You are reading this file from

Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 09:13:56 GMT
From: Jim Atwell
Subject: Harmonic 695 and Antigravity

Hello Peter

18 May 95 21:24, Peter Lowrie wrote to All:

PL> For those of you who want to know (and abusive non-descripts
PL> (take note DH)) about Capt Bruce Cathy who wrote a series of
PL> books about the existence of a worldwide natural grid which
PL> UFO's use to navigate the globe.

Some further reading on "Cathie"

From: Peter Yard
Jul-31-94 14:20:12
Subject: Cathie Grid Debunked 1/

The following is an analysis of the calculations and mathematics of
Bruce Cathie's Harmonic Grid ideas based primarily on chapter 4 of
"Anti-Gravity and the World Grid" edited by David Hatcher Childress,
Adventures Unlimited Press, 1987.


Chapter 4 of Childress' book is "Mathematics of the World Grid" by
Bruce Cathie.

The chapter starts (page 82) with a definition of some words and the
statement: "The fundamental harmonic of light, in free space, in
geometric terms being an angular velocity of 144,000 minutes of arc
per grid second, there being 97,200 grid seconds to one revolution of
the Earth."


"It was found that to calculate the values of harmonic wave-forms that
have sympathetic resonance it was possible to disregard zeroes to the
right, or left, of whole numbers and extract the values direct from
teh mathematical tables."

This means that

123 = 1.23 = 0.00000000123 = 123,000,000,000

page 83 then describes the UFO sightings that inspired Cathie on his
investigation and into his grid ideas.

page 84 we see the first calculations.

Cathie says the harmonic of the speed of light is 144. The harmonic of
a half cycle is therefore 144/2 = 72. Cathie constructs a 3,4,5
triangle with lengths 216, 288 and 360 arguing that

216 = 21600 = number of minutes of arc in a circle
360 = number of degrees in a circle
288 = (144x2) = 2 times speed of light.

This is the calculation that convinced Cathie about his harmonic


216 = 2x2x2x3x3x3 = 2x2x2x3x3 x 3
288 = 2x2x2x2x2x3x3 = 2x2x2x3x3 x 4
360 = 2x2x2x3x3x5 = 2x2x2x3x3 x 5

So by multiplying by 2x2x2x3x3 (72) he got these numbers. Keep the
above pattern in mind. This is the source of the strange harmonic
behaviour. These numbers have nothing to do with physics it is just a
mathematical quirk. 360 degrees in fact has its origin in the fact
that 360 can be evenly divided by so many numbers because it has the
above structure. The ancient Babylonians could have picked any other
number if they wished, if they (or we) picked 1000 instead the above
relationship would fail. And once you have 360 the 21600 is just that
multiplied by 60.

This by itself invalidates the grid system.

page 84. Cathie says that the spacing on the grid is 30 minutes of
arc which can be divided into 7.5 minute of arc lines.

Notice 30 = 2x3x5 and 7.5 = 3x5 / 2 . The recurring multipliers
2,3,5 again. He says 21,600 minutes of arc in a circle divided by 7.5
gives you 288 (the speed of light harmonic). But remember the 2,3,5 s.
This means that some funny relationship is inevitable it is bound to
be a multiple and is in fact 2880 drop the 10 and you have 288 and
drop the 2 to get 144. If it was 3 times we could drop the 3 as well
until we got what we wanted.

Continued next message...

Jim Atwell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Atwell@f16.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
ParaNet Information Services


Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 09:14:22 GMT
From: Jim Atwell
Subject: Harmonic 695 and Antigravity

Continued from last...
Cathie claims based on one suspicious object on the sea floor to base
his grid as centred on this location.

page 94 (after some pages of photos and diagrams).

The polar square is a set of 4 points around the north and south poles
that when transferred to a flat plane form a perfect square. Why this
should have _any_ significance to a spherical grid escapes me. The
diagonal of this square (of sides 3600 units) is 5091.168825 units

I must comment that spherical geometry is vastly different to the flat
Euclidean geometry done on paper, Cathie's work is Euclidean but he
refers to spherical ... this is totally wrong. For instance this
diagonal may be 5091.168825 units (minutes of arc) long on a flat
piece of paper but it isn't going to be anything like that on a
sphere. And the accuracy is ridiculous anyway. This distance as an
angle on the surface of the Earth is about 84.85 degrees or about
9,445 km, but the precision required by Cathie is that the Earth be a
sphere so that this distance is equal to that of a sphere to the
nearest metre. Then remember that he is using the _wrong_ geometry
and that the Earth is not a sphere to anywhere near that accuracy.

Cathie says

5091.168824 / 2 = 2545.584412

2545.584412 / 7.5 = 3.39411255

3.39411255 ^ 2 = 11.52

11.52 / 8 = 1.44 (speed of light harmonic)

2545.584412 ^ 2 = 6480000 (the 648 harmonic)

But let us look closer. 3600 = 2x2x3x3x10x10 , multiply by square
root of 2 to get the diagonal (5091. etc) .

5091.168824 / 2 = 2545.584412

means 3600 * sqrt(2) / 2 = 1800 * sqrt(2)

2545.584412 / 7.5 = 3.39411255

means 1800 * sqrt(2) * 2 / 15 = 240 * sqrt(2)
240 = 2x2x2x3x10

3.39411255 ^ 2 = 11.52

means square ( 240 * sqrt(2) ) = 57600 * 2
= 2x2x2x3x2x2x2x3x10x10x2 = 115200

11.52 / 8 = 1.44 (speed of light harmonic)

means knock off 3 of the 2s in the number = 3x2x2x2x3x10x10x2
and also knock off the 10s = 2x2x2x2x3x3 = 144 and divide by
100 again.

