Project Basr: Pakistan And The Hunt For Zero Point (II)

“We never stamped a security classification on any paperwork. That way, nobody was curious to read it. We just made damned sure that all sensitive papers stayed inside the Skunk Works.”

― Ben Rich CEO Lockheed Skunk Works

Part I

0.3: Project Winterhaven: The Biefeld-Brown Effect

There have long been rumors that classified antigravity technologies have been secretly developed by military-corporate entities, but kept from the public realm for over seven decades. These technologies are based on the Biefeld-Brown Effect, which was pioneered by Thomas Townsend Brown. In a 1929 paper, Brown described how Einstein’s efforts to develop a unified field theory had inspired him to find a fundamental connection between matter, gravity and electricity: “There is a decided tendency in the physical sciences to unify the great basic laws and to relate, by a single structure or mechanism, such individual phenomena as gravitation, electrodynamics and even matter itself. It is found that matter and electricity are very closely related in structure. In the final analysis matter loses its traditional individuality and becomes merely an “electrical condition.”

In fact, it might be said that the concrete body of the universe is nothing more than an assemblage of energy which, in itself, is quite intangible. Of course, it is self-evident that matter is connected with gravitation and it follows logically that electricity is likewise connected. These relations exist in the realm of pure energy and consequently are very basic in nature. In all reality they constitute the true backbone of the universe. It is needless to say that the relations are not simple, and full understanding of their concepts is complicated by the outstanding lack of information and research on the real nature of gravitation.”i Dr. Townsend T. Brown discovered that strong electromagnetic fields produce an anti-gravity effect. Gradually his work got attention. The figure below is one of his earlier prototypes, in the shape of a cylinder.

Figure i: Brown's First Prototype on Gravitator Action
Figure i: Brown’s First Prototype on Gravitator Action

Brown went on to describe the first practical application of his theory in 1924: “The writer and his colleagues anticipated the present situation even as early as 1923, and began at that time to construct the necessary theoretical bridge between the two then separate phenomena, electricity and gravitation. The first actual demonstration of the relation was made in 1924. Observations were made of the individual and combined motions of two heavy lead balls which were suspended by wires 45 cm. apart. The balls were given opposite electrical charges and the charges were maintained. Sensitive optical methods were employed in measuring the movements….”ii Brown observed that there was an electro-gravitational interaction which created a previously “unknown force”: “The newly discovered force was quite obviously the resultant physical effect of an electro-gravitational interaction. It represented the first actual evidence of the very basic relationship. The force was named “gravitator action” for want of a better term and the apparatus or system of masses employed was called a “gravitator.”iii Basically, Brown had learned that high voltage electrostatic charges can provide powerful thrust. After improving his experiments and measurements, Brown filed for a British patent in August 1927, which was granted to him in November 1928.iv

Figure ii: Depiction of Gravitator in Brown's Patent
Figure ii: Depiction of Gravitator in Brown’s Patent

Brown went on to describe how his gravitation invention works in terms of two parts that have respective positive and negative charges: “Such a machine has two major parts A and B. These parts may be composed of any material capable of being charged electrically. Mass A and mass B may be termed electrodes A and B respectively. Electrode A is charged negatively with respect to electrode B, or what is substantially the same, electrode B is charged positively with respect to electrode A, or what is usually the case, electrode A has an excess of electrons while electrode B has an excess of protons. While charged in this manner the total force of A towards B is the sum of force g (due to the normal gravitational field), and force e (due to the imposed electrical field) and force x (due to the resultant of the unbalanced gravitational forces caused by the electro negative charge or by the presence of an excess of electrons of electrode A and by the electro positive charge or by the presence of an excess of protons on electrode B). By the cancellation of similar and opposing forces and by the addition of similar and allied forces the two electrodes taken collectively possess a force 2x in the direction of B. This force 2x, shared by both electrodes, exists as a tendency of these electrodes to move or accelerate in the direction of the force, that is, A towards B and B away from A. Moreover any machine or apparatus possessing electrodes A and B will exhibit such a lateral acceleration or motion if free to move.”v On the other hand, if one create a strong-enough flow of current between a negative and positive pole, you will get an anti-gravity ‘thrust’ that starts propelling your device in whatever direction the positive pole is

Figure iii: Anti-gravity thrust between negative and positive pole
Figure iii: Anti-gravity thrust between negative and positive pole

David Wilcock on reflecting to Brown’s Model explained that this phenomenon is actually a very simple physics principle and shows the hidden unity between gravity and electromagnetism. All that is required, ultimately, is high voltage – higher than we typically use in any household appliances. In Brown’s designs, the negative pole is much larger than the positive pole. If you think of a UFO designed like this, you’d have the entire bottom of the ship be a negative plate, and the small sphere at the very top of the ship as the positive plate. You can navigate the ship by breaking up the negative plate into a series of pie-shaped sections and varying the current flow between them.

