Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 3

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The subject of this article, Jack Sarfatti, has edited Wikipedia as JackSarfatti (talk · contribs).

Untitled

Mediator intervention

I spoke to Jack on the phone, and we've reached an understanding. I've unprotected his user:JackSarfatti account and reminded him that he'll have to follow our guidelines. He's authorized me to delete his "legal threat", for example.

When I unlock the page, I'm going to move the "disagree" and "crank" sentences from the intro. They belong further down. Uncle Ed 16:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

They are a large part of his notability, and such widely held views belong in the intro. They could be toned down a little, I'm not married to mentioning the crank award either. --fvw * 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

His reputation as a crank (one which extends far back beyond the creation of the internet, see the "paraphysics" section) is the primary reason that he is notable, and IMO must be mentioned in the intro in some form -- the exact wording is another matter. if changes to the intro form part of some sort of "deal" or "understanding" with Sarfatti, they are improper -- he has and should have no veto power over the content here. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Is the current intro ok with you though? --fvw * 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is after the edit I just made to it. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Example of Mainstream Physics Applied to UFO Problem for USG Intelligence Community

http://qedcorp.com/APS/WWD1.pdf [Jack Sarfatti, Oct 20, 2005, 10:23PM San Francisco]

So What About The Books?

As it is now Oct 21, 2005 1:36 PM San Francisco, the article is accurate, no major objection EXCEPT for lack of mention of my 3 books Destiny Matrix 2002 ISBN-7596-9689-6 (autobiography + eye witness contributions by Saul-Paul Sirag, Jagdish Mann, Kim Burrafato, Creon Levit & Hyman Sarfatti)

Space-Time and BeyondII, 2002 ISBN 1-4033-9022-3

Super Cosmos, 2005 ISBN 1-4184-7662-5 Lib. Congress 2004095148

Will someone please put in this info in the proper way? Thank you.

Also what about a photo? RU Sirius has a photo on the article about him.

Jack Sarfatti - San Francisco.

The monsters are due on Wikipedia

A parable for our times?

From the original 1960's Twilight Zone series:

"The Monsters are Due on Maple Street"

The episode ends with two alien observers watching the rioting on Maple Street and discussing how easy it was to create paranoia and panic, and let the people of Earth destroy themselves - one place at a time.

"Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines... throw them into darkness for a few hours and then sit back and watch the pattern... They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find and it's themselves."

Hmmm...how about:

"Just bend a few of their spoons...throw them into darkness for a few years and then sit back and watch the pattern...They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find and it's themselves."

Closing narration by Rod Serling:

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts. Attitudes. Prejudices. To be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone."

- Gary Bekkum

Posting of birthdate

User:UFO_Black_Ops has made the questionable claim that it is against the law (in what jurisdiction?) to publish somebody's birth date, as it facilitates "identity theft". If that's the case, then I guess Wikipedia is breaking that law all over the place; to give a few examples, we have birthdates listed for Hilary Duff, Kelly Clarkson, George W. Bush, Pope Benedict XVI, and Bill Gates. *Dan T.* 00:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, Sarfatti called me worried about it. Is there an official policy on this? What do the Wiki lawyers say? I will call Sarfatti back and tell him it's done routinely as he tends to get paranoid about all this right now. :-) Note I found some exact references for some of the papers with ISBN numbers and corrected my earlier inaccuracies on the exact names of those papers written during the Joe Firmage ISSO operation in which several million dollars were spent attempting to develop exotic propulsion systems. Joe Firmage now runs ManyOne and formerly was CEO of USWEB that was briefly a multi-billion dollar corporation on paper before the bubble burst. User:UFO_Black_Ops

Birth dates are normally matters of public record, and I do not belive that it is illegal to post them. However, if Sarfatti says that he doesn't want this posted because he fears it might assist in someone trying to steal his identity, lets simply list his birth year. That is realy all that is of primary encyclopedic interst anyway -- it indicates how old he is, and how old he was when various events in his life occured, which may well be relevant to the reader. The month and day are not nearly as relevant for wikipedia's purposes, IMO. DES ^(talk) 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that his birth year has the most bearing on the other things in the article, there's a lot to be said for including full birth and death (where applicable) info in an encyclopaedia; given the fact that we do so on wikipedia too, I don't think we should be removing it because the subject wants it to be removed. --fvw * 02:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, but identity theft is a real fear for many, and the exact birth date would perhaps help facilitate it. i am willing to make this minor concession as an act of good faith to Sarfetti -- with a person already dead this would not be an issue. Howver, the birth year is hivhly relevant, and at a minimumn it ought to remain, IMO -- we do this for all biography articles when the info is available. DES ^(talk) 02:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did we get the information from in the first place? I think we either should get rid of the information based on WP:V, or otherwise it's not a realistic fear as the information is out there anyway and anyone wanting to steal Sarfatti's identity would be able to find it just find whether it's in wikipedia or not. --fvw * 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the person who posted it got the date from. The year, but not the exact date, is included in the Martin Gardner article i cited: "Magic and Paraphysics" where it is sourced to a biography published in Ken Kesey's magazine Spit in the Ocean in 1975. DES ^(talk) 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, a little googling found this at the SF chronicle. Pretty mainstream and reputable I think; so can we put back the date, seeing as it's out there anyway? --fvw * 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would... it's our normal style to include birthdates where known, as seen in many other biographical articles, and it's not a good precedent to cave in, in any way, to the paranoid delusions of a subject. *Dan T.* 04:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose people do have a right to conceal certain aspects of their demographics, but once it's out it's out, and in the case of a birthdate there is little he can do about it notwithstanding his paranoia. Drdr1989 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a policy in place at Wikipedia:No original research. There is no reason for us to censor information from Wikipedia if a credible external source can be provided which verifies the birthdate of a figure notable enough to have an article here. Hall Monitor 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly not illegal to post a person's birthdate. If it was, sites like zabasearch and birthdatabase wouldn't be around.--Fallout boy 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the present case the date comes from a featured interview of the subject in the SF Chronicle; if he wanted to keep it secret, he should specified that THEN. But I don't care about the date, but we should have the year, to pin down the time; this will become only more important as time-travel becomes more common. GangofOne 08:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ISSO 1999-2001

This was an operation done with full knowledge of top levels of the USG Intelligence Community who monitored it. Several former Soviet-bloc physicists were brought in as consultants including Dr. Valdimir Poponin, allegedly a personal acquaintance of Gorbachev's. We were interested in evaluating the controversial claims of "Russian torsion field weapons" and, therefore brought Gennady Shipov over from Moscow several times. On one trip Shipov lived with Sarfatti for about 2 weeks. Richard Hammond, an American physicist from Fargo working on torsion fields for US Navy at one time was brought in as well as R. Kiehn a former scientist for US SAC and retired professor from University of Houston. Shipov worked with Akimov in Moscow who allegedly had strong military connections in the Soviet era. Sarfatti was the senior theorist on the American side of the ISSO core staff that included Saul-Paul Sirag. He arranged for Creon Levit to be borrowed from NASA AMES to run the daily operations of the project. Over a million dollars was given to SARA, a TRW spinoff DOD contractor in Huntington, Beach CA to further test a system developed by Jim Corum. Corum also wrote papers on "The Philadelphia Experiment" and had entre to the Tesla Archive in Beograd even during the Cold War. This was unusual. Corum later went to ISR in W.Va, a think tank doing exotic work with USG funds provided by Senator Robert Byrd and his Congressional counter-part in his home district. The key objective, of course, was to try to figure out how the "saucers" really flew. All of the key scientists had interest in that, with the possible exception of Hammond and Kiehn. Harold Puthoff was brought in as a consultant. Ken Shoulders was also involved as were many others whose schemes were tested. The key foreign figure was Professor J. P. Vigier from Paris who had been Louis DeBroglie's assistant for decades. Sarfatti arranged for a Telegraph Hill Penthouse for Vigier to spend extended periods meeting the scientists flowing through ISSO. Vigier and Levit made a trip to Budapest in 2000 to meet with two Serbian physicists Z.Maric & A. Dragic who were experimentally testing an exotic atomic energy release idea of Vigier's of obvious interest to USG Intelligence because of its WMD implications. See the paper "On the possible Existence of Tight Bound States in Quantum Mechanics". pp 349-356 of the same volume of one of Sarfatti's papers, i.e. Vol 126 of Fundamental Theories of Physics, ISBN 1-4020-0885-6. This is not a coincidence. There are few coincidences in "this Looking Glass War Twilight Zone interface between physics and politics" to quote Sarfatti in one of his more eloquent moments. ;-) In fact, ISSO paid most of the expenses for the meeting upon which the volume is based. Enuff said. I hope this helps to somewhat clarify Sarfatti's multiple roles in these events. Sarfatti is a kind of a canary in the mine shaft for MASINT. For example, he was quite alarmed about an immanent attack on important US Military targets in the Fall of 2001. Sarfatti wrote numerous e-mails on this during July & Aug 2001. It seems to be a case of precognitive remote viewing. Unfortunately, Sarfatti was not able to pinpoint the exact time and place of the attack (attacks). He had guessed Oct 2001 because of some big anti-space weapons rally by leftist groups scheduled for that time at Lockheed-Martin. [User:UFO_Black_Ops]] Oct 16, 2005

Involvement with paraphysics section

I have restored the recent quotes from Sarfetti giving his current views on matters in this section. Since an editor objected to "wikipedia self-ref" I have removed the citations. If sources for comperable quote of recent vintage by Sarfetti on these subjects are available, they could be substituted. But it is IMO important to indicate his current views, particualrly since he himself has objected to being characterized based largely on his viwws of 30 years ago. A man does have the right to change his veiws over 30 years, and his current views are relevant.

I have removed the adverb "ironically" from the mention of the Martin Gardner quote. The degree of irony intended by Gardnere may be debated, let's simply give the quote as it was published and let readers judge. The quote is sourced and the book from which it is taken is availabel on the net -- any intersted reader can asses context and tone. If people desire more of the relevant quote I can supply it. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. As quoted, the ironic tone of the original is entirely missing: out of context, it sounds as if Gardner is praising him, not adding a final filip to a run-down to some of his nuttier beliefs.

And while we're at it, why is Jack still editing? I thought he'd been blocked until he gave up on the absurd legal threats? --Calton | Talk 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

DES says "the book [S:GBandB] from which it is taken is availabel on the net". It is? Is there a url? I couldn't find one. GangofOne 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My copy is in storage, but I refreshed my memory by using Amazon.com'S "Search Inside the Book" feature. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the book is avaialble fopr purchase, used, via bookfinder. As far as i know there is no full copy online. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My impressions

A lot of people dislike Sarfatti and are being mean to him. Wikipedia should not encourage this, nor should it permit him to retaliate here on our web site. As an admin, I feel a duty to uphold civility.

I don't think his birthday (or even birth year) is of interest to anyone: I think it's being included just to spite Sarfatti. This is petty.

His views defy the conventional scientific orthodoxy which posits that the material world is all that exists, and that natural law is sufficient to account for all phenomena. Unfortunately, he is no writer. He doesn't not organize his ideas well.

So it's not a good idea for Jack Sarfatti, the Wikipedian, to write about Jack Sarfatti, the physicist. But there's no policy forbidding this. We shall probably have to formulate a policy for cases like this.

Right now, the article is unsatisfactory because it doesn't summarize his views. It lists some of the topics he's interested in, but at best it only mentions some of his claims without giving any substantial details. It points out that he and has views have been dismissed, again without giving any substantial reasons.

If not for all the fuss of the last 10 days, and the considerable emotional energy we've all invested in this, I would reduce the article to a stub, like this:

Jack Sarfatti is a physicist with unorthodox and controversial views. His self-published books are available at large online booksellers like Amazon, but the scientific establishment ignores him and newsgroup denizens dismiss him as a "kook".

This will not suffice. We need to do the work of finding out what this man is saying and why he says it; who agrees, and who disagrees; and why they disagree. Uncle Ed 21:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI our normal style on biographical artilce is to give the birth date (and death date for dead people) whenver these are known and verifiable. This is routine in biogrpahical encyclopedia articles, and routine on wikipedia, and in no way is this article being handled differently on this issue. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

At risk of sounding like a parrot, I thought that the proposed compromise a few sections up was reasonable bordering on generous—including the year of birth (not the full date) is not unreasonable in a biographical article, and represents less information than we include in nearly all of our other biographies.

I agree that we should make every effort to take a reasonable tone with Jack Sarfatti and with User:JackSarfatti, and that it is important to present his views and his biography clearly and professionally in the best NPOV tradition. I think that the birth year should be included because it's encyclopedic information that people expect to find in a biographical article. Though there have certainly been things added to the article over the last few days that were in poor taste, I don't think that the year of Jack Sarfatti's birth is one of them.

As fvw noted above, Jack Sarfatti's birthdate is readily accessible through Google; the cat is already out of the bag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that some of my edits, and talk-page comments, over the last few days were motivated in part by "meanness" towards Mr. Sarfatti; his style has a way of provoking this sort of thing, and I have a habit of taking the bait from trolls in ways that I probably shouldn't. If I've done this here, I apologize, and will try not to do it again. That said, I still feel that the standard bibliographic format used by Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias) is to include the birthdate when known, so there isn't anything "mean" or "spiteful" about doing this. *Dan T.* 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

(1. About me being wary) Ed, you have done a lot of good here at Wikipedia and claim to be here on this article at least in part due to legal concerns from Wikipedia's board. Fine. But NO ONE has judgement beyond questioning, as I am sure you will agree; so please don't misunderstand arguments about what you say as being as about you (not that you have or will; but some of your friends do this a lot and it leaves me wary).

Being wary is good. Carry on. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(2.) I disagree that "A lot of people dislike Sarfatti and are being mean to him." has anything to do with the current state of the article.

I could be wrong on this point, particularly as it applies to Wikipedia contributors; I was thinking more the alt.* newsgroups. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(3.)I think your statement that "I don't think his birthday (or even birth year) is of interest to anyone: I think it's being included just to spite Sarfatti. This is petty." is as far off the mark as claiming George Washington is a minor historical figure. Please take up this quote by you with someone you trust to set you right. You have before you objective evidence of Wikipedia contributors who find his bithdate "of interest". Only by without evidence claiming ignoble motives to all those who have expresessed such an interest can you possibly delude yourself into such a conclusion. This is easily the most absurd thing I have ever read from you. I'm assuming on reflection (or maybe after talking it over with someone you trust) you will see the problems with this quote from you. I'm sorry if I expressed myself less gently than I could have - I did my best.

Gosh, I didn't know I had a fan! :-) I might be off the mark here, but I'd still prefer to see just the birth year. He's not really as prominent a public figure as Washington, and he's entitled to some privacy. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(4.)You say "His views defy the conventional scientific orthodoxy which posits that the material world is all that exists, and that natural law is sufficient to account for all phenomena. Unfortunately, he is no writer. He doesn't not organize his ideas well." ~~He is a nut case~~ as well as, and more importantly, a world class physicist who expresses his beliefs, ideas, and concepts in PHYSICS EQUATIONS that presume the truth of "the material world is all that exists," (in the reductionist sense that things like conconciousness exist by virtue of the underlying material world described by the laws of physics). I'm sure Jack would be insulted at your description except all scientists are acustomed to the utter misrepresentation of all things science by the well meaning.

Please avoid (a) personal remarks: they are rude; and (b) attempts to guess what Sarfatti is thinking: he's right here, we can ask him. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry. WAS 4.250 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(5.)You say "So it's not a good idea for Jack Sarfatti, the Wikipedian, to write about Jack Sarfatti, the physicist. But there's no policy forbidding this. We shall probably have to formulate a policy for cases like this." Nonsense. His physics is the one thing he is the most qualified to contribute to. Not it's acceptance, validity, etc - just the actual physics part. Do you understand his equations for the effect of conciousness on the material world? Are we at wikpedia qualified to sumarize its details? Let him contribute to wikipedia to accurately express the physics of this hypothosis of his if he so choses. I'm sure it is nonsensce scientificaly if for no other reason than conciousness is too poorly defined to be a part of a physics equation but he IS best qualified to present the kind of summary of the hypothosis that would be suitable for wikipedia (a full blown mathematical treatment is not suitable, obviously).

I have no argument with this. Let's here some more from Dr. S. about the physics. (I'll even format the equatios for him. :-) Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(6.)You say "Right now, the article is unsatisfactory because it doesn't summarize his views. It lists some of the topics he's interested in, but at best it only mentions some of his claims without giving any substantial details. It points out that he and has views have been dismissed, again without giving any substantial reasons. " Great. Contribute away. Looking forward to seeing these failings rectified.

Me, too. That's one reason I'm spending so much time on this matter. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(7.)You say "We need to do the work of finding out what this man is saying and why he says it; who agrees, and who disagrees; and why they disagree." YES. WAS 4.250 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! This is my main point. Uncle Ed 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Birth Date Issue

"To be paranoid, you need a very good imagination." Larry David

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/index.html

I actually am not paranoid about that and not too worried about it. It was my brother Michael who raised the ID theft issue. Someone who knows something about how the criminals do ID Theft should think about whether as a general rule posting exact birthdates of living people is wise? I am pretty well protected from ID theft - I think. This is an issue that affects everyone.

Vanity Press Issue & Dancing Wu Li Masters

Is there a general Wiki rule about that? My book "Destiny Matrix" is autobiographical and has several chapters by other people in it who were witnesses to many of the extraordinary events in my life. "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" have testimony by living witnesses to my ghost writing of the technical physics parts of Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" including Gary's live-in lover of that time Lorna McClearie with a photo of her and Gary at the time. The project was started when as Director of the Esalen Physics/Consciousness Conference Jan 1976 (Month-long) funded by Werner Erhard, I invited Gary Zukav to Esalen. Gary and I shared an apartment 372 Green St on Telegraph Hill at that time. Gary knew no physics at all. I taught him basic physics. Gary did study with Henry Kissinger at Harvard and Gary was in "The Black Berets" in Vietnam as a volunteer. Living first-hand witnesses to my role in writing Gary's book include: Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, Jagdish Mann, Kim Burrafato, David Gladstone, Leila Dwight, Lorna McClearie, Csaba Szabo, Lee Myers, Dennis Wishnie, Randall Tinkerman, and Sally Yock. I have e-mail addresses for most of them. Many of our meetings on the book were in the Caffe Trieste in North Beach, San Francisco surrounded by people. They were "seminars" at times. Herbert Gold wrote about them in his 1993 book "Bohemia" (Simon & Schuster). Francis Ford Coppola wrote "The Godfather" in the same Caffe.

But back to the general issue of Vanity Press.

1) The book industry is changing. Mega-corps control it and they only care about bottom lines. It's a crap shoot. Also they make money on crap in many cases. Mindless crap sells. I won't mention examples. :-)

2) More and more serious authors are going the way of "Vanity Press" more and more. It's a rapidly growing trend. Author House is very profitable I hear. There is a sea change happening in publishing quite obviously and banning even the mention of "self-published" books with ISBN numbers listed in the standard book catalogs and data bases seems to me to be a bit like like putting blacks in the back of the bus - eh? It certainly seems ironic, if not inconsistent, for Wiki to do that?

3) Peer-reviewed journals are vanity presses in the sense of enormous page charges, e.g. Physical Review. It is an open secret that the peer review system in theoretical physics has broken down into claques for not-even-wrong speculations like string theory and loop-gravity with little testability. Shelly Glashow (Nobel Prize) has been quite vociferous about this. Of course that does not stop Brian Greene from making millions of dollars on purely speculative ideas - pretty though they are. BTW Brian, who I met at State of the World Forum in 2000 funded by Joe Firmage did borrow some "cranky" "crackpot" "kooky" ideas from me that he used in his NOVA PBS TV Show on "The Elegant Universe". For example Brian goes into a telephone booth to call ET! Compare to http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html Also I introduced Jacques Vallee to Francis Ford Coppola in 1976 when I brought Uri Geller & Jacques to one of Coppola's parties at 2805 Broadway in San Francisco (he does not live there now). Everyone was there and that's how Jacques became technical director on "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".

4) Wiki itself is sort of a Vanity Press for those who write in it.

5) It seems to me as long as the book is copyrighted, has an ISBN number and is listed in the standard book catalogs in every book store and on Amazon, Borders, Barnes & Noble et-al as my three books are, then they should count as real books.

It's too late tonite. I will check the angry writings - cross them out starting tomorrow.

The article as it is now is fairly good.

I would prefer some reference to my three books at least

Sarfatti's books are available at http://amazon.com

for people who want to know more.

I would prefer removal of the crank.net external link since crank.net is itself pretty cranky.

I think that in this case the books from vanity presses should be included as they are part of a large (non-vanity) publication list. --Apyule 07:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

- That's a logical non-sequitor if I've ever heard one. How does one follow from the other? --Calton | Talk 07:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, if we have a list of publications by someone, I think that it should include pretty much all of their publications. Just because it was self published doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe we could have a sub header for these, something like Self published works? --Apyule 08:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack (I thought you were still blocked?), I don't really have time right now, but:

"More and more authors" (a meaningless intensifier used by hack journalists) are not using vanity presses, and vanity presses are not the wave of the future: they're a wave of the past, and have been suckering wanna-be authors for decades. As a signifier, they're worse than you imagine, essentially announcing, hey, I couldn't talk anyone else into publishing this.

Having an ISBN on a book is meaningless: it's just a registration number, and anyone can buy one (they're $75 each, as I recall, but you have to buy 'em ten at a time). Vanity presses buy them by the carload: I'm sure your vanity publisher passed the cost onto you on your final bill.

Claiming to have "still-living witnesses" is not the same as testimony or citations by witnesses, living or dead. You got a printed citation not written by yourself? Cough it up, then, instead of handwaving.

