Exclusive Print Interview: ACC President Jack Shulman On The Roswell/
Bell Labs Controversy
Since mid-August, a controversy has raged on the internet concerning
highly provocative information posted on the web site of American
Computer Company (see CNI News of September 16, 1997; and visit ACC’s
web site: http://www.american-computer.com). In brief, ACC has
suggested that the historic invention of the transistor at Bell
Laboratories in December, 1947 might have been aided by covert
transfer of technology from an alien spacecraft recovered near
Roswell, New Mexico. This suggestion directly parallels similar claims
made by Lt. Col. Philip Corso in his recent book, “The Day After
Roswell.” However, ACC personnel state they had no knowledge of Corso
or his book, but relied instead on information provided by a
“consultant” who remains nameless.
American Computer’s president and chief technical officer is Jack
Shulman. In recent weeks, Shulman himself has come under scrutiny by
UFO researchers, as have several other people who have presumed to
speak in a seemingly authoritative way on behalf of American Computer.
Chief among these “others” are one Ed Wang and one Bob Wolf.
Pronouncements attributed to these two persons have raised suspicions
that Shulman himself may have been writing under one or several
pseudonyms.
CNI News, working in cooperation with radio host Jeff Rense of the
popular syndicated program “Sightings on the Radio,” [see Jeff’s web
site at http://www.sightings.com], is seeking to verify or dispel the
various rumors swirling around ACC and the person of Jack Shulman, so
that public attention can be refocused to the significant issues
raised on the American Computer web site. This special supplement to
the October 1 edition of CNI News is directed to that goal.
The following is an edited transcript of a telephone interview between
Jeff Rense and Jack Shulman which took place on September 29. Jeff
Rense and CNI News editor Michael Lindemann consulted together on the
questions to be asked prior to the call.
CNI News recognizes that the statements made by Shulman in this
interview by no means satisfy all the questions we would like to have
answered. However, we hope that this information represents a
contribution to the ongoing investigation of this unusual case.
Thanks to Jeff Rense for sharing the complete contents of this
interview with CNI News.]
JEFF RENSE: It’s September 29, and we’re talking with American
Computer Company president Jack Shulman. To begin with, are you, Jack
Shulman, writing under the pseudonym “Ed Wang”?
JACK SHULMAN: No
RENSE: Have you ever met Ed Wang?
SHULMAN: No.
RENSE: Have you ever talked to anyone calling himself Ed Wang?
SHULMAN:: Yes, he’s called here a couple of times. At one time he had
asked us if he could use an account at one of the computer science
associations nearby to access the internet for the purpose of
investigative reporting. That predated this whole controversy. We did
in fact give him an account to use, back about eleven months ago. I
don’t remember what he was investigating at that time. Then somebody
raised his name, in about the early part of August, asking us if we
could verify something that he had paraphrased from one of the stories
on our web site. Since he had paraphrased, and it was all quoted and
everything, it would have been just as easy for that party to just
look at our web page. So we said, “If you’ll look at our web page,
you’ll see that whatever he’s paraphrased here does appear to resemble
exactly the words that are on the web page.” To my knowledge, the only
other contact we’ve had with Ed Wang is an occasional call from him,
much as you’ve called me today, and others such as Stig Agermose, who
have contacted us to ask questions.
RENSE: Who is Bob Wolf? Does he mean anything to American Computer?
SHULMAN: Again, he’s one of the people, like Jared Anderson, Ed Wang,
Linda Moulton Howe, yourself and others, who’ve written us. There have
been dozens of people who have either written us or called us for
information. I have spoken to Bob Wolf at length by phone. I have not
personally met the guy. He does appear to be a very nice fellow. He’s
given me some very interesting information. I don’t know if I’d take
all of it without the proverbial grain of salt, because he has told me
some things that led me to believe there are parts of his background
that he doesn’t want to disclose to me. Apparently he worked for the
U.S. Navy as a Seal, but I can’t verify that. I can’t call the Seals
organization and ask if this guy was a Seal. They won’t respond to
that.