Figure iv: Wilcock's illustration of 1950's anti-gravity aircraft
Figure iv: Wilcock’s illustration of 1950’s anti-gravity aircraft

Wilcock claims that he Mark McCandlish at the Disclosure Project event in May 2001, where he explained the above drawing as being an accurate rendition of an ‘Alien Reproduction Vehicle’ or ‘Flux-Liner’ already in use by various forces within the secret government. Dr. Paul LaViolette has described the relevance of the powerful thrust discovered in Brown’s experiments with “gravitators,” and how this relates to jet engines and the NASA Space Shuttle: “With each gravitator generating 100 grams of thrust, for a total thrust of 2 newtons, the thrust-to-power ratio of Brown’s electrogravitic thrusters calculates to 2,000 newtons per kilowatt. This is 130 times the thrust-to-power ratio of a jet engine, or 10,000 the thrust-to-power ratio of the space shuttle main engine.”vii If LaViolette is correct, then Brown’s gravitators could be applied to a new generation of jet and spacecraft engines, which would far surpass anything that could be produced by the more conventional solid state fuel and liquid propulsion engines used in NASA space shuttles, and more conventional aircraft. There is evidence in the open source literature that as early as the 1950’s, Brown’s gravitator experiments and theories were understood as something that could indeed be successfully applied to creating new propulsion systems for the aviation industry.

In 1954, the Aviation Report described both the feasibility and the secrecy surrounding antigravity research at the time: “The basic research and technology behind electro-anti-gravitation is so much in its infancy that this is perhaps one field of development where not only the methods but the ideas are secret. Nothing therefore can be discussed freely at the moment. Very few papers on the subject have been prepared so far, and the only schemes that have seen the light of day are for pure research into rigs designed to make objects float around freely in a box. The prospect of engineers devising gravity-defeating equipment—or perhaps it should be described as the creation of pockets of weightless environments— does suggest that as a long term policy aircraft constructors will be required to place even more emphasis on electro-mechanical industrial plant[s], than is now required for the transition from manned to unmanned weapons. Anti-gravitics work is therefore likely to go to companies with the biggest electrical laboratories and facilities. It is also apparent that anti-gravitics, like other advanced sciences, will be initially sponsored for its weapon capabilities. There are perhaps two broad ways of using the science—one is to postulate the design of advanced type projectiles … the other, which is a longer term plan, is to create an entirely new environment with devices operating entirely under an anti-gravitic envelope.”viii

Brown himself was convinced that his electrogravitics research could be used to develop a new generation of aircraft that had a distinct saucer shape based on smaller models he had tested in his laboratory. In January 1953, Brown made an ambitious proposal to the U.S. Navy to build electrogravitic powered flying saucers: “In an effort to secure government funding, Brown wrote up a proposal in 1952 urging the Navy to initiate a highly secret project to develop a manned flying saucer as the basis of an interceptor aircraft with Mach 3 capability and proposed that this might follow along the same lines as the Manhattan District Project … extrapolating the numbers from the performance charges for Brown’s laboratory-model flying discs, Project Winterhaven estimated that larger discs operating at 5 million volts, rather than 50,000 should be able to develop speeds of 1,150 miles per hour (Mach 1.5) in the presence of atmospheric resistance and in excess of 1,800 miles per hour (Mach 2.5) in the upper atmosphere.”ix

In July 1957, Brown successfully filed a U.S. patent for his idea of manned flying saucers powered by an unconventional power source.”x After numerous articles were published in the mid-1950 about the feasibility of Brown’s electrogravitics, by the end of the 1950’s it vanished as a serious concept being pursued by the aviation industry. Publications by aviation journals ceased to discuss the topic. Nick Cook, a veteran writer for Janes Weekly magazine described a different scenario where Brown was essentially sidelined: “Brown’s work had been rejected by the military, not because it was hokey or crazy, but because its principles were already known to them—and perhaps, therefore already the subject of advanced development activity. Had this been the case, it might well have explained why a few years later, Bell, Conair, Martin and so many other companies—equally ignorant of this activity—aired their views on antigravity unchecked for a number of months… until someone, somewhere ordered them to silence.”xi

Figure v: Brown's 1960 Electro-kinetic Apparatus
Figure v: Brown’s 1960 Electro-kinetic Apparatus

This is the statement T.T Brown gave in his Project Winterhaven that was funded by the military: “For the last several years, accumulating evidence along both theoretical and experimental lines has tended to confirm the suspicion that a fundamental interlocking relationship exists between the electrodynamic field and the gravitational field. It is the purpose of Project WINTERHAVEN to compile and study this evidence and to perform certain critical or definitive experiments which will serve to confirm or deny the relationship. If the results confirm the evidence, it is the further purpose of Project WINTERHAVEN to examine the physical nature of the basic “electro-gravitic couple” and to foresee and develop possible long-range practical applications. The proposed experiments are to be limited at first to force measurements and wave propagation. They are to be expanded, depending upon results, to include applications in propulsion or motive power, communications and remote control, with emphasis on military applications of recognized priority.”xii

0.3: Eric Laithwaite: Gyroscope and Newton’s Law In A Spin

Edwin Rickman, an English electrical engineer, had recurring dreams about an anti-gravity device in the early 1970s. After a patent was obtained on the basic principles, it came to the attention of Prof. Eric Laithwaite of London’s Imperial College of Science and Technology. With certain modifications, this scientist declared in 1974 in press releases that this anti-gravity motor should enable us to travel to other solar systems. Prof. Eric Laithwaite of the Imperial College of Science and Technology in England invented an anti-gravity machine in 1975. Defying the laws of Newton, it depended upon the fact that no energy was required to return its two gyroscopes arms to their starting position.