--Calton | Talk 07:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Eye Witness Testimony on Writing of Dancing Wu Li Masters

Yes, I do if Mr. Calton would practise what he preached about handwaving and do his due diligence, he would find what he was looking for in all my 3 books. There are articles written by the people who were there first-hand in both my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" that you refuse to look at or recognize as legitimate. North Beach in San Francisco is a small community and many people know the story as they wiitnessed it. Here are e-mail addresses of some key witnesses you can contact about this matter of simple fact: LMCLEARIE7@aol.com Lorna McClearie - she was Gary Zukav's significant other at the time. There is a photo of her and Gary in Space-Time and Beyond II at that time. She is completely aware of the facts. She was there. lensman137@sbcglobal.net Kim Burrafato - he was there at the time, jagdish.mann@gmail.com Jagdish Mann - he was there at the time, d14947@gmail.com David Gladstone - he was there at the time, rmt@protium.de Randy Tinkerman - he was there at the time, dwishnie@aol.com - he was there at the time, sirag@mindspring.com Saul-Paul Sirag - he was there at the time and he also advised Gary on the editing and physics content fred@fredalanwolf.com Fred Alan Wolf - he was there at the time rebeccapaxton@mac.com Lee Myers - he was there at the time. Lee does not do e-mail, his wife Becky Paxton does it for him. BTW I never submitted any of my books since 2002 to a regular publisher and I turned down a contract offer from a major German publisher for the German edition of "Destiny Matrix". I will eventually hire a professional writer to cull the popular pieces from all of my books into a popular book that will be published mainstream. These books I am doing now are simply my preliminary sketch books, like Leonardo's - keeping notes for the historical record. As such many people will find them interesting. Also, as I don't need the money, I have not been doing what authors usually do to promote their books. I am too busy creating new content right now. Remember I am in Star Trek and on some major TV Shows and on IPOD Radio with RU Sirius and will be doing more of that bye and bye. If I wanted to go the usual route I could. I simply have not tried because I am not ready to do so. That is the fact. :-) --jack Sarfatti | Talk 09:20AM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

About Sarfatti's 3 books. Just because wikipedia lists works doesn't mean endorsement. We don't endorse the papers from the physics journals either. We mention them because they are FACTS, and Sarfatti as a creative individual produces stuff, and the books are the stuff he produces, so they are listed as a service to the reader, who is only reading this article at all because s/he has an interest in Sarfatti and his stuff. It is up to the reader to decide the credibility of what's in the books. Vanity press or not is not an issue. Just as today's musicians can distribute their own music on web and make their own cds, so can authors; "All is vanity" anyway. (I recommend reading the reviews of Destiny Matrix on Amazon.com. I busted out laughing.)
About Zukav, Dancing Wu Li Masters. I looked at my copy, Sarfatti is the first acknowledgement, but it doesn't say he wrote any of it, although I believe he probably did. But it is unverifiable and WP:V policy says we shouldn't say it therefore, unless other verification is proffered.

Verifiability

Simply e-mail the people above. Also go to the Horse's Mouth. Get in touch with Gary Zukav directly. He will not deny it. Remember Gary could never have written the book in the first place if I had not taken him down to Esalen for the entire month. [I think he was only there for 2 weeks. Ducle Murphy did not want him there at all. That had slipped my mind.] Do you realize how much money it costs to stay at Esalen for a month? Even back then! Gary was living from hand-to-mouth at the time barely making his rent, which was how I moved in with him. I arranged with Werner Erhard of est and Michael Murphy owner of Esalen to supply Gary and many others with what was needed to stay at Esalen. None of us paid a penny to be at Esalen. Someone was paying the bill but not us. Gary's book is about that meeting at Esalen. Without me, Gary Zukav would have been nothing today. That's a simple fact. :-) --jack Sarfatti | Talk 09:34AM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

Cranknet

cranknet.com Before wikipedia gets sued for mentioning Cranknet, it would make more legal sense to sue cranknet first.GangofOne 09:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Sued? By whom? Not by me. Please do not make those insinuations at this point. Thanks. I think Uncle Ed agrees with that suggestion. :-) --Jack Sarfatti | Talk 09:36AM, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to speak for myself. Although I'm flattered by the thought that you regard my words as carrying any weight around here, I'm really just one of hundreds of Admins. Uncle Ed 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Vanity publication vs self-publication

IMO there is a considerable difference between self-publication and vanity press publication. It is true that a fair number of authors who have been published by major publishers are turning to self publication or small-press publication when a book is not accepted by a major publisher. And this is in part because when an author has multiple series (I am speaking here mostly of authors of fiction, because i know more about the situation there) and one series consistantly out-sells anotehr, a publisher not infrequently simply refuses to publish the less-well-selling series, even though it was makiong a profit because otherwise book distributors will base orders for works in the more popular series on the sales of works in the less-popular one. This leads some authors to go for self-publication. Other authors chose the self-publication route because of the greater control it gives them. it was in larg part for these reasons that Knuth created TeX, after all. True vanity press outfits OTOH, asre nothing but scams. They prey on would-be authors, and eitehr charge high "set-up" fees, or charge high prices for the finished books and encourage authors to buy their own books with the claim that the authors can then "re-sell" them on a retail level. The only people who make money on these are the printers/scam artists. But companies that offer self-publishing services to the public for reasonable fees,a dn don't pretend to more than they can do (for example lulu.dom) are another matter. Much of what they publish is stiull junk, because (like a wiki) anyone can publish and (unlike a wiki) there is effectively no reveiw. But far from all of it is junk. I don't think possesion of an ISBN proves much, because as mentioned above that meerly means a check was written. But when major libraries (who are quite leery of books from self-publishers or vanity presses, as a rule) but self-publisahed works on their shelves, that seems to me pretty good evidence that those works are on the same plane as works publsihed by major publishers (many of which are after all junk). DES ^(talk) 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but for the question at hand , whether the books should be listed in the article, the distinction is unimportant. The books should be listed. Not to list them would be faulty scholarship. (Side note, for a fictional depiction of vanity publisher, read Foucault's Pendulum) GangofOne 19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, i was arguing in favor of listing them, on the grounds that they were at least arguably self-pubs, not vanity pubs, adn that the mere fact that they were not from "mainstream" publishers was not a good reason for ommitting them. We seem to be in violaent agreement. By coincidince, it was the "Atlanta nights" vanity publishing affair that broungt me to wikipedia, and my very first edit was to Vanity publisher. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gang Of Two!

BRAVO! BRAVO! for "GangofOne". I second that as a general rule. So that makes it "GangofTwo"! ;-) Also I am a Conceptual Performance Artist as well as a Tunnel-Visioned One-Dimensional Completely-Boring "Victorian Station Master" Respectable Academic Physicist. So, yes, the comparison of my books to a musician distributing his own music is 100% on the mark. One person's "Kook" is another person's "Creative Artist". But when I talk physics, I use ONLY MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. There is a lot of confusion about that. I do NOT invent NUTTY PHYSICS to replace MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I use MAINSTREAM PHYSICS to investigate apparently NUTTY PHENOMENA. There is a big difference that amateurs without PhDs in the subject from good universities cannot easily perceive. Also mathematicians with PhDs are not the same as physicists with PhDs - the cultures are significantly different, whilst having common ground for sure. Read Richard Feynman on this. See what he says about "rigor mortis". I knew Feynman in the 60's. Indeed being surrounded by Victorian Station Masters at San Diego State in the early 70's made both me and Fred Alan Wolf run screaming from that kind of living death even though it was relatively financially secure. Today it's even worse because even the intellectual jobs are being OUTSOURCED to China, to India and elsewhere. Read Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat". Also read carefully http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html What do you think about that article and how it impacts on the financial future of most of you? - especially the younger people. Huh? JackSarfatti 3:07PM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

To be clear, i was arguing in favor of listing them, on the grounds that they were at least arguably self-pubs, not vanity pubs, adn that the mere fact that they were not from "mainstream" publishers was not a good reason for ommitting them. We seem to be in violaent agreement. By coincidince, it was the "Atlanta nights" vanity publishing affair that broungt me to wikipedia, and my very first edit was to Vanity publisher. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cap Weinberger & The CIA Chipman File

First note that my 3 books since 2002: Destiny Matrix, Dark Energy STB II, Super Cosmos, Are part of a SERIES, i.e. "Space-Time and Beyond - The Series" of which the first in 1975 (which I wrote most of the first edition of, Fred Alan Wolf did a revision years later that I did not participate in because by then the Ira Einhorn murder case broke) sold well and was published by Dutton. There is a lot of junk published by big publishers today. The only difference is that the BIG CORPORATE JUNK has fewer typographical and grammatical errors. But the key issue here is: Will the reader who wants to know more about me find it in my books? Obviousy yes. Furthermore there are writings of other people in my books and there are photocopies of important documents like a letter from Cap Weinberger on DOD stationary dated 10 Aug 1984 p.146, letter from Bootsie Galbraith wife of US Ambassador to France at the time on official stationary dated May 7, 1982 on pp 152-3, documents from the late CIA Chief of Station Harold Chipman - who BTW was the model for and wrote some of the episodes for the TV Series "The Enforcer". Correction I think that's "The Equalizer". I will check. See "The Chipman File" pp 302 - 314. Also Author House is quite cheap for what they do. The publishing costs are inconsequential. They do not at all fit the above description in my experience. --Jack Sarfatti | Talk 09:51AM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

My Role in Reagan's Decision to Launch SDI

The most important letter reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" is the one by Lawry Chickering of March 12, 1982 pp. 148-150 to Richard De Lauer Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering. This letter has been cited in a debunking way by CSICOPPERS like Jeremy Bernstein in The New Yorker, by N.D. Mermin in Physics Today and others. However, a close reading of the text of that letter shows that it anticipates the current use of quantum entanglement as an information resource for SECURE UNTAPPABLE C^3 years before anyone else. I was the first again there. I am an Advanced Anomalous Signal for MASINT and that letter is a good example. Of course, in that letter I was also pushing for "signal nonlocality" that is not part of current quantum information theory, quantum teleportation, & quantum cryptography. However, the politics is more important here than the physics. Chickering was then Director of ICS - a post Donald Rumsfeld held later on! ICS was THE KEY NEOCONSERVATIVE THINK TANK for Reagan set up while he was still Governor. It was set up by Cap Weinberger and Ed Meese and I was their de-facto physical science advisor because of my personal relationship with Chickering. Chickering was a Yale grad, not sure if he is Skull & Bones, who worked for William F. Buckley, Jr on Firing Line when he got out of jail. [Freudian slip! I meant "Yale" not "Jail"! :-)] I met Buckley personally twice under important circumstances. In any case, the details are in "Destiny Matrix" and I will not repeat them here. You will simply have to get the book to know why Reagan decided to go for SDI. Significantly Ed Teller (who I also knew) writes in his autobiography that he was surprised when Reagan made the decision - that he, Teller, was out of the loop! Indeed if you read Reagan's 1986 State of the Union Address, The Gipper alludes to me directly in his remark on physicists finding God in their equations and his quoting of "Back to the Future". Details in "Destiny Matrix. You will find corroboration of this story in the article "The Buttoned Down Bohemians" published in the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday Magazine in 1986. I lost my copy and if anyone gets one I would like a copy. My name is in that article with Rumsfeld's, Chickering et-al and my connection to SDI is made explicit. --Jack Sarfatti | Talk 03.32 PM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

Wikipedia does not cover most publications. What is and is not notable is a key issue. The number of Googgle hits is a quick rough and ready indicator, but no one criteria is decisive. Vanity publication and self-publication more often than other types DO NOT qualify as notable. If Jack or someone else thinks we should note them, they should provide evidence they are NOTABLE. WAS 4.250 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what your above gobbledy gook even means. I don't care what you amateurs say so long as it is not insulting and false. If you do not list my books then, as some sane person or two above did say, you are doing a dis-service to the the reader who really wants to know and to make up their own minds. You are intentionally leaving out an important source of inside information on events that may well affect if America even survives as a nation in the next 20 years. [Jack Sarfatti]