RENSE: What is your purpose in exposing the Roswell/Bell Labs
allegations on the ACC web site, thereby attaching your credibility,
for better or worse, not only to Roswell, but to claims concerning
Bell Labs’ access to alien technology— claims which either must be
substantiated, or which could make you look like a nut, or a
disinformer?
SHULMAN: I don’t think there was any purpose—either to look like nut,
a disinformer, a credible source or anything— taken into consideration
at first. We had a consultant come to me and tell me this story. At
first, I was quite skeptical about it. I knew a lot of the facts,
because they are pretty much matters of record, but had always thought
that the reason there was a cloud of—shall we say—controversy about
the exact origins of William Shockley’s transistor was that it stemmed
perhaps from a prehistory that AT&T didn’t care to disclose. I didn’t
have any idea, up until the time that the consultant came to me and
raised these issues, that it might in fact be related to the Roswell
incident. I originally thought [the origin] was something like German
rocket scientists....
RENSE: How did this consultant come to you?
SHULMAN: I had known the consultant years ago. We had met each other
in the hinterlands of AT&T. I’ve worked on and off in AT&T contracts
over the course of a couple of decades. And about a year ago, in my
capacity as the chairperson of the American Computer Science
Foundation, I was asked to review materials that pertained to an
ongoing investigation of telephone company practices that were
pertinent to the success of the computer industry, during the course
of which I happened to come across some fairly strong allegations that
were made by the consultant in the dominion of that specific
investigation. I was not at that time informed of the possibility of
an alien technology transfer. It was not until he came to me
personally and suggested it that I said to him, “Well, you’re going to
have to show me some bonafide evidence before I even consider this.”
About six months later he came back to me with what appeared to me to
be... some evidence that might suggest in fact that the transistor
came from some kind of a project involving investigation into an alien
technology of some kind.
RENSE: Can you elaborate on that evidence at all?
SHULMAN: I can tell you that I have seen what appears to be some notes
from someone. However, I cannot verify their authenticity, so I’d
really not like to describe them in any detail. Frankly, Jeff, I grow
concerned about leading people in the wrong direction. They did give
me the appearance of a lab notebook, of a lab-keeper’s notebook. In
fact, they did appear to describe or have an actual memorandum
referring to a disinformation campaign in late 1947 at AT&T. But
again, they could have been a complete forgery. They could have been
anything. They might have been legitimate too. At that particular
juncture, I said to him, “OK, this now looks like it’s fairly
conceivable it might have happened, if in fact this is bonafide.” So
he suggested to me, Why don’t we at the American Computer Science
Foundation post some kind of white paper on the subject? I said we
really can’t do that. He asked me why, and I said to him that it was
because American Computer Science Foundation carries the weight of its
membership companies, etc., all of which might lend a greater weight,
in essence underwriting the credibility of this story in a way that I
would not intend it to. I would prefer that the information somehow
stand on its own. Well, he pestered me for a couple of months. We were
talking over coffee, reviewing the whole thing, and he suggested, “Why
don’t you put it on your American Computer Company web site?” I said I
can’t do that, because it might [reflect badly on ACC]. So he said—
and I’ll be blunt with you here—“Why don’t you make it look humorous?
That way, you have a plausibly deniable excuse.” I said, “It IS
humorous, in a way, because if you look at it, you have a company—if
in fact they did obtain technology from a technology transfer source—
that’s been running around for fifty years trying to hide that fact.”
That’s funny. Why would anybody do that? It struck me at that
particular moment that AT&T would have been better off admitting it.
So I said, “OK, why don’t we make it appear in its proper light—as
outrageous and/or funny—and put it on the ACC web site and see if we
get any reaction at all from anybody who reads it. Perhaps if it
strikes a chord, somebody will contact us and tell us whether this is
ridiculous or not.” Initially, we did not expect anyone from your
investigative arena to even notice the story. At least I didn’t. The
consultant may have, but I did not. I initially thought that people
would see it in passing and would say, hmm, how interesting, how
humorous, or whatever.
RENSE: You had no idea of the potential scope of this?
SHULMAN: Well, interestingly, exactly what I thought might happen did
happen—that is, it struck a chord with somebody and they wrote us.
Sure enough, the first week someone wrote us and said, “Yes, my father
worked for AT&T/Bell Labs in 1947, and in the early ‘60s took me to
see a UFO.” I was flabbergasted, absolutely floored. You could have
knocked me over with a feather at that moment. Not because I was
skeptical, but in the context of how ridiculous it makes AT&T look, I
found it to be humorous. What, are they crazy? Why didn’t they come
out with it in 1947? The world would have been in their debt. AT&T
would have been the greatest company that ever lived. Why would they
hide it?
It was then that the full import of the suggestion of profiteering
began to occur to me. If in fact this were true, the profiteering
aspect was something that none of us considered. If people were ready
to make billions and billions of dollars for 200 years on this kind of
technology, and it came from an “alien source,” they would keep it a
secret— because if it came from outside of AT&T, it wouldn’t belong to
AT&T. It hadn’t even dawned on us, because we were looking at it from
the perspective of how amazing the story is, how earthshaking, and how
silly it would be to keep it a secret— until we began to realize who
was in the business of profiting from this kind of technology.
RENSE: Do you have any relationship with Bell Labs now, Jack?
SHULMAN: Not really. They call us every once in a while to look at
buying equipment, but I am no longer personally doing any consulting
for Bell Labs.
RENSE: Does the consultant?
SHULMAN: Occasionally. He or she does communications-related
consulting in the defense industries, and very specifically his or her
identity is being withheld for security reasons.
RENSE: Has the consultant expressed to you any surprise at the amount
of internet interest in this story?
SHULMAN: He and several of our public relations consultant clients
said that, frankly, it will do quite well as a story on the internet
because it will serve to brighten up the interest of some very
frustrated people. This information will give people in your
investigative field some leverage in dealing with the whole subject.
Even if the entire story might not be 100 percent accurate for
whatever reason, the facts described in our story are materially
largely true. For instance—and it’s been interesting to see how many
people have reacted adversely to this suggestion—if you take a look at
the part about the Nike-Ajax missile bases, and the anti-aircraft guns
that preceded them, in and around AT&T down in Red Bank, outside of
Crawford’s Corners, up in Murray Hill and over in Holmdel, it’s almost
shocking to discover that, while New York City and New Jersey sat
undefended, AT&T had both anti-aircraft and then anti-missile
batteries constructed around them in the 1940s and 1950s. This is
painfully humorous. It actually hurts to consider that AT&T and Bell
Labs are more important than the citizens of our country. So I’m
thinking, wow, there must be more than just the labs there. Because I
know something about the research community, and I don’t know that
there is anything at AT&T from 1947 to 1997 that was irreplaceable.
Whereas, when I think of places like the Applied Physics Laboratory,
Cold Springs Harbor, Lawrence Livermore—there are projects going on
there that are not reproducible, and I’m not sure they all have Nike-
Ajax missile bases around them.
RENSE: Concerning the allegations about Bell Labs, then, would you say
that you are a conduit for someone else’s information?
SHULMAN: Yes, we are providing a forum. To date, only Motorola from
the AT&T arena has tried to dispute it. AT&T appears to be remaining
mute on the subject. And Lucent has remained mute, although I must
tell you that our relationship with Lucent on the technical support
side—because we support some of Lucent’s products on the AT&T phone
systems—has been less than warm since August 15. We’ve actually been
hung up on a few times.
RENSE: But have you had anyone call up and tell you, Jack, you’ve
really stepped across the boundary here?
