Looking for Mr. Goodbar....er....Andrew Bolland

[Mikado14]

Someone has been on my mind recently. Ever just find yourself in the throes of doing your daily routine, someone just pops into your head and you just can't help but think about them? It happens to me at times. Recently, Andrew Bolland came to mind. I started to think about him and the thought struck me....whatever happened to him?

First, in case anyone doesn't know who he is, I am going to give a bit of history.

Andrew, as a young man, tracked down Townsend Brown in the late 80's. When he finally showed up at his doorstep, he had recently passed by about two years. However, Josephine was still very much alive at the time. Andrew introduced himself and from what has been said, she took a liking to him. Andrew was allowed by Josephine to have the opportunity to peruse Brown's notebooks. We were told that he would sit out front under a tree and just read and take notes. This relationship lasted for quite a few years. Andrew eventually had access to all of Brown's notes. He initiated a web site called Soteria ( hope I have that right ) which was established as a repository for the Brown's family archive. Eventually, the Qualight website was started.

Andrew was the first contact that Paul Schatzkin had via his website which eventually led to the introduction between them, Linda and Paul, and the beginning of the Biography - "Defying Gravity".

I can't help but to ponder on the question - "Where is he?" Andrew was the torchbearer for Brown's work. On the ttbrown forum, if there was any question in regard to his notes or what was in the files, he was the man. He had known Linda going back to the late 80's. He was entrusted with all the records. He negotiated the initial talks between Linda and Paul. He was an adviser to Paul and had a contract with him on the book. Andrew had purchased a good deal of all of the information/file from Moore who wrote the book - "The Philadephia Experiment". He had a good deal of the original documents that Carlos Allende had written. To say that Andrew was anything other than the source would be short changing him.

Andrew's perseverance "in all things Brown" is well noted. He carried the torch for over 20 years in keeping the name of Townsend Brown out there and his science in discussion. So to begin this, I have two nagging questions....Where did he go? and What happened to him?

I have a good deal of notes here, they may be accurate and they may be speculation, I don't know but I intend to explore this.

I know with my own experience with Linda Brown, the Defying Gravity book, Paul Schatzkin, Dave Smith alias Morgan/Logan/Blue/etc, and three forums worth of posts I can come to conclusions but I think a bit of due-diligence along with some seasoning of hypothecating might just bring a few kernels of truth out...or least hypothecated truth. Remember, in a civil court it is the preponderance of the evidence.

Afterall, someone who was as close to the Brown family as Andrew was to just suddenly drop off the earth and not be heard from...well...

...to be continued

Mikado

[StarCat]

My grandson has the Koolau basalt that Andrew was getting rid of several years ago. Beyond that, I think he had moved to Dolphin Jump Key.

Cat

[Mikado14]

I came on to the scene and met Andrew, on the ttbrown forum in August of 2006. Needless to say, we eventually didn't hit it off too well. I was too exact at times and developed a reputation for being precise, as much as possible, when explaining something scientific whether it be established or pseudo. It wasn't that Andrew was wrong, it was more that he did a "Cliff's note" at times which I felt would not stand the test of time and that became a rub. So to sum it up, in order to get to know the man, I created a character named Bulwark for I knew that Mikado didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting Andrew to open up more. I choose the name because part of it's definition is any person or thing which gives strong support or encouragement in time of need, danger, or doubt. So, I felt that encouragement was needed to get Andrew to talk more, explain more, to open up more. This was all done with Linda's blessing.

Things went along smoothly and eventually, a meeting was had in Las Vegas in March of 2008. The principles involved with that meeting were Linda, Andrew, Trickfox, Radomir and myself. Kim was along but stayed in our room. I won't go into the details of that meeting for there are two versions out there and it is not pertinent to this post but I will leave the judgement of those versions as to which one is correct to whom ever wishes to judge. The important part of mentioning this meeting is that a spirit of cooperation was going to be embraced by those attending to try and bring Brown's work to the forefront. This also meant a spirit of honesty between those agreeing and in keeping with that honesty, I told Andrew about Bulwark and why it was done. As far as I knew, it was over and done and I am sure it was mutual. Later, it was only Linda that attempted to use this factoid but as far as I am concerned, the principles involved are what matter.

The trip to Vegas that year was memorable in that we walked the strip one day on a Sunday but you never would have known it was the Lord's day. Kim and Andrew hit it off quite well. In fact, Andrew made a bet with her for a modest 25 cents (1/4 of one USD for those US currency challenged) that she would take one of those card ads from someone who was advertising for the prostitutes. Well, Kim did one better, every one she ran into she took the cards and Andrew found out that Kim is one who will take a bet and made sure that she asked for blondes only which I think took Andrew by surprise and he had to pay the whopping sum of $.25 cents.