Sarfatti-Mussolini Connection

Good to put the Margherita Sarfatti link in. Photographs of Margherita and her two sons bear an uncanny resemblance to me and my brother Michael. I looked like Amedeo and Michael looked like Roberto who was killed at Mussolini's side in the trenches in 1918 and became the "Horst Wessel" of the Italian Fascist Movement, i.e. Fallen Hero of the Fascist Youth Battalions. Margherita resembled some of my father's sisters. Although Margherita was a "Grassini" who married Cesare Sarfatti, they were also blood cousins. There were not a lot of Jews in Italy and there was a lot of intermarriage. I think my late aunt Victoria Sarfatti (a history teacher) actually knew Margherita. At my Midwood High School graduation in 1956 Aunt Vicky said cryptically "One day you will learn the history of our family." It was all kept from me. How I found out is in my book "Destiny Matrix". Indeed, my mother deliberately dropped the final i in my birth certificate. My father Hyman Sarfatti had it restored only I think in 1974. It was not popular to be connected to Mussolini in NYC in 1939. BTW Margherita's other boyfriends included Albert Einstein (they were teenagers in Italy) and G. Marconi - a life-long relationship to Marconi's death. Details in "Il Duce's Other Woman." Jack Sarfatti 11:23 PM, 17 October 2005 (PCT)

Calton asked for my evidence of the Jack-Margherita connection. I have no evidence except Sarfatti's claims, but I believe him. It's in files on his website, qedcorp.com, I forget which file.GangofOne 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Name Dropping

I didn't ask for evidence of the Jack-Margherita connection, but now that it's been brought up, I guess I will question it. Given that the evidence turns out to be

1) Jack's claim

2) that Jack thinks a photograph looks similiar to him, along with

3) Jack's name-dropping anecdote (quelle surprise) about a dinner party.

it falls squarely under "questionable at best" and should be left out unless he provides some bonafide evidence. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

When you made this edit [1] and said "Evidence, please?" in the edit summary, I thought you were asking for evidence. GangofOne 02:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

When you made this edit... Since my user name isn't "Carnildo", I can only wonder how you came to that conclusion. Want to take another look at that diff? --Calton | Talk 08:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I was mistaken. GangofOne 08:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Take all names out of everyone's autobiographies and what is left? NOTHING! There is no point writing a memoir without the names of the key people in one's life - is there? Show me even one example. It is important that I hobnob with all these famous and powerful people. Most of you will never get the chance to see how it really is at the top of the heap and therefore you are simply envious. That is obvious. [Jack Sarfatti 7:03 PM Oct 18,2005 PCT]

The evidence is in the photographs of Margherita and her family and my father's family - obvious close genetic similarities. Also in some common personality characteristics. I have no documentary proof of course. Remember I was born in Brooklyn just at the start of WWII and my mother intentionally dropped the final "i" in my birth certificate to hide the connection. Everything was done to cover up the connection for obvious reasons since we were at war with Italy at the time. The best evidence I have is from my Aunt Victoria Sarfatti as related above. Also when I was in Brazil with Fred Alan Wolf in 1984 wined and dined by the wealthiest people in Brazil, an older woman came up to me and said, "I knew Margherita Sarfatti." She simply assumed I was her blood relative from looking at me. I made no mention of the connection at that meeting. It was not relevant. In any case that is really not the point. The point is the artistic and occult connections as shown in my 1980 meeting with David Padwa - a very odd occult tale of high strangeness told in detail in "Destiny Matrix" with a corroborating photograph. Padwa lives today in Santa Fe New Mexico and he will confirm the true story in my book. Jack Sarfatti 10:06 PM, 18 October 2005 (PCT)

Nasty Vicious Spiteful Insulting "Trivia"

Whoever vandalized the article and put in "Trivia" I have not checked who yet is doing exactly what Uncle Ed said not to do. It is mean-spirited not objective and is obviously unfair done with clearly spiteful tone and intent. I think most of you will agree. :-0 [Jack Sarfatti]

No, I don't see anything mean-spirited about it; it's apparently somebody's attempt to work in a mention of your alleged relative while making it clear that the relationship is not actually documented in any verifiable way. *Dan T.* 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I certainly feel that it is rude and insulting. "Trivia" is a slap in the face to my family tradition. It is rude and low-class showing a very insenstive sadistic mentality whoever did it knowing it would make me very very very angry. Whoever did it is obviously trying to bait me into making a threat to get me blocked. This writing is a vicious attack. It is hateful and shameful. It is definitely uncivil. I have given more than enough information to establish the connection that is spelled out very clearly in my book Destiny Matrix especially the meeting with David Padwa in the book. However, whoever wrote it is simply exposing himself or herself as a philstine to people of real education and culture. That "Trivia" is like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It is the act of a person I would never want to meet, that's for sure in any social situation. Not everything important has "documents" and "documents" can be forged. Obviously since it was WWII any such documentation would have been suppressed. In any case I have given enough evidence. So what is the status of this? Can I now go in and change it? Or is that against the rules? I would appreciate it if someone had the decency to change that vicious vandalism of what was a perfectly accurate earlier description. Thank you. Delete the whole section rather than keep that vicious venom there. To me that was obvious vandalism. [Jack Sarfatti]

Staying Cool

Be that as it may, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot before responding. Uncle Ed 04:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I did rather well myself. "Go you and address the Ladies, most politely, most politely ..." King Gama, Princess Ida I am Prince Hilarion in this 1958 Cornell Production - in several of the photos http://www.rso.cornell.edu/savoyards/58prin.htm

"Boy, boy, crazy boy! Stay loose, boy! Breeze it, buzz it, easy does it. Turn off the juice, boy! Go man, go, But not like a yo-yo schoolboy. Just play it cool, boy, Real cool!"

Music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. © 1956, 1957 Amberson Holdings LLC and Stephen Sondheim. Copyright renewed. (Fair Use, educational purposes) Leonard Bernstein Music Publishing Company LLC, Publisher. http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/cool.html

It is worth mentioning because of the David Padwa story in my book "Destiny Matrix". You need to read that to understand WHY it is of great importance for the very survival of the Planet. I know this sounds crazy to the uninformed reader. However, it is true anyway. Ask Dan Smith - dantsmith@comcast.net he knows and he is connected to USG Intelligence Community.

Jack as Conceptual Performance Artist

You all forgot entirely the extra-dimensions of my art work. You have reduced me too much. Your image is OK, but it is only a fragment of my "poisonality" (Brooklynese). An orginal play I wrote for Pacifica Radio in 1979 is at http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Also the FLASH cartoons at http://stardrive.org/cartoon/ .html files

e.g. http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

and various music files from 1964 Cornell & Oberlin on

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

http://qedcorp.com/London/

http://qedcorp.com/APS/

[Jack Sarfatti AKA "Jack, The Man" "Smiling Jack", Cool Hand Jack" "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Jack & The Beanstalk" on Oct 19,2005 12:52 PM San Francisco Time]

I put it in under trivia as it is hardly worth mentioning since it is undocumented. PLEASE delete it. PLEASE! I'd delete it myself, but I want to give you the satisfaction of utterly eradicating "a slap in the face to my family tradition". Enjoy yourself and strike those keys like you are hitting me. Let it all out. You'll feel better. Cheers. WAS 4.250 05:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is trivial information; Mr. Sarfatti is known more for his (para)physics work and supposed gov't connections than any alleged relation to historical figures. That said, Trivia headers aren't very good style; I've renamed the "Education" header to "Background" and moved the info up to that header. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparent or what?

Cut vagueness from article:

In various writings over the years, Sarfatti has apparently made numerous claims about his activities, including:

consulting for U.S. intelligence agencies on the so-called "physics" of remote-viewing;
consulting for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative;
worked under "deep cover" on "cold-war intelligence missions"
having a vital role in the post-2001 war on terrorism

Let's not make "apparent" claims. Either he asserted these things, or he didn't. He's right here: let's ask him.

Jack, are you saying any of the above? Uncle Ed 00:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said any of those actual words exactly. However, I have given more than enough facts here in this discussion for people to make their own conclusions. What "UFO Black Ops" wrote is quite accurate. A key person in USG Intelligence today did write that my work is at "the core of MASINT" that is a fact. I cannot ID that person with a name for the same reason that to ID "Valerie Plame" was a felony. There is more than enough documentation of key documents in my book "Destiny Matrix". If people are going to write about me, they should at least look at those documents and discuss them like professional historians would do. Also they should at least read the David Padwa story before making vicious statements as was done in the "Trivia" vandalization of an good accurate earlier description. [Jack Sarfatti, 6:42 PM Oct 18, 2005 (PCT)

Change

consulting for U.S. intelligence agencies on the so-called "physics" of remote-viewing;

to

consulting for U.S. intelligence agencies on the "physics" of "high strangeness" including remote-viewing and the propulsion of alleged alien ET space craft invading US Air Space.

Change

consulting for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative;

to

consulted for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Reagan Administration via ICS (documentation in "Destiny Matrix" and in "The Buttoned Down Bohemians" San Francisco Chron-Examiner Sunday Magazine, 1986)

worked under "deep cover" on "cold-war intelligence missions" i

Yes. See the story about my meeting with Dennis Bardens in Cambridge in 1974 and of course the SRI RV was paid for by CIA. At that time I was in the "useful idiot" / "agent of influence" role not being completely cognizant of my role until CIA Station Chief Harold Chipman stepped directly into my life in ~ 1984. Details in "Destiny Matrix".

having a vital role in the post-2001 war on terrorism

I certainly think so. Ask Dan Smith at dantsmith@comcast.net

[Jack Sarfatti]

WP:NOR. If he said these things they should be sourceable. --fvw * 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed they are in my book "Destiny Matrix". My detractors here are not really interested in the objective truth. There are copies of official USG documents in my book. Did they look at them? Of course not. Have they done due diligence? Not at all. Real professionals looking at this record will come to their own conclusions. [Jack Sarfatti, 6:42 PM Oct 18, 2005 (PCT)

Is this an acceptable wording? There's no need to be over-detailed, here, and there's also no need to insert any waffle words. The fact that Mr. Sarfatti has made these claims is an objective fact not in dispute (and this wording very clearly implies that they are in dispute), and the quotations should be used only to refer to terms when they are being used by Mr. Sarfatti.

In various writings over the years (including his book Destiny Matrix), Sarfatti has made numerous claims about his activities, including:
consulting for U.S. intelligence agencies on "high strangeness" (including supposed applications such as remote viewing and UFO propulsion)

consulting for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Reagan administration

worked under "deep cover" on "cold-war intelligence missions"

having a vital role in the post-2001 war on terrorism

Any problems with this? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's good. It's a wrap.

Cecile B Sarfatti - it's me Jack Sarfatti on Oct 19, 2005 1:19 PM Toon Town Time in Baghdad by the Bay. My Gawd now I know how Saddam feels in his Trial "You know who I am. I am The President of Iraq!" ;-) I just got off the phone with New York Post free-lancer Kira Coplin interviewing me about the Edie Sedgwick film "Factory Girl." I told Kira that the director was an imcompetent book. He did not know his subject. He never even read "Edie" by George Plimpton and Jean Stein. Apparently Bob Dylan is very upset with the film supposed to start shooting Nov 28 in Louisiana. I told Kira "even if the film gets made, it probably will never get distributed." From what Kira quoted to me the director sounded like some homeless nut on the streets of North Beach.