2545.584412 ^ 2 = 6480000 (the 648 harmonic)

means square( 1800 * sqrt(2) ) = 3240000 * 2 = 6480000

To summarise we can say : so what ? These are trivial little number
games that signify nothing. There is only an illusion of results as
the strange "harmonics" are built into the similarity of all the
numbers Cathie picked in the beginning.

page 96.

1703 is the harmonic of 170,300,000,000 which is the expression in
"cubic minutes of arc" of the mass, or volume of the planet Earth and
its surrounding atmosphere. "mass or volume" these two are nowhere
near the same. The density of planets varies dramatically and yet
Cathie would have us believe that the size of the planet alone (via
the size of the grid) determines the mass ... this does not happen.
What is more how is mass equated to angle. Angle is a relative
measure. You cannot have cubic angles in any meaningful way.

Continued next message...

Jim Atwell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Atwell@f16.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
ParaNet Information Services


Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 09:15:02 GMT
From: Jim Atwell
Subject: Harmonic 695 and Antigravity

Continued from last...
page 97. Now we enter a serious credibility warp starting at this

Cathie gives us his version of relativity.

M (mass) = C + 1 / sqrt(C)

According to this a pea weighs the same as a mountain.

"Einstein declared that physical matter was nothing more than a
concentrated field of force" No he did not.

"Einstein believed that M, the value for mass in the equation, could
eventually be removed and a value substituted that would express the
physical in the form of pure energy." Wrong !

page 98

Cathie believes this is the secret to UFO propulsion not anti-gravity
etc. There is no evidence in Cathie's discussion or in any physical
text to justify this unless one wants to be pedantic and say that
without mag fields there is no electric fields and then we all die and
the universe snuffs it. This is not what Cathie is saying however.

His description of magnetic fields is totally wrong and shows no
understanding of theory or actual experiments even to the level of
junior high school.

page 99
Here we have many results plucked out of thin air without supporting
arguments. Now we are told the basic unit of calculation is the
geodetic inch which is 1 / 72,000 of a minute of arc. One wonders if
this is at the equator or the pole since the size of a minute of arc
is different at both places.

pages 100 - 107.

The argument drifts into applications to atomic structure,
personality, chemistry. My only comment is that it pays zero
attention to the reality of these topics.

Chapter 8. Acoustic Levitation of Stones by Bruce Cathie.

This chapter illustrates the confused nature of his applications.

There was a report in a German mag about a witnessed instance of the
levitation of a rock in Tibet.

The details of the ritual and the sizes of the musical instruments and
the positions of everything were given in detail. Which is curious,
how did he measure the length of the instruments to the nearest
centimetre and the exact height of the cliff and distances both linear
and angular, especially when the distance to the cliff is exactly 250
metres ... God uses metric?.

Cathie then applies his grid mathematics. The distance between the
rock and the drums is 63 metres , and between the rock and the end of
the drums 63.75 m. The exact distance Cathie calculates should be
63.7079 m and this converts to 206.2648062 geodetic feet. Which is
harmonically equal to the length of the Earth's radius (which radius
polar or equatorial!) in seconds of arc (complete gobbledygook).
Doubled and squared the number becomes 170180.68 (1703 not good
enough!) which is the theoretical harmonic of mass at the Earth's
surface. Because there were monks behind the drums chanting in a
quarter circle this adds 8.08865 geodetic feet to the radius of the
group. Total radius of 214.3534583 geodetic feet. The circumference
of the circle is therefore 1346.822499 geodetic feet. Which is a half
harmonic of 2693.645 (unified field). The theoretical radius was found
to be 249.8767262 m which converts to 809.016999 geodetic feet.

And so it goes. By this stage the circular nature of the mathematics
has been totally confused and it is no longer possible to see what is
happening. So we should not be surprised to find Cathie concluding
that a bunch of guys banging a drum can lift a 2 cubic metre rock 250
metres into the air.

Do you like me wonder if after all this effort he didn't get some
friends together and actually try it ? I don't think so or otherwise
we would all know about it.

This is psuedo-science at its silliest. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating, I can prove their maths is hopeless but if they can
levitate something in front of me in controlled conditions then I'll
accept they have something. But its always hush hush, about to be
suppressed, a few technical difficulties. A lot of hot air and
detailed description about levitation and how do it but _no_


Cathie's mathematics is false. This is not a theory like a scientific
theory, this is a PROVABLE claim, and I have easily proven it by
showing that it is inconsistent. That by itself ends any credibility
for Cathie. But Cathie makes other claims that are also shown to be
false. Grid Harmonics has no validity at all, and from it you can
prove anything to be true whether the thing is true or false. And
that I am afraid is almost a definition for delusion.

Peter Yard

bye for now,

UFO Research (SA) Inc. _--_|\ INTERNET
P.O. Box 281 / \ FidoNet 3:800/419
Blair Athol SA 5084 \_,--*_/ ParaNet 9:1040/16
Australia v MufoNet 88:9003/1

Jim Atwell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Atwell@f16.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG