produced more energy than they needed to get started, going back at least as far as John Worrell Keely's in the 1870's. Viktor Schauberger's implosion motor, Karl Schaeffer's cavitation effect steam generator, electrolyzers developed by Yull Brown, Stan Meyer and Ryushin Omasa, and the “Joe Cell” are examples. The inventors had various guesses for where the extra energy might be coming from.
I think the most likely hypothesis so far comes from Moray B. King. His description pertained mainly to the hyper-efficient electrolyzers and the excess energy produced when capacitors are discharged underwater, as demonstrated by Peter Graneau and Gary Johnson, but variations may turn out to apply to the others as well. (Details on all these are at RexResearch.com.)
Classically, electrolysis of water requires more energy than can be obtained by recombining the resulting gases as fuel. So any systems that generate more energy than they consume are tapping an additional source, whether or not the inventor could explain it.
Features that facilitate this include pulsing the charge on the electrolysis plates, at up to thousands of cycles per second, and ensuring that the plates are not smooth but covered with very fine grooves so the gas bubbles will detach while they are still in the nanobubble size range. This allows some of those to develop microscopic ball lightning, in the form of circulating vortex rings of plasma ions and electrons, known as plasmoids. On that scale, they provide openings for vacuum energy to cohere and make the transition from virtual to actual, entering our dimension as it were. That extra energy is what enables electrolyzers with those features to produce their anomalous results.
Dr. Pollack's work regarding charge separation in water also applies here. He found layers of exclusion zone water containing extra electrons would form around submerged spheres of any size. If that is also occurring around nanobubbles, the greater amounts of charge relative to the bubbles' size could create enough potential difference in the vacuum energy permeating the system to invite some of it to come through.
The water droplets in fog and clouds are around ten micrometers across, small enough to allow this same effect to occur in thunderclouds. And water vapor has been shown to enhance etheric energy's capacity to translate from virtual to actual, to emerge as energy and matter into the physical world.The inventor “Joe” who came up with the “Joe Cell” said that much of the energy that allowed his car to run on water was not from the hydrogen, but from orgone entering the system due to its geometry
He advised anyone trying to drive with such a system to also have a regular fuel tank they could switch over to in case they drove into a “dead zone” where the orgone was severely depleted.
The term orgone was coined by Wilhelm Reich, whose discoveries help clarify various workings of Nature, and whose suppression was a prime example of the long-running war against truth. Orgone means roughly the same as prana, chi or vital energy. It is a property or expression of the ether that we should all be trying harder to understand, especially considering how hard the controllers have tried to prevent us from understanding it. Although it coexists and interacts with electromagnetic energy, it is definitely not the same thing.
One difference that applies here is that orgone flows from areas of low potential toward areas of higher potential, the opposite of electromagnetic energy, so it tends to concentrate rather than disperse. There are simple experiments anyone can do to confirm this. Some require no equipment to perform, such as absorbing through one's eyes and breath the vital energy from a small cloud.
It's easier than you'd expect and only takes a few minutes. It works because the life energy in you should be more concentrated than what's in the cloud. It also suggests a lot about the non-local and connective properties of vital energy.
Pick out a cumulus cloud no larger than your hand can cover at arm's length. Gaze at it and breathe deeply, breaking away occasionally to glance at the ground and maybe place your palms on it. As the orgone flows from the cloud to you, you'll see it slowly shrink and fade away, while others nearby are not affected. The subjective feeling is nourishing and pleasant, sometimes almost giggly. To be clear, you are not absorbing the water vapor, just the vital energy around which it had collected, which was more concentrated than the background level. Of course, with all the modern interference aimed at suppressing our vitality, there's a tiny, but nonzero chance, that instead the cloud starts getting bigger and you feel weaker. If so, disengage and try again when you're better rested or fed or unstressed or whatever.
Once you've proven to yourself that this is possible, it's a source you can tap as needed, and it isn't necessary to eat the whole cloud; leave a bit to grow back. If there's only one in the sky, it's polite to wait until there are more. Also this doesn't seem to work with cirrus clouds, if you can even find any normal cirrus these days. And I hope I shouldn't have to point out, don't try it with chemtrails.
People gazing at clouds often get an uplifting sensation without knowing that it's partly due to this effect. And on several occasions, I've seen a large crowd of people staring expectantly at a low cloud layer manage to punch a big hole right through it, allowing them to watch the fireworks display they were looking forward to.
This etheric energy component of cloud formation is still missing from mainstream weather science, despite the best efforts of such pioneers as Wilhelm Reich and later Trevor James Constable, who first showed me how orgone accumulators work, and proved that etheric weather engineering could end droughts and dispel smog, if allowed. But it's obvious once you notice, that clouds occur more often over places with an upwelling of life energy, such as healthy forests, and in patterns that are hard to explain by differences in air pressure, temperature and humidity alone.
And the Kitchen Sink
In 1978, I learned about Viktor Schauberger, and much else, from Walter Baumgartner in LA. He and Kathleen Joyce had just started publishing the magazine Energy Unlimited, and they reprinted my free energy article in the second issue. I drew a few covers for them and ran another long story in the Spring 1981 issue, called New Ocean Technologies, part of which applies to the section after this.
Anyhow, Schauberger had discovered some amazing properties and behaviors of water, vortexes and Nature in general. He developed specially shaped chambers, nozzles and even sequential pools to induce vortexes in water that would purify and revitalize it. We've all noticed that water falling in a thin stream will spiral, and form whirlpools when draining from any basin through a small opening. One of his inventions used a long compound spiral sort of funnel to spin water up to a huge pressure as it left the tiny opening at the tip. It had a few different names. Baumgartner called it the implosion motor and was trying to work out how to replicate it, as it involved some very complex machining.