Grammar cleanup

I was doing some grammar/style cleanup on this article, but I ran into some sections that left insufficient context for me to understand.

He taught at San Diego State and studied as a research fellow under David Bohm at the University of London and with Abdus Salam at ICTP, Trieste, Italy, from 1973 to 1974, before venturing into non-academic pursuits, e.g., at Esalen Institute in Big Sur and 1999-2000 Joe Firmage's ISSO exotic propulsion group in San Francisco with a budget of several million dollars.

What's going on in this sentence? What's ICTP? Was he in both London and Italy in 1973 and 1974? What's with the sudden jump from 1974 to 1999?

This story is told in detail by Picknett and Prince in their book The Star Gate Conspiracy.

Who are Picknett and Prince?

[Sarfatti note fyi http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/stargate-con.html 1:29 PM Oct 19, 2005, San Francisco]

Afterward, at Birkbeck College, Sarfatti reported that Geller demonstrated genuine "psychoenergetic" ability beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeatable experimental conditions.

Would it be possible to replace this with a verbatim quote from the cited issue of Science News? I don't want to restructure this for fear of obscuring Mr. Sarfatti's meaning.

Sarfatti subsequently retracted his support for this particular design, saying that he realized it would not work because it assumed orthodox quantum theory that has the "no-cloning" theorem.

I added "his support"; it's not grammatically possible to retract a design. I'm not entirely happy with this wording, though.

I'd rather not get involved over the am-too am-not disputes on this page, but it needed a dose of general MOS cleanup. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The exact quote from Science News is: "My personal professional judgement as a Ph.D. physicist is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck, which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeatable experimental conditions." (as re-quoted in the Martin Gardner book, from Science News vol 106, 20 July 1974, page 46) DES ^(talk) 04:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll see if I can't work that in as a quote. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

On the "retracted design", one can propose a design and then retract the proposal, which is what i would take "retracted a design" to be shorthand for. In any case the wording that he "retracted the design" is Sarfatti's, in statements posted to wikipedia quite recently. DES ^(talk) 04:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Denounce"? No. Not appropriate

Would "denounced the design" be too harsh? I just don't think that "retracted" works here, and I don't see any reason to use Mr. Sarfatti's exact wording save when quoting him directly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the first sentence quoted by A Man In Black. I'm fairly, but not completely, sure that I interpreted it correctly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientists do not "denounce" their errors, they "retract" is the standard word. They "retract statements" or "retract papers" or "withdraw" them. I mean that's what the honest ones do. [Jack Sarfatti , Oct 19, 2005, 1:33PM]

I agree, "Rretract" is the standard word for a scientist to indicate that a theory, poroposal, or idea that he (or she) formerly advanced is no longer supported by that scientist. In using that word, Dr. Sarfatti aligned himself with that model. We should use that word, whatever adjustmets we need to make to make the use of it grammatical. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it is also the standard word by which a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly author indicates that former statemetns are now considered to be in error. "Denouncing" ideas somehow has the feel of a Struggle session, which i am sure we do not want. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Withdraw! I'll be changing this right now to "withdrew the design" as that doesn't sound as weird grammatically. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

High strangeness

If anyone other than me read "high strangeness" and thought "What is that?"; here is what I found: The High Strangeness of Dimensions, and the Process of Alien Abduction, The Physics of High Strangeness, High Strangeness Reports. WAS 4.250

Yes, that's good. Ark is a Polish PhD theoretical physicist into same WEIRD STUFF (now that's a good title) as me and MANY OTHERS in the INVISIBLE COLLEGE involving several INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS of Nations & ROGUE GROUPS. However the key paper on "High Strangeness" is cited in my book SUPER COSMOS. It is by Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis. Davis did the 2004 USAF Intelligence Report on "Teleportation" including Wormholes & UFO stuff - same weird stuff. This USAF Report was funded by Franklin Meade at Edwards AFB Advanced Propulsion Group. Both the papers on "High Strangeness" & "Teleportation" are on the NIDS Web site I think. That is National Institute Discovery Science financed by Howard Hughes type Las Vegas guy Robert Bigelow. Check it out. Do your homework. You are getting close to The Final Secret of the Illuminati. This is a Cosmic Egg Hunt and it's not even Easter, though it's almost Halloween. Have fun kids. Happy Hunting! [Jack Rabbit (Sarfatti) 1:44 PM, Oct 19, 2005 San Francisco]

I am not a pseudo-sciientist

You completely misunderstand what pseudo-science is. BTW I do not do paraphysics. I consult for people in USG Intelligence Community interested in those topics. You are using words very sloppily and are really out of your depth here not making relevant distinctions. People who e.g. say relativity is a conspiracy etc and have really nonsense replacements - that's pseudo-science. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE and it simply shows the superficiality of your understanding of the relevant issues to any depth to make those false allegations. You illustrate how "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." BTW James Randi is not God. He is not a scientist. He has no degrees in Physics. He is a stage magician. Jack Sarfatti JackSarfatti 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Physics

All my physics work is MAINSTREAM I use Einstein's theory of general relativity Quantum theory Condensed solid state theory

I do NOT propose any pseudoscientific replacements for these battle-tested theories! Let's get that straight for Christ's sake. I cited top physicists on my work i.e. Lenny Susskind, George Chapline, David Finkelstein for example.

DO NOT GARBLE MY INTELLIGENCE WORK ON WEIRD STUFF with MY MAINSTREAM PHYSICS WORK.

B = (hG/c)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)

is mainstream even though Chris Hillman (who is not a physicist and who says he does not understand quantum theory) has not the slightest idea of what that equation means. I predicted the super solid before Tony Leggett. That's important. More important than anything the string theorists and the loop theorists have come up with yet - in terms of the physics. I am not talking about the pure math aspect.

Also my EVO WEAPONS EQ.

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P11751_0_5_0_C

"Hey Joe, where going with that EVO in your hand? EVOs exotic weapons and the race to master dark energy"

V/c^2 = Casimir Energy + Coulomb Self-Energy + Rotational Energy + Dark Energy

= a(h/mcr) +be^2/mc^2r + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpf(Dark Energy)r^2

dV/dr = 0

d^2V/dr^2 > 0

is NOT PSEUDOPHYSICS!

[Jack Sarfatti, Oct 19, 2005, 2:04 PM San Francisco.]

Self published works

There still seems to be some disagreement about whether these should be listed or not. I really think that they should, as they are amongst Jack's newer works. Is there any reason other than the fact that they were self-published that they shouldn't be included. (I have started a new section to bring this discussion into one place to make it easier to form a consensus.) --Apyule 13:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the idea that self-published works shouldn't be mentioned comes from. In our guidelines for article creation, we generally don't consider self-published or vanity published works as notable on their own, and they often don't qualify by themselves as something that allows an author to clear the 'notability' bar. We tend to discount the importance of self-published works as a way to filter out vanity and promotional articles from Wikipedia.

In this case, however, we've already established that Jack Sarfatti is a notable character. Since the self-published books are a part of his body of work–and a part that is important to our understanding of his unique perspective–they deserve mention in the article. They're not being added as a spam promotional attempt, nor are they being used to prop up an otherwise weak claim of notability for their author. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If he's notable enough that we have to mention his birth date, why isn't he notable enough to mention his books?

Jeez, we can always say he published three books called x, y and z which have been dismissed by critics as blah, blah, blah. Refusing to name the books is a form of censorship.

If his ideas are indeed kooky or pseudoscientific, then it should be child's play to point out the ways in which these ideas fall short of scientific rigor.

If his ideas are simply unorthodox, again, what's the problem? Just say he claims he got a spooky phone call; he asserts that Uri Geller can really bend spoons with psychic powers; etc. What's wrong with listing a few of his claims and assertions? We're not endorsing them. Uncle Ed 16:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Once we have an article about a person, that person's entire body of work is relevant, including self-published work, even if such would would not on its own be notable. We should provide citations so that the reader can obtain and evalute the work, and we should provide sourced critical comments both favorabel and unfavoralbne when these are available. This will assit the reader to evaluate the man and his work. We should not exclude soem of his work because of our PoV thwa tit is soemhow not worthy because of how it was published, nor bcause of our views of the content. If mainstream science disagreees with his views, we can say that, preferably by citing specific people, not a vague "consensus of science". if particualr people have expressed strong veiws about his works we can cite those views, and quote from or link to reveiws and published comments, if any. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

BRAVO! [Jack Sarfatti]

Kooky? NO! High Strangeness? YES! USG INTELLIGENCE interest in? YES!

On the 1953 phone call(s) I have a witness. See my book "Destiny Matrix" - also other people got them including Kit Green a high ranking CIA officer at the time. See http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_005/drgreen.htm To dismiss all this superficially as "kooky" etc is bad Wiki quality control, lack of due diligence, sloppy research etc. There are many highly-qualified scientists like Nobel Prize Physicist Brian Josephson, FRS, Professor at Cambridge into this same stuff with me. To call Josephson crazy or kooky because of that is a cheap way out. It's not true. The problem here is that there is big cognitive dissonance. You guys are like primitive tribes meeting modern technology for first time. The easy way out is to dismiss us as simply crazy because we also happen to have fun and play with the ideas. Wake up and smell the coffee, because the survival of the planet depends on us. I mean me and my "Kooky" friends in the Invisible College. Oil is peaking. This is the Long Emergency. Most of you will have problems surviving in the next 10 years or even less. The lights are going out http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html [Jack Sarfatti, 2:20 PM Oct 19, 2005 San Francisco]

And how do you know that those calls weren't the work of some childish prankster, who managed to figure out how to speak in a quasi-robotic voice and then started calling people pretending to be an alien? *Dan T.* 21:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think I am an idiot?

Obviously you do. This shows your lack of due diligence. Do your homework. I go into that question in detail in my book and in many other places. In short

1. A definite prediction was made in 1953 about what was to happen in 1973 - which happened.

2. Many similar cases including one involving then CIA officer Dr. Christopher Green ~ 1973 and many such cases involving Uri Geller & others.

3 On going pattern of events made clear if you read Destiny Matrix is still going today still involving USG & Foreign Intelligence Communties.

This is the whole point of the title "Destiny Matrix" about the SPOOKY COINCIDENCES shaping important world events - like Hitler's attempted suicide in 1923 as a good example as told in my book.

[Jack Sarfatti, Oct 20, 2005 5:18PM]

The Spooky Reality of the 1953 Contact

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

Of course until all the weirdness happened in 1973 with CIA, Uri Geller, SRI, Paris, London, Trieste et-al I thought the 1953 phone call was a joke. I did not know my mother's version of that until 1974 as told in my book. There is a tape recording of my SRI meeting with Puthoff & Targ in 1973 at the beginning of the HIGH STRANGENESS foretold in the 1953 contact - including CIA's Kit Green's parallel experiences in http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_005/drgreen.htm I understand the cognitive dissonance and gut-wrenching fear some of the more aware of you may be feeling about these spooky intrusions into your consensus reality. Only the brave dare go here.