SHULMAN: No, not thus far. We’ve gotten a couple of nasty letters from
people who didn’t provide a return email address. But we’re just
trying to provide a forum for people to hear these facts and either
disprove them or prove them. There’s nothing worse, in my view, than
something like this that’s left open to conjecture indefinitely,
because it does nothing but hurt the people who try to consider it,
and I think it hurts the country to some degree. I think it weakens
our country. The fact that people will continuously arrive at the
conclusion, for instance, that either the DoD, or the president, or
someone like that is not disclosing facts to them that they ought to
disclose, leads to the kind of thinking that undermines our democratic
system. It tends to erode our confidence in government, and I think
our confidence in government really needs to be reinforced.
RENSE: Is American Computer consciously part of a larger coordinated
campaign of public disclosure or education aimed at revealing things
about the alleged alien presence on earth?
SHULMAN: No. Not unless you call ACC’s own campaign that broader one.
Nobody came to us other than this consultant.
RENSE: So would you say that Jack Shulman, as a matter of conscience
and patriotism, independently decided to put this on his web site?
SHULMAN: Conscience, yes, simply because I thought that the facts
deserved disclosure and consideration. The public should know. Even if
they’re not true, the fact is they appear to have some degree of
plausibility, so they should be considered on their own weight.
By the way, I was caught completely off guard by Colonel Corso’s book.
I did not know the book existed until Jared Anderson called here and
spoke to John Schwartz, one of my VPs, who got me on the phone
immediately and said, “Did you know there’s a book that describes
transfers of technology from either Roswell or some other crash to
AT&T?” That was the first I heard of it.
As for what you call patriotism: We are our government, Jeff. The
government is us. We have this perception of a dyspeptic, detached
entity with X-Files guys running around in it, Men-in-Black running
around in it, abusive IRS guys running around in it—all those reasons
are used by people who are insurrectional in their thinking. I don’t
happen to share those views. I happen to love this country and the
people who live here, and I think that if they have a gripe or a beef,
it deserves to be aired. And this is one of those that appears to
deserve to be aired.... I raised that very issue in a letter to, dare
I say, Secretary of Defense William Cohen. I stated my concern that—
what do they say, “Sooth the savage beast”?
• I’m concerned that a “savage beast” will emerge eventually from the
disinformation, lack of information, strangely conflicting or
compelling stories, and the lack of a basic kind of town-hall sit-down
to discuss these matters. I mean, how expensive is it for the
government to respond to a million FOIA requests a year, compared with
one concerted effort to gather all the information, keep it pure,
break down a few barriers that might be left over from some nameless
classified project....?
RENSE: It sounds like you don’t subscribe to the idea of a fifty-year,
coordinated cover-up of the UFO subject.
SHULMAN: I think I would have to see actual evidence of a coordinated
cover-up. It’s not that I don’t subscribe to it. It’s that I don’t as
yet see evidence of anything other than bureaucracy, technical
deficiencies in requests [for information], a disinclination on the
part of the government to discuss the matter. I think, if anything,
I’d call it a fifty-year disinclination, rather than cover-up.
RENSE: But the reasons for that “disinclination” are the key...
SHULMAN: That’s correct. That’s one of the things we raised in the
Shadowlake Invitation page on our web site [an open letter to the
Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff and other top officials to
participate in an open forum on the subject of UFOs.]
RENSE: That letter has caused a lot of reaction. Who wrote that?
SHULMAN: It was written by American Computer Company. You have people
working here, including myself, who are less than inclined to seek the
public spotlight on this issue. We are not what you’d call publicity
hounds.
RENSE: I understand. What is your personal opinion about the ET issue,
vis a vis our military and our government?
SHULMAN: My personal opinion is a very troubled one. I have a degree
of personal integrity that forbids my [drawing conclusions] until I’ve
seen the absolute facts. I have not concluded one way or the other.
But I am inclined to believe that it is more likely that there is some
shred of truth to visitation than that there is no shred of truth.