The part of Schauberger's work I could more easily relate to and apply involved the shaping of water features to revitalize water. And the simplest application is taking a moment to “wake up” water before drinking it. Just pour the water gently back and forth several times between two cups, stretching the stream so it falls at least a couple feet each time. Do this over a sink or outdoors. Compare the result with how the same water tastes from the bottle or tap. Several things are happening to it. It's getting oxygenated, its molecules are regrouping into smaller clusters so it's more penetrating, the spiral it forms as it falls adds vortex energy to cool and revitalize it, and since it's a conductor moving through Earth' magnetic field, some tiny amount of electricity is generated within it.
The first good book I found about Viktor Schauberger was
Living Water (1982) by Olof Alexandersson. There are others now. Some documentaries include Comprehend and Copy Nature:
and Nature Was My Teacher:
Those who've read up on Schauberger will note that I'm leaving out some parts of his story that usually get the most attention. When possible, I try to focus on ideas and implications that haven't been so thoroughly covered elsewhere. And I'm already asking readers to simultaneously juggle an awful lot of different mental objects as it is.
Vacuum Energy and Gravity Control
Earlier I brought up the subject of manipulating gravity through electrical fields, then parked it until later, which would be now.
The basic electrogravitic effect pioneered by Brown requires enormous voltages if we want to scale it up to where it can propel manned vehicles. That in turn needs an on-board power source far more efficient than conventional engines or batteries.
Converting some of the ether's potential free energy into actual energy is about as efficient as you can get. We probably can't have practical gravity control without free energy.
But the self-appointed rulers of this planet can't contain the rest of us in a financial slavery system if free energy is an option. For many generations, vast resources have been deployed to ensure we cannot advance beyond the lethally inefficient technologies we are permitted to use. And that, to boil it down, is why any time we try to get to the heart of this subject we have to wade through ridiculous amounts of disinformation.
When we take this on we almost immediately tangle with the topic of UFOs. Staggering quantities of nonsense await any researcher trying to get a handle on the matter. But at least one central fact is inescapable. Someone is operating highly advanced craft that can move at such speeds and make such sharp turns that they clearly aren't bothered by inertia, and they are doing so with a huge energy source unlike anything available to the general public.
Any space-faring civilizations that have mastered the physics to pull this off are unlikely to be using the brute force approach of applying raw high voltage alone. The motive field would ideally be tuned to pulse at frequencies and waveforms optimized for slipping through space, or atmospheres.
Much earlier I said I'd try not to wade too far into the UFO subject, hoping to keep this report reasonably brief. Oh well.
It's reasonable to imagine that a sophisticated space-faring civilization would also have highly developed material science.
When it comes to advanced technology, there's advanced, and then there's ridiculously, this-can't-really-be-happening, if-we-talk-about- this-our-careers-are-over, way-the-hell advanced.
One of the items in the 1981 story New Ocean Technologies mentioned above was the invention of sea-crete by Wolf Hilbertz, wherein a charged wire frame in seawater would accrete artificial coral strong enough to use as construction material. The article proposed growing artificial islands incorporating electrolysis and wave power for energy, electrogravitational desalination for fresh water, algae culture to supplement the food supply and so on. Since I have a tendency to point out connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, as you may have noticed, the last part of the story also included the following:
“If electrically accumulating substance from the ambient medium is such an optimum fabrication technique, we should expect to find some form of it being used by advanced civilizations elsewhere, as our sketchy knowledge of extraterrestrial technology fills in.
Pleiadean Metal Sample Analysis
“The best documented extraterrestrial contact in modern times is that of Billy Meier in Switzerland with the Pleiadean cosmonaut Semjase and her crew. In addition to clear color photographs, movie footage, tape recordings and interview transcripts, Meier acquired samples of the metal used in the spacecraft. Some of these samples were analyzed by Marcel Vogel, chief chemist at IBM in San Jose, with the most advanced equipment available. They tested out highly exotic, to say the least.
“Spectrum analysis revealed combinations of elements that should not be possible according to earth technology. One sample contained thulium, bromine and argon gas, somehow in a stable bond, with none of the secondary elements one might expect to be present in such a combination.
“Another sample contained lead and silver bonded with rhenium, which is extremely rare, dense and heat-resistant. In all samples, elements with widely different densities and melting points were side by side, with no oxidation, cooling bubbles or other evidence of heating, which would have driven off the lighter elements and gases. These metals had to be formed in a hard vacuum at zero gravity, by some sort of cold condensation or accretion process.
“As it turns out, according to the Pleiadeans, their spacecraft are grown, not built. A craft exists first as a detailed thought-form that gradually congeals as it accumulates matter condensed from the ether. It is a materialized mental image, which explains why it can reportedly respond to thought commands, and why its substance appears organic under a microscope.
“At 500x magnification, striations can be seen, like in muscle tissue. At 2000x, the striations resolve into extremely precise, consistent crystals. This shouldn't be possible on such a small scale, and seems especially strange considering the diversity of elements involved. But if the craft is considered as an idealized thought-form, materialized from primary energy, it makes sense. So it's more like a space-whale than a spaceship, and its tissues are highly versatile, able to change form, color, density and reflective properties, to perform something like photosynthesis, and to sustain and direct enormous voltages. One of the beamships has a ring of rods projecting outward from its rim like giant cilia, that vibrate in wave patterns resembling those made by a millipede's legs.
“There is much more to be said about the strange metals from the Pleiadeans, which we hope to pursue in a future article, but the main point for now is the parallel between growing structures from sea minerals on charged wire templates, and growing craft from space-juice on charged thought-form templates. This suggests we're on the right track...”
