11700Re: T. Townsend Brown
- Feb 5 9:22 PMJoe and all:
Please note that all of the information here is based on memory, I am
writing it off the top of my head. The exact facts should be double
checked by those who are interested.
Regarding T. Towndsend Brown's antigrav work. I have looked into his
research a bit and he was a very interesting man. I have seen no
credible evidence that he was involved with the Philadelphia
Experiment, he may have been, I just haven't seen anything to convince
me. He certainly was highly involved in high voltage experiments and
The photo : http://www.soteria.com/brown/pictures/space1.jpg is an
upside down display of a model he was using to help prove that his
antigrav effect was not based on simple ion repulsion of air molecules
(in other words, an air downdraft was not responsible for lifting the
It looks like the George Adamski craft because it was modeled to look
exactly like it! It DID NOT not look like a Billy Meier craft, other
than the fact the Meier craft were round and a few of them had small
domes on the underside. The main Adamski craft had a distinctly archaic
look to it, the Meier saucers all looked very sleek and modern.
Will Mathews in his original post comments:
> So what gives? George Adamski and Billy Meires were big fans ofI have extensively researched both Adamski and Meier. I don't recall
> Townsend? Or Adamski and Meires REALLY did see some "kind" of
seeing anything that indicated either of those two people were aware of
According to several sources I have seen, the government was VERY
INTERESTED in his research on antigravity. However, as the government
tends to do, they either dropped the ball or, in my estimation more
likely, they went underground with it. Around 1956 all of the public
talk (by the aircraft companies) about antigravity being only a few
years away stopped. The "Gravity Rand" study is a must read for anyone
interested in this subject and is available on the net. As I recall,
Rand was a company started by Brown.
Most people don't know that T. Townsend Brown was one of the founders
of NICAP, the first well established and credible UFO organization.
Taking a cue from that point, you can see why it is not so difficult to
understand why Brown fashioned one of his antigrav experiments after
the Adamski craft.
Brown went on in later years to build many devices based on his work
with high voltage capacitors, the basic principle behind his antigrav
work. The now common ionic air cleaners, like the Ionic Breeze
advertised on TV, are based on his research in precipitating dust and
dirt from the air.
This concept, according to Bill Uhouse, was used by the government to
build actual working antigrav craft by about 1965. Uhouse claims to
have worked on a project which built the flight simulator for the
actual operational craft. To make this a bit more clear, Uhouse points
out that it is common for aircraft companies to build nonflying
simulators which are used for training of pilots that are to fly
certain experimental designs. This make sense because a ground base
simulator will not crash and ruin millions of dollars worth of
aircraft, yet it will allow pilots to get the general feel of an
aircraft before the test flights.
Uhouse states that the antigravity disc built by the government
achieved flight through the use of extremely high powered capacitors,
the very thing Brown had been working on. I want to make this very
clear... Uhouse has never stated that Brown was attached to the
project. Nor have I seen any information to link Townsend Brown to the
project Uhouse worked on. Again, that does not mean he wasn't involved.
Never the less, it appears that Brown's ideas WERE USED to construct
early U.S. antigravity craft.
Brown had been looking into antigrav since the latter 1920's. His
partner in later years, Bahnson, was also a pilot and friend of Robert
Monroe's. Monroe you may remember is the man who popularized 'out of
body travel," by writing several very successful books on his
experiences. Monroe founded the Monroe Institute, now famous for
researching and teaching remote viewing.
It may be good to note here that I started looking into Earth built
antigravity craft in order to DISPROVE that they existed. I just did
not believe that we had/have that type of technology. Instead, I found
a great deal of information pointing to the fact that we DID and DO
have antigravity craft and that the technology is not that complex. The
immediate question that arrises is, "If we already have antigravity
discs, then why are we still shooting off expensive missles?"
In my opinion, the key word to examine here is "expensive." The
aerospace companies have not yet drained the golden goose dry. It is an
old technique used by powerful companies to hold back certain
revolutionary advancements until they have extracted as much profit
from current technology as possible. Plus they are working both sides
of the street. They continue to sell the current technology while at
the same time, they are receiving billions in secret government
contracts to develope the "new" technology. In other words, you might
have a very nice new Golden Goose in the wings, but if your current
Golden Goose is still producing golden eggs, why do anything to kill
it. Because now you have TWO geese laying golden eggs, not just one.
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 03:40:39 -0000________________________________________________________________________
> From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
> Subject: Military technology? ([was] wondering, anyone shed light or
> have opinions!)
> From the NG's
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Will Matthews" <will2097@...>
> Newsgroups: uk.rec.ufo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 4:03 PM
> Subject: wondering, anyone shed light or have opinions!
> Apparently, Thomas Townsend Brown was the guy linked to the
> and for years he had worked on all kinds of weird/outlandish
> technologies. At some point in the 1950's he presented an
> antigravity machine to the US navy, who bazaarly showed no
> interest what so ever. Even though eye witnesses claimed it
> worked! (T.T.Browns homepage http://www.soteria.com/brown/)
> Here's a picture of one his flying machine designs.
> and another of a WIP (Work In Progress) disk.
> To the eagle eyed amongst you these picture look suspiciously
> like a
> classic UFO. In fact more than classic, legendary is probably a
> better word when looking at the first image. As the model shown
> is almost identical to the UFO's shown by Adamski and Billy
> Adamski's UFO
> Billy Meiers.
> (look at the 7th from the left for an almost identical Miere's
> So what gives? George Adamski and Billy Meires were big fans of
> Townsend? Or Adamski and Meires REALLY did see some "kind" of
> Here's another interesting photo from the 1950's
> This photo is a classic, it was taken by an almost a-typical UFO
> observers (they lived on a remote farm in the back-of-beyond) the
> photo from what i understand has never been discredited, the
> technology to fake this image DID NOT exist when it was taken.
> experts agree it has not been tampered with! (as best as I am
> Here's a whole bunch of UFO photo's, the interesting ones date
> the 1950's to the 1970's, some are clearly as fake as Pamela
> Anderson's cleverage, but others do make you wonder.
> SO! why wasn't the US navy interested in Townsend Browns work?
> Cos they had already done better? Or rather someone else had already
> done> better. (some germans perhaps?)
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
- Next post in topic >>