As said, I know it was memorable but the agreement was not meant to survive and from my point of view, I blame Trickfox for that. I was convinced at the time, by Linda and Trickfox, that it was Andrew who was throwing up the stumbling blocks but as always, hindsight is the best teacher or revealer of facts. Andrew put up on a restricted portion of the Qualight site by password only, papers of which the Kitselman Math (since then it has been discovered who the real scrivener of the math was) that Trickfox immediately downloaded. Radomir, Trickfox and myself all had passwords to this area. A disagreement developed between Andrew and Trickfox. Trickfox was arguing over decisions that were made in Vegas and didn't wish to go in that direction. After about two weeks or so, I decided to go in the direction of Trickfox and the agreement was dissolved. Andrew took away access to the hidden portion, Trickfox gave me the PDF by email and then later claimed that I broke a trust in him in that he was the only one given the math...who gives a crap for that just goes along with his personality.

The result of all this is that Andrew slowly was being pushed away by Linda and the group that was there, which we called the Alexis group for the name of the resort we stayed at, was dissolved. It was at this time that we referred to what Andrew was doing as Hut A and what we were doing as Hut B in case anyone wondered as to why I refer sometimes to Hut B.

I started to write a book about my experiences. It amassed 20 chapters about my experience at the time. I have added to it a bit and hope to complete it some day but the problem is, the story is not over yet. It remains, a work in progress as I continue to gather information, not only of the science in regard to Brown but also in regard to his personal life that to date, has been totally avoided by those reporting.

Eventually, a schism developed between what Andrew was doing and what Hut B was doing with either one not knowing each others work. Hut B eventually stopped telling Linda what was being done at her own request, so that she wouldn't slip in talking with Andrew. I have no idea what was taking place with any arrangement they might have had but at times Linda would talk about Andrew.

Andrew eventually, through his wife, attempted to get a grant to work on room temperature super conductivity based upon experiments he performed. It was perhaps a monumental step forward in regards to Brown's work combined with Andrews' own insight and work but it was not apparently meant to be.

At the time of the dust up in August of 2011 between Linda and myself, Andrew and I had a conversation in the fall of that year. I warned him about certain "things". I heard the angst in his voice as to the manner he was treated and that is a cross I will bear for being a participant, no matter how minor or major, and if by chance he ever reads here one day, I hope he sees that this is a public apology for that treatment of my turning my back. I used to say that all he wanted was to just own the rights to all or any of Brown's work. Maybe it was true and maybe it wasn't but in any event, anyone who develops anything on their own should have the right to capitalize upon it. I hope he is successful.

...to be continued

Mikado

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Mikado,

I am amazed at how linear you are.
Your perception of "what happened to Andrew Bolland" speaks volumes as to why you and I have difficulty communicating.

Have you ever considered that Andrew spent years immersing himself in the notebooks/work of Brown because of some other reason than to "capitalize" on it?

One of the first things that was slammed at me at the Token, and repeatedly slammed at me, was MONEY.
In our relationship, you were upset because you spent money (even though I did not ask you to do so).

IMO, and in my observations, people who thirst for knowledge many times have problems with people who thirst for money.
and the statement, "a worker is worth his wages" is used by those wanting to justify "getting paid money".
BS, total BS
wages...what are the wages?
sitting at the feet of a Master, learning
not getting paid in money, but in knowledge
knowledge is the wages gained, far more valuable than money
Money is a tool used to manipulate the minds of men.
Chase the money and you will never have the knowledge.

Tell me I'm wrong.
What I see is the conflict with Andrew Bolland centered around money.

and if I am correct, your last statement, "anyone who develops anything on their own should have the right to capitalize upon it. I hope he is successful." ...
is a major slap in the face to someone who thirsts for knowledge, and does not thirst for money.

Nancy

[Mikado14]

Mikado,

I am amazed at how linear you are.
Your perception of "what happened to Andrew Bolland" speaks volumes as to why you and I have difficulty communicating.

I find it truly amazing as well in that you find it amazing that someone would tell a story in chronological order. And I was told a good many years ago that I was a type individual as "abstract random". I suppose a thank you is in order in that you find me orderly. However, didn't you file a "pro se" complaint in a federal court? Didn't they want the complaint written linearly? I know on my "pro se" federal complaint, I had to.