Some of Vogel's metal sample analysis can be seen in the series that starts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cFr3zzFeYk
Credibility-wise, Marcel Vogel was way up there. He developed the magnetic disc coating for hard drives, and the liquid crystals that led to every modern flat-screen display, and years earlier he came up with the highly reflective highway stripe paint that helps millions drive more safely at night.
He's also the one who gave Chris Bird and Peter Tompkins a huge mass of exotic science information that led to their book The Secret Life Of Plants in 1973. That book, with some two hundred references, gave me more leads than any other source up to that point, on the subjects I was seeking to understand.
So it may be that much of the chain of events that allowed me to connect with amazing innovators and write about their work was started by Marcel Vogel. I suggested as much when we met, and he didn't seem surprised, having probably heard that sort of thing a lot by then. His approach to research and to people was very open and kind. He emphasized the need for neutrality in science, to simply observe without bias or expectation or any perceptual filters, so we'd be open to whatever unanticipated findings and implications might emerge.
A feature in his metal sample analysis that bears emphasizing is their microscopic striations or grooves. Earlier we noted a few examples where etheric energy seems to show a preference for tiny spaces, through which it can enter and act in the material world, either as energy or in the formation of matter. Cells and their micro-bodies all seem to make use of openings on that scale. It sort of makes sense that when we're trying to tap such a vast source of energy, and it needs a potential difference through which to manifest, that the relative difference is greatest when the circuit is really tiny, so its poles are as close together as possible. The poles in this case are the inside and outside of micro-spheroids or tubular filaments.
That the alleged Pleiadeans apparently utilize a related principle lends more support to their story. Any truly advanced technology will involve knowing how to invite natural forces to assist us, instead of treating those forces as opponents to be conquered.
Someone PIcked the Wrong Side
There's a recurring theme in the UFO field that alleges high-level military interactions with different extraterrestrial groups. The shortest version of the story is that back in the 1950's, or earlier, an advanced benevolent civilization contacted our “leaders” and offered them a vast wealth of technological improvements that would let us all end disease, starvation, poverty, ecological destruction, insanity, car crashes, bad music, warts, you name it. Oh, and we'd also get safe space flight and be allowed to join the community of interstellar civilizations. All our leaders had to do was agree to share what they got with everybody else, and stop killing and stealing and enslaving, and no more nukes. What a deal, right?
Once our leaders stopped laughing, they said, “No thanks. We got a better offer from these other space-holes. Same technology, more or less, and we only need to share it among Earth's self-appointed rulers, and we can keep on killing and stealing more than ever with this advantage, and keep our nukes, and the ignorant masses can stay ignorant, makes 'em easier to rip off, and they'll pay for the whole program. Oh, and the other space-bastards get to round up a bunch of our spare Earthlings every year and sell them as slaves or eat them or whatever; plenty more where those came from.”
I may be paraphrasing slightly.
The first version of this story I ever heard was from Riley Crabb in 1975, when I visited him and Judith in Vista, where they published The Journal Of Borderland Research. One of the reports I got there was Flying Saucers At Edwards Air Force Base: 1954, in which there was a rather different outcome from the rude summary above. The gist was that Guardian spacecraft had arrived and scared world leaders back from the brink of all-out nuclear war.
I have some doubts about that version, starting with the very premise that any spontaneous nuclear exchange is even possible, or it probably would have happened long ago. I suspect there are specific harmonic requirements as to the exact timing and placement of thermonuclear detonations, and the actual “weapon” has always been just the threat of the possibility, a global bluff and psyop for conditioning human beliefs and compliance, and a suitably expensive cover story for much weirder black projects.
Anyhow, Riley and Judith were very generous with their time and information; I gathered there weren't as many young people seriously into this stuff in those days. Riley had a lot of fascinating esoteric stories and advice, and so did Judith, although the advice I mostly recalled from her was that, for energetic balance, I should spend less time studying and more time with my girlfriends. In following her suggestion I might have over-corrected for a while; it was the 1970's after all.
What the heck were we talking about? UFO's, right.
Bad Examples in High Places
A perennial excuse for hiding the truth about secret technologies, off-planet activities and interactions with intelligent non-terrestrials is the claim that most of the general public is too simple-minded to handle the truth. Our belief systems are too primitive, the reality is too complicated, a bunch of us would flip out, the churches would melt down, the textbooks would all have to be re-written, millions of jobs would become obsolete, the social order would fall apart, and so on.
Well, most of that stupidity is artificially inflicted, not intrinsic. It appears the planet's covert owners couldn't make themselves any smarter, so they determined long ago to make everyone else dumber, since the less bright the target, the easier it is to take advantage of them. Pulling this off has required vast long-term stupidification projects to bring down our average intelligence.
A partial list of programs to lower human awareness: mis-education, orchestrated misinformation through controlled media, regressive misrepresentations of religious concepts, mind-control broadcasts, neuro-electric interference via smart meters and smart phones, general electromagnetic pollution, mass application of herbicides, stratospheric aerosols containing kilotons of aluminum nano-particles, radiation, fluoridation, miscellaneous pollution of water and food, health disinformation programs including vaccinations deliberately contaminated with mercury, aluminum, mycoplasma and who knows what else, oxygen depletion through deforestation, and a whole lot of lying.
That last one needs emphasis. Lies cause stupidity. Wrong information distorts the mental maps people are trying to operate with, making them functionally stupider, to the point of driving off a cliff that their map insists isn’t there. People can start out intrinsically bright, but then get filled full of lies until they’re dumber than sea slugs. Most people now recognize that life is safer and more interesting if those around them are less stupid, so telling lies is like peeing in the drinking water, polluting the environment with stupidity. Again, the only ones who actually want others to be stupider are trying to take advantage of them, or avoid having their crimes detected. This principle is now more widely recognized than ever, and humans are experiencing an unprecedented collective impulse toward finding and bringing out the truth.