RENSE: Do you expect any more information from your consultant to come
through ACC’s web site?
SHULMAN: I can’t say at this moment. We have a plan in place, that
we’re considering, to raise the ante a little bit to try to generate
some kind of reaction out of the Department of Defense that might lean
toward the town-hall, public-forum type of meeting. But I really don’t
want to reveal any more about this now.
RENSE: Is the consultant’s agenda, in your opinion, personal, or is he
or she being directed by any agency?
SHULMAN: The consultant does not work, to my knowledge, on this
particular story for any agency, because that would probably violate
the consultant’s security oath. The consultant has been advised, and
has advised us, that the information that he or she has given us is
“allowed” to be given to us by whatever agency he or she consults to,
because the information was obtained other than through their
employment by the U.S. government. Meaning, the guy worked at AT&T,
came across this information, and was not working for the federal
government at the time, so the federal government cannot prevent him
or her from releasing it to us. But to be very distinct here... the
federal government is not particularly happy that the information is
being given out.
RENSE: How do you know that?
SHULMAN: That’s a comment from the consultant. He said, “I don’t think
they’re happy that I’m talking. I don’t think they’re upset, but I
don’t think they’re happy.”
RENSE: To summarize: Would you say that you think the information
given by the consultant is credible and believable? This seems to go
without saying, or you wouldn’t have put it on your web site.
SHULMAN: “The information” is rather broad. There are a lot of
different parts to this, and some feel more accurate to me than
others.
RENSE: On balance, would you say that ACC’s web postings on this
subject are important?
SHULMAN: That’s been said to me. Again, we did not do it to attract
this kind of publicity. We did it because we thought we would attract
some interest from someone, somewhere, who might know whether it’s
true or not—meaning other than from sources that the consultant has,
such as past contacts with John Morton [formerly of Bell Labs],
William Shockley, others at AT&T and Defense who were involved with
him at the time. The problem is, too many people are trying to read
into it, Jeff. If it’s true, it’s true—if it’s not, it’s not. I was
not there in 1947. I cannot swear if it is or isn’t. A complete
charade could be presented to me, and I could be fooled if it were
presented properly. It could be suggested that the consultant is a
bold-faced liar, or that he has had information given to him that is
untrue but looks very plausible and believable at the level of detail
that we presently know.
RENSE: Thanks very much for your time.
[Jeff Rense has invited Jack Shulman to be a live guest on “Sightings
on the Radio,” where many of the foregoing issues might be explored in
greater depth. No date for that interview has yet been announced.
Meanwhile, CNI News will continue to pursue the ACC/Bell Labs/Roswell
story.]
Note: this interview with Jeff Rense was done a fews days prior to the
nationwide Sightings On The Radio broadcast interview with Mr. Shulman
on 10-8-97
Courtesy CNI News
COMPUTER FIRM HINTS ALIEN TECH LED TO TRANSISTOR
Says Bell Labs May Have Learned From Roswell
[CNI News thanks Jared Anderson (jared@andromeda.net), Stig Agermose
(Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk) and UFO Updates
(updates@globalserve.net) for forwarding most of the information on
which this story is based.]
Controversy is swirling around American Computer Company, a New Jersey-
based manufacturing firm which posted on its web site the suggestion
that Bell Laboratories may have benefited from access to alien
technology in 1947, leading directly to development of the transistor.
Although the claim echoed similar allegations previously printed in
the controversial book “The Day After Roswell” by Lt. Col. Philip
Corso (ret.), spokesmen for American Computer said they had no
knowledge of the Corso book.
An unnamed company source first posted the Bell Labs/alien technology
hypothesis on American Computer’s web site in early August. [see
http://www.american-computer.com/]
Shortly thereafter, American Computer’s corporate headquarters
building was reportedly broken into by individuals who managed to
circumvent many layers of electronic security, then searched highly
sensitive files but did not steal anything of value. The break-in
prompted an investigation by Air Force OSI (OSI’s interest in the
matter has not been explained) and also set off a chain of further
statements by company spokesmen, including president and chief
technical officer Jack A. Shulman.