Have you ever considered that Andrew spent years immersing himself in the notebooks/work of Brown because of some other reason than to "capitalize" on it?

Yes, I have considered what you say. In fact, even more so now that Linda is out of the equation. If you would be a bit more patient, you might just see that is what is coming but then, since you are not linear, you want to read the final chapter first but if you read all my posts they are concluded with "...to be continued". Perhaps you didn't read that for you were too busy reading the post in a random order.

One of the first things that was slammed at me at the Token, and repeatedly slammed at me, was MONEY.
In our relationship, you were upset because you spent money (even though I did not ask you to do so).

I see your memory is very selective just as Lindas' or perhaps you are only remembering what you want to. The money was only one part. If that is all you perceived or comprehended from everything I said then I guess you are correct for arguing with you is like pissing into the wind and believing you will not get wet. Okay, your right.

IMO, and in my observations, people who thirst for knowledge many times have problems with people who thirst for money.
and the statement, "a worker is worth his wages" is used by those wanting to justify "getting paid money".
BS, total BS
wages...what are the wages?
sitting at the feet of a Master, learning
not getting paid in money, but in knowledge
knowledge is the wages gained, far more valuable than money
Money is a tool used to manipulate the minds of men.
Chase the money and you will never have the knowledge.

Tell me I'm wrong.
What I see is the conflict with Andrew Bolland centered around money.

and if I am correct, your last statement, "anyone who develops anything on their own should have the right to capitalize upon it. I hope he is successful." ...
is a major slap in the face to someone who thirsts for knowledge, and does not thirst for money.

Nancy

Your wrong.

However, generally speaking, exploring science, real or pseudo, comes with a price tag. To think that one can go to Lowe's, Home Depot or Radio Shack and obtain the necessary components to achieve results, well, sometimes it may be possible but in any event, all those places require a currency exchange for the goods. If you know anyone giving things away, I have a list here.....

Mikado

[StarCat]

Disclaimer: this is a non-sequiter.

It may be possible yo go to Home Depot and procure items without paying for them. Home Depot has a history of eliminating its loss prevention staff to save money on wages.

Cat

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Mikado,
I have never appeared in court "pro se", it has always been "pro per". Huge difference.
The method in creating an argument for court is to first identify the "problem".
Then the "undisputed facts", those things that both sides agree upon.
Then the "law" (relationship of one thing to another). How does the law apply to the facts?
In the lower (district) courts you can discuss evidence, and then the "finder of facts" ... the judge or the jury ... decides what the facts are based upon the evidence presented by both sides.
In the appellate courts (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) you can only discuss the "undisputed facts, or facts found by the judge or jury" and how the law was applied.
The function of the district court(s) and the appellate court(s) are extremely different.

The vast majority of equipment and supplies used in developing the Hutchison technology were "junk" that people wanted to just get rid of, or that John literally scavenged (as in dumpster diving).

John has found (and I concur) that what is purchased at Home Depot, Radio Shack, etc. is the real "junk".
By understanding the basics of how things work, quality and consistent results can be accomplished using really nice scavenged parts.

For example:
The mobile anti-radiation units.
Components---a penny, a rusty bolt, litz wire (old, used litz better than new), piece of 1/2" copper pipe (old, used pipe better than new), rochelle salts, galena, finely crushed quartz...and magnetite, collected from the beach using a magnet scavenged from a blown speaker. Magnetic field for recording is created by using the core of an old, scavenged starter motor (activated by speaker wires carrying the tones.

If you have a list of components that you think you need, I would be happy discussing with you proper scavenging.
However, the components you think you need, may not be what you actually need.
You may need some sand from the beach.

Nancy

[Mikado14]

In the Eastern District Federal Court is "pro se". "pro per" is used in the Court of Common Pleas or State courts in Pennsylvania.

I used it correctly, get your facts straight.

Mikado

edit: Should be Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

[Mikado14]

In fact, let me straighten you out.

Pro se is the complaint. Pro per is what you sign under your name. Pro se is used when there are multiple names in filing the action. Ergo, in the title when there are multiple names it is "pro se".

Mikado

edit:trying to post too fast. Pro se is normally used in a Federal complaint, pro per is used in state. However, it is a courts decision as to use.

[Mikado14]

In fact, just looked it up:

Pro per
A term derived from the Latin "in propria persona," meaning "for one's self," used in some states to describe a person who handles his or her own case, without a lawyer.

Pro se
Latin for "for oneself, on one's own behalf." When a litigant proceeds without legal counsel, they are said to be proceeding "pro se.

Both taken from a law dictionary.

Mikado