In light of all this, it's kind of stupid to assert that the general population's stupidity is a valid reason for withholding technology that could make everyone a lot brighter, healthier and safer, when that stupidity has been deliberately induced to facilitate tricking us all into financing their exclusive technological advantage in the first place.
We're expected to believe that excuse? They must think we're stupid.
A System-Wide Overhaul
My guess is the real motive behind resisting public efforts toward full disclosure of all hidden beneficial technologies has more to do with the controllers' liability for all the casualties that have resulted from the suppression thus far. This is in addition to all the outright killing, stealing and slave trafficking in furtherance of covert projects. But when we consider how many have suffered and died solely because the means to prevent that were hidden from them, we're going to need a broader definition of murder.
If someone poisons a bunch of people and withholds the antidote, clearly that is murder. What if the poisons are slow-acting and coming from so many directions, as “accidental” by-products of industry, agriculture and pharmacology, that single culprits can't be identified? And what if withholding the antidote consists of suppressing alternative treatments that could easily have reversed the diseases inflicted by those toxins? That this isn't widely recognized as mass murder is only because it's gradually become so common that the general population is conditioned to accept it as normal.
To be clear, most of our doctors and nurses are trying to do the best they can with whatever methods they're allowed to use, many of which are genuinely beneficial and brilliant. But the menu of procedures they have to work from is decided by a subset of elite controllers with an agenda that would horrify the doctors who've been conned into carrying it out.
What if electrotherapeutic and bio-oxidative treatments were widely deployed instead of smothered or ignored as they have been for nearly a century? See the work of Georges Lakhovsky, T. Henry Moray and Royal Raymond Rife, also Charles Marchand, W. F. Koch, Siegfried Rilling, Renate Viebahn, Horst Kief, Kurt Donsbach, Walter Grotz and many others.
In the late 1980's I went into some detail on bio-oxidative therapies, including ozone infusions and self-treatments with hydrogen peroxide, in Hyper-Oxygenation and Oxygen and the Future of Life. Those reports should still be available in the Ozone section at RexResearch.com.
A widely repeated argument against fundamental scientific reform of the business of medicine is that “health care” makes up a fifth of our entire economy and millions of jobs could be lost. Yet cancer, for example, is many times more common than it once was. I expect most people would gladly learn different skills if the trade-off was a far better chance of not dying from some chronic disease or “medical error”. Some owners of the present medical empires might disagree at first, but even their lives would be improved if the people around them were healthier and more efficient.
Now what about energy? Since 1900 or earlier, resource monopolists have buried scores of free energy systems, along with quite a few inventors. How many people have frozen or died from fires and other accidents because their only energy options were gas and a centralized power grid? If all along we could have had a safer choice, but it wasn't allowed, would those deaths count as murders?
Again, the common objection to replacing any major part of our energy system with something cleaner and safer is the presumed economic upheaval. What about the jobs that are lost? What about, say, all the coal miners? That's all they've ever done, how will they adapt? Tell you what, go to West Virginia and try telling a room full of coal miners that you think they're too dumb to learn new skills, and see how that works out for you.
How about transportation? Unless they are deliberately shot down, which takes some doing, electrogravitational craft are protected by shield fields that can prevent collisions. Ground effect vehicles using the same principle could float on cushion fields that wrap around and protect against accidents. How many injuries and deaths could have been prevented all these years if the general public had access to crashproof vehicles? Make no mistake, there were people who had this stuff and chose not to share it. So if the only transport options allowed for the rest of us were inevitably going to splatter a significant fraction of the population, along with billions of animals, doesn't that amount to murder by sabotage?
Modern humans are having to cope with a plundered economy, artificial scarcity of shelter, clean water, safe food and mobility, and bogus collective belief systems that deny our underlying unity. Add in the perception that many of the people running the whole system are total psychopaths, and some citizens figure what's the point of even trying, and turn to crime. While those individuals are directly responsible for their violent acts, how many would still behave that way if the social order had not been structured so as to deliberately disenfranchise so many of them, and drive the least mentally resilient into insanity? Don't the architects and enforcers of that social order bear some responsibility as well?
It's no accident that our escape has been blocked, from this technologically retarded slow-motion death trap. Locking us all into it has been a central purpose, not some side effect, of elaborate self-reinforcing frameworks of misdirection and manipulation.
Humans' natural inclination is to try and make their civilizations more nurturing, rational and symbiotic. But for centuries, all over the world, cultures based on sharing and abundance have been systematically exterminated by those dominated by artificial scarcity, mistrust and low expectations of human behavior, as if to erase any evidence that people might ever have had much better ways to live.
If this whole rant sounds out of place in a story about science, think again. Theorizing and speculating is exciting, and actually building stuff that works is a blast, but if we aren't going to be allowed to use it and share it around, under penalty of dirt bath, shouldn't we deal with that obstacle first?
And we can't fix a problem until we confront its ultimate cause. Real scientific reform can only happen if we understand and address the underlying agenda behind the suppression of any inventions that might lead to dethroning the controllers responsible for that agenda.
And this part of the task we face is much harder than the science itself. If we can see the entrenched elite's liability dilemma, they most certainly can see it too. And were any of them even alive when the decision was first made, to suppress the discoveries that could have prevented so much suffering, which they'll now get blamed for?
