Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The Controversial Cady Report

Townsend received all sorts of attention in 1952. His sidereal radiation data was being hyped, not by him, but by those around him as valid stock market indicators, and he was being investigated for fraud by the FBI.  He was demonstrating "flying saucers" for the press at his Townsend Brown Foundation office in Los Angeles.. And his  Winterhaven Proposal (for the propulsion of aerial vehicles) was being read and studied in military aviation circles.

William Cady of the Office of Naval Research was tasked with preparing an analysis of Townsend's supporting research work. The Cady Report concluded that Townsend was observing nothing more than electric wind in action.  While the holes and the contradictions in this report are obvious to  trained scientific researchers,  the astute reader will find that it is very informative in what it does NOT say:

At Zanesville, Ohio in 1927, Mr. Brown at this then Laboratory of Research Devices, performed experiments on force acting upon charged conductors. The apparatus took two forms, as described in a manuscript "Tapping Cosmic Energy," dated 28 October 1927, which was submitted at that time to the Physical Review for publication but which was rejected. Apparently no basic experiments [emphasis mine] have been performed since 1928.

What the Cady report does NOT say is that by 1933, Townsend had moved beyond basic science and was demonstrating the application of his Biefield-Brown effect for ship propulsion at the Navel Research Lab.  For a pragmatist, applied science trumps basic science every time.

I have more to say about this Cady Report than time to say it, so for now:

END OF PART A

1 comment:

FredMars said...

You wrote: "For a pragmatist, applied science trumps basic science every time."

And I know I and at least one "engineer" who will agree with that. It seems that throughout scientific history, at least from the 20th Century onward, real scientific discovery is measurable in millimeters instead of leaps and bounds. I personally attribute this to two main causes: One is the propensity of the scientific community and its review process to reject or shun any papers that oppose the standard model. Now mind you, there are some "weasels" that skirt with aether/ether physics, but only while anchored in Relativity will they get published.

The other and more controversial cause is the classified nature of scientific breakthroughs that can be demonstrated to pose threats to national security.

While the latter may have merit and I do not refute it here, I will say the the former cause is the one that is most damaging to the progress of science and detrimental to solving the world energy issues, which depend on fossil fuels for power.