Also

4. I only recall ONE PHONE CALL. My mother recalled "three weeks of phone calls lasting for hours" in which I was walking around "glassy-eyed". Kim Burrafato is witness to my mother's story in a Greenwich Village Cafe 1986 at the Wigner NY Acad Sciences - maybe the last meeting Heinz Pagels hosted before falling off the mountain exactly as he pre-cogged it at the end of his book "Cosmic Code". Heinz allegedly helped Ira Einhorn escape USA after he was indicted for the murder of Holly Maddux according to Ira's latest book from prison in Pennsylvania. My mother grabbed the phone away from me finally and SHE HEARD THE COLD METALLIC VOICE say it was a "COMPUTER" and that she should put me back on the telephone. These are uncanny facts. What they mean is open to debate. I can't remember the html commands to sign off. [Jack Sarfatti, Oct 21, 2005 1:50PM]

The article OK now except for total lack of mention of my 3 books

At least something like "Books by Sarfatti are available at http://amazon.com"

wwe do not generally link to amazon or other commercial book sellers, but if the ISBN is given for each book (and IMO it should be) that will enable anyone intersted to purchase them from amazon or any other site which carries them. DES ^(talk) 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales complains about Wiki Quality Control

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

The discussion here is a good illustration of Jimbo's concerns. I forget exact html format for signing this. Have a lot happening now.

[Jack Sarfatti on Oct 19, 2005 at 12:40 PM California time]

comment on "Gang of Two talk section"

Jack says of himself: "I do NOT invent NUTTY PHYSICS to replace MAINSTREAM PHYSICS. I use MAINSTREAM PHYSICS to investigate apparently NUTTY PHENOMENA." This is the best and fairest summary of the "How do we characterize his nonmainsteam physics?" that I've seen. And psuedoscience or psuedophysics is inaccurate so long as he claims no more validity than the string theorists do. Protoscience is what string theory is - as well as any other physics theory without adequate evidence but in line otherwise with the equations of physics. WAS 4.250 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, as far as that goes. Personally, I think that Category:Pseudoscience should include notable critics of and commentators on pseudoscience, but this isn't the place to debate that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What Non-Mainstream Physics?

I challenge anyone to point out even ONE physics idea I use that is NOT mainstream? Note "signal nonlocality" is mainstream in many papers e.g. Antony Valentini's papers. "Wormholes", "warp drive", "time travel" - all mainstream - articles even in Physical Review on those topics. Note I think Einstein's general theory of relativity is the correct classical theory of gravity and indeed I have attacked Hal Puthoff's PV theory on the grounds that it contradict's Einstein's equivalence principle. I accept orthodox quantum theory in its domain of validity. I accept the standard U(1)SU(2)SU(3) model of leptons & quarks with Higgs mechanism. My speculations on consciousness use mainstream ideas in physics. Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson also do the same thing.

As to present state of article it's fine except for lack on any mention of my books. Can I put that in or not? [Jack Sarfatti 4:59 PM , Oct 20, 2005, San Francisco]

Great Spirits Scorned

In "Criticism" who of any standing in the scholarly or scientific community has made a public statement that they view my statements about my contacts and my national security work with "scorn"? Granted that envious wannabees on the WEB in usenet et-al have done so. But is that worthy of mention? And, if it is, why are not the positive remarks of physicists like George Chapline & David Finkelstein and also Gary Ford not also worthy of mention to give a fair objective presentation of the actual reality? [Jack Sarfatti, Oct 20, 2005, 6:37 PM San Francisco]

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." Einstein Jack SarfattiJackSarfatti 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a tip: you don't have to actually type your name when you use ~~~~. That adds your name automatically. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Published works

Hey, why not divide this section into subsections? It seems like there should be separate sections for his papers, published books, and self-published books. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That sound like it should be reasonable...does anyone know enough about the publications? For now I've marked his two self-published works as such in the list to calm down a revert war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a split between papers and books would be good, but I really don't know (or particularly care) about a split within books. --Apyule 11:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediator check

Is everything okay here? No more nasty personal remarks or legal threats?

Any problems let me know, but it looks like the 'recent unpleasantness' has abated. Uncle Ed 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No nothing like that I know of.

Jack Sarfatti, Nov. 27, 2005

New Development on Faster-Than-Light? No. Nick Herbert finds Jensen's error

On Nov 27, 2005, at 3:13 PM, nick herbert wrote: Hi Ray--

Your ingenious FTL scheme was forwarded to me by Jack Sarfatti.

Having constructed dozens of such schemes while writing my FTL book (none of which ever worked) I am familiar with most of the pitfalls a would-be EPR FTL signaller will encounter. In your case the problem occurs with your Eq 4 where you give the <amplitudes> for detection of photons at the two interferometer arms. What you want is the probabilities (amplitudes squared) for each of the two types of pure-state photons that impinge on the interferometer.

Since these distributions are caused by separate photons (a single photon interfers with itself) one must add probabilities--not amplitudes as you have done. When you do this, the sin squared plus cos squared identity wipes out all fringe variation and the two cases (0 and 1 input) give exactly the same result at the output.

Ah yes! Now I recall. It's been 15 years since I thought about that. Nick, I think, is correct.

What did you expect? That FTL signalling would be easy?

Mother Nature isn't easy. She wants to be coaxed.

But thanks for trying.

warm regards
Nick Herbert
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/
http://quantumtantra.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> Date: November 27, 2005 2:24:57 PM PST To: Doc Savage <adastra1@mac.com> Subject: Re: Your STAIF paper FTL communication in orthodox QM?

On Nov 27, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote: This very much reminds of similar schemes, a number of which employed MZ interferometers, that you came up with back in the late 70s and early 80s! I remember a number of designs very close to this one, with a MZI on one end and various detector arrangements on the other side. Weird!

Yes, but I never had it exactly right in terms of the apparatus, but I did have his eqs. 5 & 6! I was trying to "disentangle" his eq. 1 to get his eq 3. So I had the same formal idea for sure, but did not really know how to implement it in the total experimental design as he seems to have done. However, let's see what Stapp et-al have to say about this.

On Nov 27, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The key is his fig 2 & eq. 3. At the moment, without thinking about it very much, I cannot refute what he claims about eq. 3. Does anyone see the error there? If there is no way to tell which path photon 2 takes then there should be local interference according to Feynman. And it seems there is no way to tell what state photon 1 was in on the left. So why won't it work? Any opinions?

On Nov 27, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

Probably this paper is wrong, but I have not yet had time to read it carefully. Any opinions? The author is aware of Stapp's et-al objection.

Begin forwarded message:

From: rjensen2@nd.edu Date: November 27, 2005 1:14:36 PM PST

Subject: Re: Your STAIF paper

enclosed is a copy per your request. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely,

Ray Jensen

Screen Writer Ron Stahl on how to interview Jack Sarfatti

How to do a proper interview of Jack Sarfatti

On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:17 AM, screenwriter Ron Stahl wrote:

“Much of the trouble with both Dr. Sarfatti's communication style and Ventura's interview is that they require too much from their audience right out of the gate. Can you imagine if Jesus started day one with his disciples by telling them what was happening in three years? ‘You'll all betray me. I'm gonna be killed. You'll all be hunted down after my death and tortured.’ I doubt he'd have had any disciples.

Much of the greater story Dr. Sarfatti has to tell touches what epistemologists call "properly basic" propositions. It's not appropriate to challenge someone on this level until they've had a chance to accept or deny other propositions that are not nearly so emotionally grinding. What is the point honestly, of challenging people to believe a hair-raising tale until after they've heard simpler stories? This just alienates an audience--all save the whackos who filter nothing and believe anything--and who wants their society?

My suggestion is that the questions should ONLY concern the work.”

Yes!

“1. What is a WWD?”

“WWD” means "Weightless Warp Drive." My 3 books on http://amazon.com "Destiny Matrix", "Space-Time and Beyond II" and "Super Cosmos" discuss this idea in detail as it is emerging. The first WWD was "negative matter propulsion" traced to Cambridge University’s the late Herman Bondi and to Stalin's WWII Spymaster Yacov Tereletski. See my interview in the Pavel Sudoplatov book "Special Tasks" revised edition with foreword by Robert Conquest of the Hoover at Stanford. I actually attended Bondi's Cornell Lectures on that. Cal Tech's Peter Goldreich and maybe Tom Pynchon were there as well. We were all undergraduates as I recall. Then in early 90's Alcubeirre formalized the idea.

The key idea is the equivalence principle "that things were weightless when they fell" (Feynman, p. 56 "Feynman's Rainbow"). The whole idea of metric engineering "warp and wormhole" is to use the recently discovered dark energy and dark matter of the exotic vacuum trapped in thin layers of the ship's fuselage to reshape the free-floating weightless timelike geodesic of the ship itself from the ship. That is, we overcome the external curvature field of the Earth or any other near large object. We can do this because the direct bending of spacetime by isotropic unbalanced zero point energy density with w = -1 is much stronger than the way ordinary matter with w = 0 and ordinary radiation with w = +1/3 bends space-time. w = (pressure/energy density).

The strength of any stuff to bend space-time is in Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity is

(energy density)(1 + 3w)/(string tension) = curvature = 1/(radius of curvature) 2

because string tension ~ c4/G has dimensions of energy/length

In my macro-quantum coherent theory of emergent gravity from the 4D covariant super-solid vacuum "metric elasticity" (Andrei Sakharov) the strength of zero point energy density to bend space-time is

-2(zero point energy density)/(string tension) ~ (effective area)-1cos[Phase-Lock]

The Phase-Lock is between some Goldstone phase inside the vacuum with the Goldstone phase of a super-solid thin layer in the fuselage.

The thin layer(s) are a mesh of tiny high Tc superconducting loops of nano-wire with magnetic flux trapped in-between. The phase-lock is ~ loop integral of B - e/cA where B is the curved Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form and A is the electromagnetic potential 1-form. Changing the current in each tiny loop changes the cosine factor as desired. This is a phased array and therefore we can change the exotic vacuum zero point pressure distribution very fast for instant sharp turns of the fighter aerospace craft without pulling any g-force inside the craft. Below is a typical distribution for the cosine warp factor.

We know that the "aliens" are able to do this. No dark matter detectors will ever work because dark matter is virtual stuff, it is not real stuff whizzing around space. All the Pundits have completely the wrong idea about "dark matter" IF I am on the right track here.

Thu Nov 24, 7:00 AM ET (PRWEB) - OTTAWA, CANADA (PRWEB) November 24, 2005 -- “A former Canadian Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister under Pierre Trudeau has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on Exopolitics -- relations with “ETs.”

By “ETs,” Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: ‘UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head.’ Mr. Hellyer went on to say, ‘I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something.’ Hellyer revealed, ‘The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop.’ Hellyer warned, ‘The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, ‘The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide.’ Hellyer’s speech ended with a standing ovation. He said, ‘The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today.’”