How many of them simply inherited the situation, and even if they considered reforming it, hesitated until it was too late and even more potential liability was incurred? How many would switch sides and help with disclosure and mass implementation of previously suppressed technology, if only they could count on protection from reprisals from whichever controllers refuse to give up their advantages? Or reprisals from a public newly enraged upon learning the scope of what's been taken from them? How could such protections even be guaranteed?
Any amnesties would have to be on a case-by-case basis, obviously. Some participants in the controllers' long-standing agenda may just be trapped in it, but the apparent indifference to the enormous damage that agenda has inflicted against life on Earth suggests that whoever or whatever is really in charge of those programs must be horribly twisted, or they simply don't care about Earth, or life.
And there's really no negotiating with such things, or trusting any agreements with them. You can't compromise with someone who thinks compromising means losing. And if you try to meet someone halfway who wants you dead, you wind up half dead, or worse.
I can think of only one possible excuse for the course the controllers have chosen. They might genuinely believe there will be some inescapable disaster in Earth's near future, severe enough to thoroughly erase any civilization that hasn't escaped out into space or deep underground. They might rationalize keeping everyone else in the dark until they can secure the survival of some small fraction of humanity, including them of course, if they're convinced most of the population is already a write-off no matter what. But that scenario would require them to have far more confidence in their ability to see into the future than their track record thus far would justify.
There are stories, still far from mainstream, that after decades of being hopelessly outgunned, outflanked and infiltrated, some sort of alliance among military and intelligence personnel and program defectors is finally making actual progress toward correcting the situation outlined above. Previous reform attempts got pretty well squished, but there are some indications that this time they have the manpower, resources, strategic skills and grasp of what they're really up against to pull it off. The controllers' control is not absolute, or we'd all be in even worse shape. So, we shall see.
There's a Japanese saying to the effect that any amount of suffering is bearable if it is seen as part of a story. And humans love storylines where they seem to be up against impossible odds and somehow pull off a near-miraculous escape at the last possible moment. Now it's as if our whole world is playing out that sort of narrative. There's also a popular plot element in which someone who's been working for the bad guys has a change of heart and decides to help the heroes instead, and that makes the difference. It could happen.
Before concluding this section we should redirect our attention to the role of the observer's expectations in influencing reality. The effect of our combined intent on whatever comes next cannot be overstated. The controllers have long sought to conceal the extent of that ability from us, while covertly harnessing it to reinforce the storyline where they always get what they think they want. Lucky for us, they don't all agree on what that should be.
To be clear, intending is not the same as believing. Belief, as well as disbelief, is a trap. It filters our observations and interferes with clear unbiased perception, inclining us to disregard phenomena that conflict with whatever we “believe”. It works better to simply observe, neutrally, and allow multiple possible explanations to co-exist, for whatever we're observing. Eventually a single explanation may emerge as the most probable, but there's no need to rush the process. Note that “most probable” does not mean “most widely believed”. And reality doesn't much care what we believe anyhow.
Humans' usual default-mode unintentional intending tends to influence reality to just keep doing more of what it's already been doing, including things we'd prefer that it stop doing. Instead we can bring that ability under our conscious control and intend a friendlier reality. The effect may be small at first, but it's cumulative, and it scales with the number of participants.
More than ever, we need to intend responsibly, and to visualize in vivid detail the future as we want it to be, not as some version we fear might happen. So don't fall for any of the fear-mongering, conflict provocation, hopelessness and victim mentality inflicted by the powers that were. They're just trying to hijack the collective human capacity for shaping reality through intent, and drag us back over to a catastrophic worldtrack where they continue to rule.
Surfing the Sea of Awareness
Rock electricity, gravity and countless other phenomena are more comprehensible if we understand the nature of the ether, and since the ether is all over the place, so is this story. If we allow the role of the ether into our conceptual framework, basic assumptions in every branch of science have to be re-examined, and fundamental processes redefined. The ether is quite literally all or nothing, or from a sufficiently detached viewpoint, both.
Oddly, even though the concept of the ether has been mostly exiled from modern physics, many of its original qualities are now attributed to what's called vacuum energy or zero-point energy. And even its more transcendent potentialities are slowly sneaking back into consideration.
Among these is the ether's role as a substrate or carrier for life energy, as distinct from electromagnetic energy, and we're only in the early stages of understanding how those two interact. Official denial that something even exists does tend to slow down the process of studying it.
Coincident with those fields of potential energy and formative forces there is some sort of information field that likewise is everywhere at once. Like life energy, it's been given many names, including Sea of Awareness (Don Juan Matus), Ocean of Consciousness (Buddha), Morphic Field (Sheldrake), Akashic Field (Laszlo), Source Field (Wilcock), and simply “the Field” (McTaggart).
Various researchers have differing views on just what it does and how, and what might be its limitations, if any. To some of us it feels like another aspect of the vital energy field at large. Others suggest it's distinct from that force.
Either way it does not act like electromagnetism; the effect doesn't drop off with distance. As soon as someone has a new realization or solution for a problem, it's easier for others to pick up on it, even from the other side of the world. It may turn out that interstellar distances are great enough to attenuate it; hopefully we'll get a chance to find out. The information field appears to be the medium through which telepathy, precognition, telekinesis, pyrokinesis and remote viewing can occur.
Signals delivered via the information field can range from too subtle to notice, to impossible to ignore. Cultivating inner silence enhances our capacity to access it. Continuous mental chatter tends to drown it out. Certain electromagnetic frequencies and waveforms, such as in the microwave range, can interfere with it, and with bio-electric functions in general. One has to wonder how much farther along our species might be if not for all the neuro-electric interference.
Consider Marshall McLuhan's most famous line, “The medium is the message.” That certainly applies to the information field that rides along with the ether, throughout the interstellar and subatomic medium. Among its messages for us is to be aware at all times of our underlying unity, our deep connection and interdependence with the entire web of life, and act accordingly.
This story started with the proposal that rock electricity and gravity are caused by some tiny fraction of etheric energy getting deflected and transformed as it passes through matter. That led to discussions of the ether's other properties and interactions. As described earlier, close observation of the growth of plants and minerals reveals the ether's formative forces at work. If matter and energy can emerge into solidity from cohered vacuum fluctuations, can those same forces also change matter's component elements after it's here?
Paul Dirac's sprout experiment is not the only instance of this occurring. Louis Kervran documented many examples that can only be explained as biological transmutations. The experimental and observational evidence was undeniable, Kervran's professional credentials were impeccable, and his findings have mostly been ignored, with extreme prejudice.
Put in the simplest terms, organisms can quietly change some elements into others, within their tissues. The energies involved are not the same sort as those required for conventional fusion or fission. And they are about one millionth of the intensity. This sounds like another job for etheric energy.
The atomic number of the new element is usually one hydrogen or oxygen nucleus away from the one they started with, though there are exceptions. Here are a few examples of biological transmutation reactions with the atomic numbers included:
Potassium (19) can be formed by sodium (11) plus oxygen (8), which is why we crave salt when overheated for long enough to deplete our potassium. Or in certain bacteria, it may be formed by calcium (20) minus hydrogen (1).
Calcium (20) is formed by magnesium (12) plus oxygen (8), or by potassium (19) plus hydrogen (1), or by silicon (14) plus carbon (6).
Magnesium (12) is formed by sodium (11) plus hydrogen (1).
Two oxygen atoms (8) can fuse to form sulfur (16).
Manganese (25) can become iron (26) and vise versa by adding or subtracting hydrogen (1).
Consult a periodic table and a list of the most common elements in our bodies, and notice that the atomic number intervals between most of them are either one or eight. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms used in or released by those transitions conveniently make up the water of which we are mainly composed.
Some plants deplete certain elements and some contribute elements in which the soil is deficient, often in quantities that can't be accounted for by any outside source. Hemp is famous for its ability to restore depleted soils. Beets, potatoes, corn and several other crops generate magnesium. Watercress and cabbage produce sulfur. And various birds, mammals and shellfish have been shown to produce more calcium than they take in.
Louis Kervran documented many examples of plants, animals and bacteria transmuting elements as needed, quietly and efficiently. Some of the enzymes have been identified that help them accomplish this. Naturally more study is required, and that will take a broader recognition that this phenomenon is actually happening, and that fission and fusion can occur without applying extreme energies.
An obvious barrier is the many careers and the tyranny of sunk costs in conventional fusion research, which for more than sixty years has been promising a major breakthrough and unlimited cheap energy “within the next decade”. Kervran's discoveries and proofs are not a welcome topic at the Institute for Absorption of Federal Funds.
The English translation of Biological Transmutations is here:
More recent experiments appear to produce transmutations via inorganic methods, as here: http://www.rexresearch.com/grandicstransmutation/grandics.html
If re-examined in this context, the cold fusion confusion following the 1989 announcements by Pons and Fleischmann of low energy nuclear reactions in palladium-deuterium electrolytic cells might shed light from a different angle. Researchers in several countries who replicated their experiments found elements appearing that weren't in the original cells, and transmutation seems the most likely explanation. The controversy around this subject has been beaten to death elsewhere; sorry, poor choice of words considering what happened to one of cold fusion's most effective advocates. See
https://lenr-canr.org/ for a partial list of articles on all this.
It's also instructive to scan the hundreds of volleys in the edit wars chronicled under the “view history” tab at wikipedia's cold fusion page.
There's a possible transmutation Louis Kervran never mentioned, as far as I know, though the notion was sparked by something he did talk about. It could be highly significant if it's really happening. I have not been able to think of a better explanation for the discrepancy it addresses. Like all natural transmutations, it uses the ether's formative and transformative forces.
Kervran was seeking a cause for the carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning experienced by some welders and foundry workers, where no CO was measurable at the work sites. He found that metal hot enough to glow red could deliver enough energy to some of the air's nitrogen molecules, which are pairs of nitrogen atoms (two 7's), to kick a proton across, leaving one nitrogen to become carbon (6) and the other, oxygen (8). Now hold that thought.
It's well established that plants use photosynthesis to release oxygen from carbon dioxide and water, while making the carbohydrates they need. Our atmosphere's oxygen is said to come from this. What's always bothered me is the numbers don't seem to add up.
Depending on where it's measured, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is currently around 0.04%, declining slightly with altitude since it's denser than air. Oxygen makes up twenty to twenty-one percent, though it can get a lot lower in places where it's burned up faster than local trees or mixing by wind can replenish it.
So there's over five hundred times more oxygen than carbon dioxide.
How did the plants make so much oxygen from that? And remember that plants breathe oxygen as well, whenever the available light isn't enough for photosynthesis.
If we assume the official numbers are accurate, the oxygen level was once at least thirty percent, around 280 million years ago. At the same time there was several times as much carbon dioxide as today, but that's still only around 150th as much as the oxygen.
Except for 1% argon, the remaining portion of today's air is almost entirely nitrogen, around 78%, and back when the oxygen was 30%, the nitrogen would have been 68%. When oxygen was at 15%, around 500 million years ago, nitrogen was about 83%.