Spinning flywheels or gyroscopes can apparently produce ‘antigravity’ effects. Similarly, in 1997 Hayasaka’s team reported an experiment that confirmed their earlier findings: when a gyroscope was dropped 63 inches in a vacuum, between two laser beams, it took 1/25,000 second longer to fall this distance when spinning at 18,000 rpm clockwise (viewed from above), corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part in 7000. If a flywheel or gyroscope is forcibly made to process, very substantial weight losses can be produced. Also in 1989 Japanese scientists H. Hayasaka and S. Tackeuchi reported similar claims to that of Dr. Laithwaite in a mainstream journal that a gyroscope spinning about a vertical axis in a vacuum experienced a small weight loss directly proportional to the rotation speed. The effect was observed only for rotation clockwise. The anomaly was buried in an avalanche of rushed criticism and flawed efforts to replicate the experiment.

Dr. Laithwaite involved an 8-kg flywheel on a 2.7-kg support shaft, which he could barely lift off the ground with his right arm. After the flywheel was forced to precess, he was able to lift it effortlessly on his little finger, by applying a force of less than 1 kg. In another experiment, a young boy was tied to a pole on a turntable and handed a 1-metre shaft at the end of which was 20.4-kg spinning gyroscope. When the turntable was accelerated, the gyro soared into the air as easily as if the boy was opening an umbrella, and when it was decelerated, the gyro dipped towards the ground. In whichever direction the gyro moved, the boy could easily support it. Another remarkable effect is that if an upright pencil is placed in the path of the shaft of a precessing flywheel, it can arrest the flywheel’s precessional motion without any lateral force arising on the pencil; in other words, the flywheel produces little or no centrifugal force. Force-precessed’ means that the gyroscope is made to precess faster than arises from normal gravitational action. ‘Precession’ means, for example, that while one end of a shaft is held steady by the hand, the end bearing the rotating flywheel traces a circle, so that the shaft sweeps out a cone.

Figure vi: One of Eric Laithwaite’s gyroscope demonstrations. The top is spinning at 2000 revolutions per minute and is rising quite rapidly up a helical path.
Figure vi: One of Eric Laithwaite’s gyroscope demonstrations. The top is spinning at 2000 revolutions per minute and is rising quite rapidly up a helical path.

Since there is no accepted theory to explain this phenomenon, most scientists have tended to either ignore it or to try and discredit it. Laithwaite was ostracized by the scientific establishment, especially after he used a lecture before the Royal Institution in 1974 to demonstrate that a force-precessed gyroscope becomes lighter and produces a lifting force without any counterbalancing reaction force – in defiance of Newton’s third law of motion. The Royal Institution was not amused: for the first time in 200 years, the guest lecture was not published, and Laithwaite was denied fellowship of the Royal Society. He continued to experiment with a variety of complex gyroscopic rigs, and believed he had discovered a brand-new thrust-less propulsion system, known as ‘mass transfer’, for which two patents were granted.

To be continued

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.

i T.T. Brown, How I Control Gravitation, Science & Invention (August 1929) / Psychic Observer 37(1) on 13/4/20).

ii T.T. Brown, “How I Control Gravitation,” Science & Invention (August 1929) / Psychic Observer 37(1), (accessed on 13/4/20)

iii T.T. Brown, “How I Control Gravitation,” Science & Invention (August 1929) / Psychic Observer 37(1), (accessed on 13/4/20)

iv Paul La Violette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs and Classified Aerospace Technology (Bear and Co., 2008)

v“A Method of and an Apparatus or Machine for Producing Force or Motion.”

vi David Wilcock, The New Philadelphia Experiment,

vii Paul La Violette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs and Classified Aerospace Technology (Bear and Co., 2008)

viii Aviation Report 24 August 1954,

ix LaViolette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, 54.

x La Violette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, 55-56.

xi Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point, 35.

xii Thomas Townsend Brown, “Project Winterhaven: A Proposal for (a) Joint Services Research and Development Contract,” Townsend Brown Foundation, No Date, p. 1.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
    1. Sadia Butt

      This sort of research need to be shared with the concern research and development institutions of Pakistan. Suparco, although has been working on missile technology and it also start working on satellite program so it may provide some solid applicable theories and experiments for utilizing electromagnetic dynamics and gravity.

    2. Sabtain Ahmed Dar

      Thank you, yes I am forwarding these parts to relevant people in SUPARCO and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.

    Leave a Reply