Bell Labs, predecessor to AT&T, BellCore and Lucent Technologies, was
in a prime position to benefit from super-secret “foreign technology”
that might have been acquired by the U.S. military during the late
1940s, Shulman said in statements posted on the internet, and in an
audio interview with researcher Linda Moulton Howe heard on Art Bell’s
nationally syndicated radio program.
In answer to telephone inquiries from one Bob Wolf, an individual with
apparent connections inside American Computer, Shulman faxed a
statement during the last weekend of August which read, in part:
“Bell Laboratories developed most of the technology used by the
national and Government/Military telephone networks during the century
prior to 1947. Indubitably, Bell Labs had one of the most senior
positions in the military research arena for a very long time and
still does... However, 1947 appears to have been a BANNER year in Bell
Labs history, representing an unprecedented departure from its
previous focus on Vacuum Tubes and Mechanical Relays. Nearly all
subsequent technological advances in communications, switching, audio,
video, integrated circuitry and military components at Bell Labs
leveraged, in some way, the advent of the Transistor.”
Shulman says an unnamed “consultant” to American Computer was privy to
information concerning Bell Labs’ alleged acquisition of alien
technology from the Roswell UFO incident of 1947. That information,
Shulman believes, probably came directly from a man named John Morton.
“Mr. John ‘Jack’ Morton is the now nameless individual who headed up
not only the Transistor project, but drove many of the projects that
derived from the Transistor, as head of the Semiconductor Research and
Development division of the Bell System, at Bell Labs, until his
untimely death in the early 70’s,” Shulman told Bob Wolf.
Morton was actually murdered, Shulman says, and his grisly demise
while still a Bell Labs executive may have been directly linked to the
secret of Bell’s alien acquisitions. Morton was reportedly placed
unconsious in a car, doused with gasoline and set on fire.
Perpetrators were eventually apprehended and tried but received
mysteriously light sentences, Shulman says.
Although Shulman claims he has not read Col. Philip Corso’s book “The
Day After Roswell,” his allegations strongly echo Corso’s claim that
the Pentagon purposely fed alien technology from the Roswell crash to
U.S. industry.
Corso states that he became convinced, though he could not prove, that
Bell Labs had been one of the first recipients of alien technology
from the Roswell crash (see pages 159ff). He acknowledges that
scientist William Shockley (officially named as co-inventor of the
transistor) was already working on concepts that could be considered
precursors to the transistor in 1946. Even so, Corso said, the sudden
emergence of the transistor was a quantum technological leap that took
everyone by surprise. He says he is convinced the breakthrough was
based on study of Roswell wreckage.
Bob Wolf says that, with the cooperation of American Computer
personnel, he was able to speak by phone with the anonymous
“consultant” who claims direct knowledge of Bell’s alien connection.
According to Wolf, this man resides in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey,
“where he is an expert on National Electronic Space Command matters
for the Department of the Air Force.”
Wolf quotes the consultant as saying, in part, “...there is no
information about transistor research actually available nor that is
bonafide nor provided by Bell Labs prior to July - August - September
of 1947. It didn’t exist, because the materials concepts used by Bell
and the associated research resulting in the fabrication of the
Transistor came from the Roswell, New Mexico crashsite of the
‘extraterrestrial craft’ discovered jointly by the Air Force and Army
there in mid 1947... All subsequent accounts of the invention were
stylized publicity accounts designed to create the impression of Bell
Labs research superiority.”
Wolf quotes the consultant as saying, “Colonel Corso should be proud
that he took the stand he did.”
Wolf emphasized that “American Computer is unable to confirm nor deny
or dispute any of the facts presented by the [alleged consultant]
about the Roswell, NM ‘space craft’ or Bell Laboratories...”
American Computer president Jack A. Shulman joins a growing list of
highly credible individuals willing to acknowledge the possibility of
official, secret contact with alien technology.
Among his many credits, Shulman is the inventor of ODIN, the first
“overlapping windowed” display manager for desktop computing, in 1974.
In the late 1970s, Shulman designed CAD/CAM and desktop computer
systems for manufacturing and the office, including one of the
forerunners of the IBM PC-AT. Shulman is also the inventor of the
massively parallel systolic hypersystem (MPSH) also known as the
“Cognition, Abstraction, Inference, Induction Machine”—a connection
machine called PROTEUS—which in 1984 caused considerable controversy
because of its potential for application in the amplification of human
intellectual capability. In addition to his other responsibilities,
Shulman currently heads the Sentient Machine Project (SMP) Laboratory
and serves as Chairman of the non-profit American Computer Scientists
Association, an organization he co-founded in 1989.
CNI News will report new developments in this story as they become
available.
==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++====+++===+++===++
+===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++====+++===+++=
AT&T ONCE NAMED AS LIKELY ANTI-GRAVITY LEADER
1950s Speculation Linked Transistor, Electrogravitics
[CNI News thanks Bob Soetebier (bikebob@MO.NET) for forwarding this
item, which was posted to Usenet by Bob Tarantino (taranr@erols.com).
The item originally appeared in a British journal called Aviation
Report on December 9, 1955 and refers to the then-widespread
discussion among aircraft designers and theorists on the possibilities
of electrogravitics, or electromagnetic anti-gravity propulsion. Its
references to AT&T (close affiliate of Bell Laboratories) and the
newly invented transistor seem particularly relevant in light of the
foregoing story from the American Computer Company.]
ELECTRO-GRAVITICS EFFORT WIDENING
Aviation Report, 9 December 1955
Companies studying the implications of gravitics are said in a new
statement to include Glenn Martin, Convair, Sperry-Rand, Sikorsky,
Bell, Lear Inc. and Clark Electronics. Other companies who have
previously evinced interest include Lockheed Douglas and Hiller. The
remainder are not disinterested, but have not given public support to
the new science—which is widening all the time.
The approach in the U.S. is in a sense more ambitious than might have
been expected. The logical approach, which has been suggested by
Aviation Studies, is to concentrate on improving the output of
electrostatic rigs in existence that are known to be able to provide
thrust. The aim would be to concentrate on electrostatics for
propulsion first and widen the practical engineering to include
establishment of local gravity forcelines, independent of those of the
earth’s, to provide unfettered vertical movement as and when the
mathematics develops.
However, the U.S. approach is rather to put money into fundamental
theoretical physics of gravitation in an effort first to create the
local gravitation field. Working rigs would follow in the wake of the
basic discoveries.
Probably the correct course would be to sponsor both approaches, and
it is now time that the military stepped in with big funds.
The trouble about the idealistic approach to gravity is that the
aircraft companies do not have the men to conduct such work. There is
every expectation in any case that the companies likely to find the
answers lie outside the aviation field. These would emerge as the
masters of aviation in its broadest sense.
The feeling is therefore that a company like A.T.&T. is most likely to
be first in this field. This giant company (unknown in the air and
weapons field) has already revolutionized modern warfare with the
development of the junction transistor and is expected to find the
final answers to absolute vehicle levitation. This therefore is where
the bulk of the sponsoring money should go.
[To date there is no direct evidence that AT&T or any similar company
can claim the title of “master of aviation in the broadest sense.” But
from the late 1950s on, the previously public discussion of
electrogravitic research suddenly fell silent, leading some
researchers to speculate that breakthrough discoveries had been “taken
black,” or declared top secret. There are persistent rumors that the
U.S. military has test-flown extremely exotic aircraft with some form
of anti-gravity propulsion—a notable example involves the mysterious
Cash-Landrum incident of December, 1980 near Dayton, Texas.]