See where I'm going with this? What happened to all that nitrogen? Since photosynthesis got rolling, the oxygen level has varied from 15% to 30% of the total, while carbon dioxide never got above a fraction of one percent. Nitrogen is the only other atmospheric constituent that could vary enough to make room for the huge differences in oxygen levels. Biological transmutations are real;
check the data. What if plants have a second way to form oxygen, either by fusing hydrogen with nitrogen, or by some variation of the reaction Kervran described?
Maybe some freethinking botanists and atmospheric scientists can test this possibility in a sealed greenhouse with precise gas mixture measuring gear. Or maybe it's already been done and I just haven't located their results yet.
A different contributing factor could be a much higher rate of nitrogen fixing into the soil, if plant growth in the past was far more vigorous under the influence of more powerful electrostatic fields. Another is the role of lightning in fixing nitrogen, if the frequency and intensity of lightning was considerably greater, which the massive lightning-scarring of land features suggests it was. Such lightning could also have electrolyzed great volumes of oxygen and hydrogen from ancient bodies of water.
And of course any list of possibilities has to include “some possibility we haven't thought of yet.”
However it turns out, we have plenty of room for improvement in our interactions with the plant kingdom. It will help if we appreciate their capacity for helping to bring etheric potential into the real world.
There's been a whole lot of speculating going on here. And I've lost track of how many side trips we took along the way. The central ideas are so at odds with the standard models, that many of those models' other assumptions had to be addressed as well. Try not to blame the ideas themselves for the occasional clumsiness with which they've been described.
Some subsidiary suggestions regarding the details may yet turn out to be wrong. Really wrong, not “wrong according to Wikipedia.” By that authority, the whole story would be declared wrong. “Nothing to see here folks, move along. Don't read or talk about it, or we'll mock you to death. Pseudoscience! Blasphemy! No science career for you.” I really wish that was an exaggeration.
Wikipedia is fine for popular culture and uncontested conventional issues. Volunteers have spent millions of hours to make it a useful resource.
But it's pretty hopeless when dealing with exotic science or conspiracy analysis. For that to change, a lot more volunteer editors who prioritize finding and sharing the truth over reinforcing group agreement would have to join the edit wars, and people with the necessary understanding and skills are already spread pretty thin.
For now, they're vastly outnumbered by gatekeepers and hired liars, working from a standardized playbook with a dismissive vocabulary, along with many others who are probably sincere, but severely indoctrinated, that apparently think they're protecting students from dangerous scientific heresies. Of course, whenever they rewrite or delete unapproved facts, others immediately pop up. But the big money is still propping up the official stories, no matter how leaky they are.
Similar priorities still apply at mainstream media companies, and at Google, though the colossal amount of information makes it harder to monitor and redirect searches, so not all unapproved material is blocked by the algorithmic deflector screens. And YouTube is still fairly permeable. Some censorship occurs, but their business model involving ad revenue linked to view count makes it costly to remove popular videos or channels, whatever the subject. And the people working there are not all on the same page, as to what is the truth.
And against all odds, the people's drive to learn what's really going on is slowly pushing forward. The dams of deception are springing leaks faster than the deceivers can grow new tentacles to plug them.
Students and professors still need to tread carefully though. In most colleges, if you try bringing up the ideas in this report, they'll look at you like you asked for porcupine milk.
A Promise Kept, Sort Of
Ages ago, before the dinosaurs, when this story began, I referred to Townsend Brown's possible role in the rumored military episode that refuses to die, known as the “Philadelphia Experiment”. This was in part a transparent attempt to lure the readers, should there happen to be any, to hang in there through the whole report. Just in case, you know, solving the source of gravity wasn't sufficiently interesting on its own.
But Brown's “oblique confirmation” did happen, during our next visit. The Philadelphia Experiment byWilliam Moore and Charles Berlitz had recently appeared, with a chapter about “The Force Fields of Townsend Brown” [Chapter 10, page 81], so of course I had to ask about it. His answer was intriguing: “I don't think the Navy is ready for invisibility experiments”.
He added that he really would have preferred they hadn't named him in their book without asking, as he was getting a lot of questions. The last thing I wanted was to add to his discomfort on the matter, so I left it at that. I did not then and still don't have the ruthless temperament to be an investigative reporter in any conventional sense. And since there is some potential risk for those involved in the subjects that mostly interest me, I've always tried to take a comparatively gentle approach.
The other part of the confirmation went like this: Later in our visit he pulled out a huge volume called Who's Who In Frontier Science and Technology, and showed me his listing, observing my reaction as I read it. Seeing that I hadn't yet caught the detail he intended me to notice, he xeroxed the page and gave it to me to study again later.
This was clearly not about pointing out his fame. At no point in our visits had he showed any awards, commendations, photos of him with prominent figures or any of that. Besides, he knew I was already as impressed as I could possibly be with any human.
So the key point jumped out at me later, when I had time to re-read his Who's Who listing. It provided the complete chronology of his career, except for one crucial omission. After his role in heading up the US Navy's research and development on degaussing equipment and related magnetic field manipulation, which lasted partway into 1943, there's a two-year gap with no mention of what he was up to. Right when the “Philadelphia Experiment” was alleged to have happened.
I got to meet with Townsend Brown a few more times after that, and he was always amazingly kind, patient and encouraging. He never appeared to show any bitterness about the world being denied the benefits of his discoveries, and the future that might have been. And I never came up with a way to ask about how his ideas might actually be getting implemented in classified projects, without violating whatever nondisclosure agreements he was still under. When he relocated to Avalon on Catalina Island I lost contact. It was reported that in October 1985 he moved on to that great laboratory in the sky.
“...Dissolving back into the sea of awareness, where love overcomes all apparent unfairness.” (from Tizma, 2005)
It would be nice to imagine that, in recognition of his contributions, he was quietly granted access to the rejuvenation technologies allegedly available within some circles of the secret space programs. But, as I briefly mentioned earlier, the controllers of those programs have not displayed much inclination to share their technological advantages with the rest of us, even though it appears we're the ones who paid for most of it. Indeed, that stinginess is one major reason why I never made any attempt to contact anyone directly involved with those programs, interesting as it might have been.
That and their apparent lack of imagination. If wisely deployed, all those breakthroughs could have given us the twenty-first century we were originally promised: safe mobility and the end of war, disease, poverty, artificially shortened lifespans and ecosystem destruction.
Also I'd rather live where I can hike and swim and plant trees, than in some space station or underground base. And I'm not very good at following orders. Plus I hate to lie or keep secrets. OK, there's a lot of reasons, but you get the idea.
Then again, I once knew someone else who had to officially “die” so he could go off unencumbered and do something else quite different.
So who knows?
The ideas in this report are not even trying to be compatible with most of the standard model, and they aren't framed as formal hypotheses. Rather they are suggestions for reworking or replacing some core assumptions of that model. At this stage they are just an outline of areas that need further inquiry, contemplation and experimentation. It would be an empty exercise to falsify them by comparing them with assertions from the prevailing theories they propose to repair.
I've also included cautionary notes about some long-established traps that can interfere with independent attempts at scientific reform. I'm not warning against trying, far from it, just saying be reasonably cautious, maintain situational awareness and all that.
Overall, I think our chances are better now than they've ever been. More and more people have passed their disinformation tolerance threshold. And the controllers' policy of lying to everyone, including their own operatives, has backfired and now it's making them stupider. That might give the disclosure and reform efforts an edge.
It can be discouraging to confront the scale of modern interference with the systems and processes of Nature. But that interference is recent, and the information field has been active for a very long time. The original templates for guiding the formation of healthy biological structures are far senior to any artificial patterns that have been deployed in attempts to overwrite them. And those originals will still be here long after the interference has fizzled out.
Meanwhile, there is evidence of interference in our own DNA. See the work of Lloyd Pye for example. Here's one presentation:
He showed persuasive indications in our genetic code of multiple alterations that would be very unlikely to have occurred naturally. We can only speculate as to the responsible parties and their motivations.
But we now know that DNA is not read-only but read-write, as it were. We can correct a lot of problems from suboptimal code by changes in behavior and attitude, that in turn change which genes get expressed and which go dormant.
One more weird experiment and we'll wrap this up.
Guido Ebner and Heinz Schurch treated cereal seeds and trout eggs with strong electrostatic fields and found it reset their genetic code, so that they expressed previously dormant genes and assumed earlier more robust forms. The trout were bigger and tougher and the plants had deeper roots and better tolerance of harsh climates. The story and patents are here: http://rexresearch.com/ebner/ebner.htm
Heightened electrostatic fields can also occur naturally. In recent years the shifting energies from our sun have been resetting some domestic plants' gene expression, and gardeners are seeing sturdier more “primitive” varieties appear. Those same energies may be working on us, to help restore the vitality and awareness we're meant to have.
So fear not. Nature knows what she's doing, and in the long run Nature always wins.
(All of these articles touch on the existence of the Ether as the medium from which an unlimited amount of free (and inexhaustible) energy can be extracted. This is why common knowledge of the Ether has been so severly suppressed and ridiculed as non existent for most of the 20th Century.)
The Joe Energy Cell (http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml)
This simple water cell is a powerful orgone accumulator invented by an Australian man only identified by the name Joe "X". His intention was to run a car without using gasoline and that is precisely what he accomplished.
Radiant Energy: Unraveling Tesla's Greatest Secret Part 1 (June 1, 2001) ( http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml )
The story you are about to read is derived from a carefully researched paper presented by Dr. Peter Lindemann before a private audience in Irvine, California on September 12, 2000. The lecture was titled “The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity” . It detailed the story of Radiant Energy and its successful application by Edwin Gray in an over unity motor design which Gray debuted in 1973. The real detective work ( & credit) in uncovering Tesla’s discovery of Radiant energy came from author Gerry Vassilatos in his recent book, “Secrets of Cold War Technology” without which Lindemann could not have solved the enigma of Gray’s Radiant circuit design. This lecture delivered the goods
The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity ( http://educate-yourself.org/fe/coldelectricityvideo.shtml)
Peter Lindemann is one of the sharpest alternative energy researchers I know. After 27 years, he finally figured out how Edwin Grey made his magnificient Grey motor worked: Grey was captuing Radiant Energy (discovered by Tesla in 1893) and applied it to his motor to obtain a free energy motor of very high power and output. This video tells you precisely how Grey adapted and utilized Tesla's greatest free energy secret.
WaterFuel (Jan. 28, 2002)
Water can replace gasoline as a fuel for your car, boat, etc. Stephen Chambers, Stanley Meyers and other inventors had worked out relatively simple systems to convert ordinary tap water into their constituent gases of hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen (and some oxygen) is burned in the cylinder's combustion chamber, while the "exhaust" is composed of unburnt oxygen and water vapor, which replensihes the atmosphere. The construction plans given here were anonymously faxed to Geoff Engle of Energy 2000 and later forwarded to Keeley Net (and probably other energy web sites as well).
Perpetual Motion (Sep. 6, 2006)
Aussie Joe Cell Experimeter Runs 1983 Car on Water (Oct. 28, 2005)
The Joe Cell and Hydrogen Gas (Sep. 13, 2004)
Commentary on The Dingle Car and The Joe Cell (June 12, 2004)
Important Synopsis Posted on Tom Bearden's Scalar Technology (Mar. 29, 2002)