On Nov 27, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Mark Pesses wrote: UFO investigator to discuss phenomenon

Alamogordo Daily News

“The federal government's apparent change in attitude over the last half century has been significant. When Harry Truman chose to clamp down a lid of secrecy after the 1947 Roswell UFO crash and appointed the Majestic 12 committee, Dee Gragg said it was clear the president of the United States was in control. Those under him according to Gragg, ‘were answerable only to the president.’ ‘They were afraid and perhaps rightly so, that this would have panicked the American people to know there were vehicles that could fly thousands of miles an hour,’ Gragg said. Presidents change. With them so do the times. Gragg said when Ronald Reagan was newly elected he asked his vice president, former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, about UFOs. ‘Bush told him he had no need to know,’ Gragg said. ‘Now we've gone from what was under the control of the president to it's under the control of somebody. We don't even know who it is.’ ... Gragg's interest in UFOs is recent. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1959 with a mechanical engineering degree. He spent nine years working on nuclear weapons at Sandia Laboratories, then came to Holloman Air Force Base to participate in human air bag tests at the Aero Medical Lab. .... As an investigator, Gragg has begun by studying the literature and established evidence, especially from the Truman years. He visited the Truman Library, saw the president's 1947 diary, and read his memoirs and a book of his compiled letters. Gragg learned about World War II-era "foo fighters," balls of light that pilots spotted speeding alongside them. ‘Foo fighters flew with our fighters in both theaters," Gragg said. "Our pilots were very apprehensive of them. (American officials) thought they were secret weapons of the Japanese and Germany. After the war we found out they flew with the Germans and Japanese, (who) thought (they) were secret weapons of ours.’ While reports of post-1947 UFO craft sightings show them increasing, Gragg pointed out their responses to man's reactions have changed. At one time, military fighters sent to intercept strange craft were often destroyed. ‘(The military) sent pilots out to try to shoot them down. There were a lot of training accidents' until (Truman) rescinded that order,’ Gragg said. "(UFOs) don't shoot planes down anymore. Apparently they're not really dangerous if we don't try to shoot them down.’ He cited two documented incidents of UFOs showing up when Minuteman missiles were readied for launch. ‘The missiles suddenly started to drop off line,’ he said. ‘They've never had any explanation for it.’”

The effective area depends on the density of super-solid in the fuselage. Dark matter gravitates and it corresponds to the cosine factor < 0. Dark energy anti-gravitates and it corresponds to the cosine factor > 0. When the cosine factor varies in the right way over the fuselage we get WWD. For example,

“How do they appear?”

Ask US Navy physicist Bruce Maccabee not me.

“Describe their abilities.”

Ditto.

“What is required to construct one?”

Reverse engineering a captured craft the easiest. Imagine asking Einstein how to build a breeder reactor in 1905.

“How far are you from entering an engineering phase?”

I don't know.

“If NASA knocked on your door today, would you involve yourself in such an effort?”

Why do you use the "hypothetical"? Our effort started with ISSO in 1999. It never stopped. It mutated.

“You have an association with Creon Levit. Do you think this could one day lead to fruitful work at NASA?”

Again, why do you use the future tense? ☺

“Mike Griffin recently lamented before the Senate oversight committee that the US had not invested in ‘other kinds of research that we might have.’ If he had a practical plan from you to test your theories, would you be ready to enter that phase of your work?

My theory is being tested now on several fronts.

1. Dark matter detectors. I predict null effect like the Michelson-Morely experiment that failed to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether. Two physicists have recently challenged this, but no one of any influence in physics has yet jumped on their bandwagon.

2. Quantum foam in high energy cosmic gammas. Again I predict null like Michelson-Morely experiment.

3. Dark energy w (dubya) in Type 1a supernovae. I predict w = -1 on the nose!

So here are three independent tests that can blow my theory out of the water.

“The WWD seems to require a very special computer. Is it possible to build a test craft that does not require this?”

No.

“What other breakthroughs are necessary to a working prototype?”

Anyon thin film macro-quantum coherence – basically a kind of ultra-high Tc superconductor to control the phase lock to the vacuum Goldstone phase.

“Do we need to bottle dark matter and dark energy for the WWD?”

Yes, that's what I am describing above.

“Or are they a consequence of the drive itself?”

No.

These are practical questions that have to do with the work. With such important work, why focus attention on personalities right out of the gate? This is not what interviews are for, unless you're writing for People magazine. IMHO

I'll be happy to put these questions in better form next week if you want to wait. Otherwise, you can do it yourself!

Siegenthaler Test Case D Tobias & Others Continue Their Slurs and Insults Vandalization of my page

Please stop. I am not a crank and that is slander and defamation. I consult on national security issues and defamation of me by my political enemies may actually be a violation of the Patriot Act and other Federal Laws. I ask people like DTobias and others to stop their insulting slurs insults and defamations. That some idiots who run Crank.dot defame me and many others is not NEWSWORTHY. I am sure DTobias has enemies who would say bad false things about him - should they be made public? Also since I am a target for Islamo-fascists and The Enemy Within ID Theft is an issue and it is a violation of my privacy rights to publish my exact birthdate as it would be to publish my social security number and credit card numbers. There is no legitimate reason to do so.

Sarfatti's birthdate has been widely publicized, as can be easily seen with a quick Google search [2]. See [3][4][5][6][7][8] Birthdates are typical biographical info. We certainly would not publish his SSN. -Willmcw 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Violations of Federal Law

You are invading my privacy Willmcw and I consider you a personal political enemy. Because of my national security work I am a target for ID theft and if such theft happens because of your malicious personal actions using Wiki then you may be in violation of Federal law like the Patriot Act. I am speaking to you as an individual independent of Wiki. I am not an ordinary person. I am a target and you are personally endangering my safety. Please desist or I will have to make a complaint to the FBI about you personally. Thank you. You saw the New York Times article on the Siegenthaller Case. Irresponsible actions by people like you endanger the Wiki experiment. Not ALL THE NEWS IS FIT TO PRINT. You use Wiki as a personal instrument for slander and defamation. Crank.Dot.Net is not a responsible source of factual information. What I say applies to all other "Liberals with mental disorders" of the "Enemy Within" who attack me with false vague smears not for scientific reasons but for political reasons.

You are once again in violation of WP:NLT. *Dan T.* 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On Dec 11, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

<0316155799.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg> <SuperCosmos.jpg> On Dec 31, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Leonard Susskind wrote:

To whom it may concern,

The Glogower Susskind Paper of 1963 which introduced phase operators for a quantum oscillator was in direct response to discussions between Glogower, Susskind and Jack Sarfatti. Sarfatti's contributions were significant. The correct attribution should be to the "Glowgower, Sarfatti, Susskind" operators.

Sincerely

Leonard Susskind

I agree with RMC on all this. On Dec 11, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Figaro wrote:

Hi Bill,

Below is what I was getting at in all the past emails. Or, that Anon is getting his information from other source (s) and Anon himself doesn't really know if the information is totally correct. What got me concerned is that not only Anon but others were putting the SERPO Information out as though it were the last and final word. And if we questioned it then it was the dog house. On other note you're doing a great job with all your postings and give a very balanced view to the whole subject. Hal Puthoff commented to me on the phone the other day that you sounded very smart, I agree....Best.....Robert C.

I called Mr. _____ this morning.

[ EX U.S.G OFFICIAL WHO IS MANAGING THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF "Project SERPO" FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION ]

I found some discrepancies about the animals mentioned on the show.

http://www.serpo.org/information.html

PS

On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:57 AM, caryn anscomb wrote: Biological entities arriving from a neighbouring solar system will not put any specific strain on our scientific or religious communities

caryn anscomb <nyracum@yahoo.com> wrote to Dan Smith on ID (Intelligent Design) & Disclosure: Dan et al, My two cents worth: First off, our main problem here is that none of us know what information is likely to be channelled out, exactly. You seem to indicate it doesn’t really matter whether we’re dealing with EBEs or UTs, either way they signify ID. That’s not how the majority will view it. Biology entities arriving from a neighbouring solar system will not put any specific strain on our scientific or religious communities – both can fairly easily accommodate that. If these entities are transdimensional, again our physics communities have enough theories to accommodate this and again it’s no major threat to our religious communities [My fathers house has many mansions]. Same goes with the human time-traveller theory. Without knowing with any certainty what we are likely to be dealing with it’s nigh on impossible to work out a good plan that’ll comfortably accommodate all.

Jack’s ‘shouting you down’ isn’t out of malice, he’s telling you how the scientific communities will react…that’s within his professional capacity to know. I can only advise as someone who has experienced varying degrees of the phenomena and voice how, lets say the ‘pagan’ communities’ might handle the news. As they quite comfortably sit somewhere between the physics and religious communities they would be the least of your problems.

If, as I suspect, no one actually knows with absolute certainty what we are actually dealing with, trying to put a religious label or scientific label on this would be utter lunacy at this time. The only course would be to put the information out as is, without any trimmings. I fully appreciate the huge political headaches – but it’ll be worse if this is wrapped in a ‘Christos’ bow, then latter discovered religion has no part to play here but was implemented as a control mechanism.

The one common theory we share here is FAP (Final Anthropic Principle)…this is the neutral ground and your best option, because it accommodates both the scientific and religious communities. Your best line of approach would be to concentrate on this, and to drop some of your more personal convictions, for the time being at least. Let the scientists explain the science behind it and let the religious debate the Intelligent Universe versus Intelligent Design problem… you don’t have to take the whole world on. If you can see a way forward with this, I will back you 100%, for what it is worth. If there is any real evidence to back a religious line of thought, someone should provide that now. If there isn't, then the religious communities will just have to lump it. It's then solely in the hands of our physicists.

If you don't want your birthdate publicized you should start by removing it from your own websites. If you make legal threats you'll have to stop editing Wikipedia until they can be resolved. -Willmcw 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarfatti denies making any legal threats

Hello I am a newby to Wiki and a friend of Jack Sarfatti's. He completely denies making any legal threats in any incident WIllmcw mentions. Sarfatti says "This is a completely trumped up allegation by my leftist political enemies to silence me on Wiki. In fact it is outrageous. I have no intention of wasting my time and energy in instituting legal proceedings against Wikipedia."

Sarfatti's USG Intelligence connections are mentioned on pp. 204-5 of "Hunt for Skinwalker" by Colm Kelleher and George Knapp. Knapp a TV anchorman on Channel 8 Las Vegas will confirm. Former CIA officer Dr. Christopher Green will confirm a recent high level meeting discussing Sarfatti's work. See also p. 237. Green wrote in a public message on an open list: On Jan 1, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Green, Christopher wrote:

"For what it is worth; (I am not a physicist)...Hal's work (his recent 6 already peer-reviewed physics publications from the past two years only) were tabled at a recent meeting I attended. There was a long, detailed, and exceptionally positive discussion at a recent (a month ago) National Academy of Sciences DIA/CIA sponsored Intelligence Technology Futures Commission. I am a member, with a four year appointment, as are the other Commissioners. It was not part of the formal agenda, which had included physicists from CIA and DIA making classified presentations to the 18 of us (10 are physicists) first. The positive discussion was started by several persons who wanted to "set the record straight about where the real world-class experimental physics was being designed...like at the Puthoff Institute in Texas." I didn't understand almost a thing about the discussion scientifically, but it was very positive. I did ask what the team thought about the work of Dr. Sarfatti.

k."

To find out who Kit Green is, Google "Goblins Langley"

Nuff said, over and out. —the preceding unsigned comment is by RMC3 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC-5)

I moved the above section to the bottom where new additions should go, instead of buried in the middle. Sarfatti and his friends tend to produce very hard-to-follow commentary in this site, due to their failure to follow proper ordering; failure to add signatures to the end of their contributions to make it clear who said what; inclusion of random and often badly-formatted copy-and-paste from e-mail, forums, and Web sites; and a rambling, incoherent style. But as for the supposed lack of legal threats, how about "Please desist or I will have to make a complaint to the FBI about you personally.", which appears from Sarfatti in the discussion above. *Dan T.* 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not a legal threat against Wikipedia. "Legal threat" means filing a civil suit in a court of law. Since Sarfatti has been threatened by regular mail there is an FBI investigation. The personal attacks on Sarfatti on Wiki started in September 2005 at same time that Sarfatti and some of his friends received the threats in snail mail. It is this coincidence in time that created the issue here. User RMC3

Filing a suit is not a threat it is an action. See WP:NLT for our policy on "legal threats". Please sign with four tildas, (like this ~~~~). DES ^(talk) 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this? Not a legal threat? -lethe ^talk 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

Sarfatti has of late called attention to himself by his Internet writings and Usenet postings explaining his theories.
Sarfatti has, on occasion, referred to his claims of doing sensitive government work in order to attempt to silence critics. Typically, he claims that any public criticism of himself or his work can disrupt this work and hence is harmful to the national security. He has also threatened to report critics (including owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking) to various governmental agencies (local, state, and federal), often for "harassment" but occasionally for "aiding the terrorist cause." He has been known to contact employers of his critics to decry their behavior. He claims that he has only responded in this way to "personal attacks," and asserts that he welcomes "responsible" criticism.

The above material appears to be original research. If we go out and read over Usernet postings and characterize them then we are drawing our own conclusions. If a notable critic of the subject has made that characterization then we can use it. But we should not be the critics ourselves. -Will Beback 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

- If specific events or postings are cited, then i don't think this would be OR. As it stands it is not at all simple to verify, so it falls afoul of WP:V regardless of the OR question. DES ^(talk) 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If the person writing the comment was the moderator of the physics USENET group, and well-known internet columnist, surely he's notable enough that we can quote him. Will this satisfy Beback? -lethe ^talk 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's documented on USENET, then surely it's verifiable, will this satisfy DESiege? Here's one, there are lots though [9] -lethe ^talk 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to register a sort of general complaint. This article survived an AfD on the general grounds that he's notable in the USENET community, and that's enough to keep. If his notability extends mostly not farther than USENET, then it's unreasonable to ask for more verifiability than can be provided by USENET. -lethe ^talk 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be proper to add to the article that the subject posted a message which said "XYZ". It is improper for us to say that "he often posts messages like XYZ". The latter conclusion is original research. Indeed, it may be original research of another kind to assert that the article survived Afd for any particular reason. We should remove what is unverifiable according to our standards. -Will Beback 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I've changed the article so that it refers to specific incidents instead of general behavior. -lethe ^talk 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I am shocked at how people are out to get Sarfatti. Dredging up an alleged e-mail from 1993 13 years ago? Sarfatti's notability extends way beyond usenet. He is cited in dozens of books and mainstream journals and media like the New York Review of Books, New York Times, Esquire, MIT Technology Review, Der Spiegel, ... He is featured by Paramount Pictures Star Trek IV DVD, on Ultra Science Learning Channel etc. Sarfatti was already well known before there was a usenet. BTW Sarfatti says the two urls cited that I removed are forgeries and that he never wrote what was alleged in them. In any case they are "original research" from flakey uncorroborated rumors.lJaneReynolds 4:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He's written similar things right here on the Wikipedia talk pages, however. The Usenet cites just show that he's been doing it for quite a while. *Dan T.* 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti has, on occasion, referred to his claims of doing sensitive government work in order to attempt to silence critics. Typically, he claims that any public criticism of himself or his work can disrupt this work and hence is harmful to the national security. He has also threatened to report critics (including owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking) to various governmental agencies (local, state, and federal), often for "harassment" but occasionally for "aiding the terrorist cause." ... He claims that he has only responded in this way to "personal attacks," and asserts that he welcomes "responsible" criticism.

Aside from one sentence, which I left, I've removed this material because it is unsourced. -Will Beback 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article adheres strictly to the verifiability requirement, the criticism section is very badly written, and the whole article leans too far toward a pro-Sarfatti stance, in violation of NPOV, since the mainstream scientific community considers this guy a crackpot. I gather that Sarfatti must have personally contacted Jimbo, hence his involvement. I guess references could be found for all of the claims, but I'm not willing to do any more work preserving this article. If the result of Sarfatti's personal involvement in wikipedia is that this article become a paean to Sarfatti, then so be it. -lethe ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have scientists on record saying he's a crackpot then we can include that. Saying that he's a Usenet kook is a separate matter, which we already do. Reading over the article I don't think anyone would call it excessively postive. -Will Beback 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is very important that every single claim in this article be sourced to a legitimate mainstream source -- not Usenet postings. Usenet postings could be and very often were forged and should not be considered reliable in any case where their legitimacy is at all in question (and in this case, this is true to the highest degree). There is no reason for the article to become a "paean to Sarfatti" but neither should be based on unsourced opinion and speculation. Stick to published sources and we'll be much stronger for it.--Jimbo Wales 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that mainstream scientists don't normally publish their opinions about crackpots. The main avenue of contact and criticism between mainstream scientists and Sarfatti is USENET. Without presenting the opinions found there, we can only present the published opinion found in, e.g. the Star Trek DVD commentary, which is highly skewed in favor of the fringe views. But in light of recent events, I can certainly understand why Jimbo wants to take the view that verifiability is more important than NPOV. -lethe ^talk 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If mainstream scientists don't publish their opinions about crackpots, then how do we know that "the mainstream scientific community considers this guy a crackpot"? -Will Beback 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that verifiability is more important than NPOV. I think that verifiability is a nonseparate component and precondition for NPOV. If we take wild rumors and likely faked Usenet posts as evidence, we are hardly being neutral. And presenting that Jack's theories are not accepted by mainstream scientists does not require us to throw around highly loaded terms like 'crackpot'. My concern here is that if we're repeating rumors from ages ago, rumors which are denied, as if they are fact, we are not adhering to NPOV at all.--Jimbo Wales 16:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contacting employers claim

I have email from both Jack Sarfatti and Lubos Motl of Harvard denying the validity of the claims regarding 'contacting employers'. I can only repeat: relying in any way shape or form on old Usenet postings is a huge mistake. It is not NPOV. It is not verifiable. It is original research.--Jimbo Wales 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe the contacting of employers is unverified, but certainly he's threatened to sic the FBI on his critics, and made preposterous claims that criticism of him is treasonous and terroristic, and a violation of the USA PATRIOT act; you can find these claims right here on this page. *Dan T.* 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"...he's threatened to sic the FBI on his critics..." --- well, show me ::a source is my response to this. People's interactions with Wikipedia ::itself are not something we can report on without engaging in original ::research, I think, particularly if these things are controversial.--Jimbo Wales 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopedic to include that information? Bad behavior in forums isn't really notable, is it? -Will Beback 18:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of harrasment to protect a person from criticism of his views says somethign signifacnt about both the person and his securtity in his views, IMO. If it is established by verifiable sources that Sarfatti contacted the employers of his critics in ways designed to adversely affect their employment, that would suggest that he does not feel that open debate on the mertits of his views will suffice. It is established that Sarfatti has said that people criticizing him are committing illegal acts by hindering work on US government projects, because he said that on Wikipedia, and at least implied an intention to report such people to US Federal law-enforcemet authorities. If it were establishged that he actually filed such reports that might well be though significant relative to his general credibility and his ability to respond to critics on the merits. DES ^(talk) 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

this edit is an example. DES ^(talk) 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Siegel is simply on a vendetta against Sarfatti because they had angry words over Siegel's personal attacks on him. In fact Siegel never made any competent critiques of Sarfatti's physics ideas. Indeed, if he had, Sarfatti would have welcomed them. Siegel's blatant raw emotional animosity against Sarfatti is certainly not appropriate for the Wiki article. It is clearly Siegel's "original research" motivated by revenge. No reports on any Wiki editors were filed as a matter of fact. Sarfatti never threatened that. If one reads the record, Sarfatti simply noted that USG Intelligence Agencies monitor all of his Internet interactions routinely including this one. That has been happening from day one.

Yeah, whatever. None of this particularly concerns us, frankly. This is an encyclopedia article. --Jimbo Wales 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What Jimbo said. We should be judging what is in the article on the basis of factual accuracy, proper sourcing, NPOV, etc., rather than speculating as to the motives of those who wrote it. *Dan T.* 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. I never threatened to contact FBI about Wiki critics. Threatening letters were mailed from a prison town to me and my friends Sept 17, 2005 and an FBI report was filed about that. By coincidence this nonsense with Wiki started about the same time and there was some speculation that some of the anonymous edits may have also been the writer of those letters sent by ordinary mail. Also I never contacted employers about dismissal of my critics of my personal views and character as distinct from my physics ideas. The mention of "death penalty" was never written by me but by Art Greenfield AKA "AntiGray". Jack Sarfatti Feb 14, 2006.

PS Also DES should also get his facts straight. I welcome scientific discussion. What we are talking about is emotionally based personal attacks on me by Leftists with Mental Disorders many of which make anonymous edits on Wiki. BTW a recent paper of mine endorsed by several mainstream physicists is on the Cornell archive gr-qc Feb 8, 2006 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 . None of the people commenting here are competent to discuss those technical ideas.

Saying that people here have "mental disorders" (are you a psychiatrist who is qualified to make diagnoses?), making unsupported assertions as to their position on the political spectrum, and declaring them "not competent" to discuss something, might be construed as personal attacks. *Dan T.* 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a call for help? It was a JOKE Professor - a JOKE! The allusion is to Michael Savage's book "Liberals with Mental Disorders." I suppose we should change that to "Constipated Intellectuals With Humor Dysfunction"? Jack Sarfatti over and out.

PS Why did Calton remove a URL of a San Francisco Chronicle interview of me? The URL in question is http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL for external links. Last I heard the San Francisco Chronicle is mainstream media, but in the topsy turvy Wiki World alt.kook.net is a more reliable source than the SF Chron? What am I missing here? What's wrong with this picture?

PPS Let's also get something straight. Above I am being blamed for what Art Greenfield AKA Anti-Gray wrote. I am referring to false allegations like "It is established that Sarfatti has said that people criticizing him are committing illegal acts by hindering work on US government projects, because he said that on Wikipedia, and at least implied an intention to report such people to US Federal law-enforcemet authorities." It is not "established" at all because it never happened. Anyone can log in and say they are me.

Why I feel like Saddam Hussein on Trial

Is the comparison not obvious? Kangeroo Court. Not that I think Saddam is a nice guy of course. Obviously due process is impossible in both cases. BTW the beautiful idea of my http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity emerges from the coherent ground state. Now of course to tunnel-visioned hack minds this sounds crazy. It is crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true? The pop book to read about this way of thinking is Robert B.Laughlin's "A Different Universe." Laughlin has a Nobel Prize and is at Stanford.

Jack Sarfatti has been banned by Jimmy Wales from editing in Wikipedia. If you are Sarfatti then please do not continue to participate in violation of our policies. If you are an impostor then please go away. In either case you are not welcome. -Will Beback 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? You should be a prison guard in a concentration camp! You are a humorless small-minded hack Will Beback. How dare you? You should be ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror. This is what you are banning you Stalinist:

discovery of a new form of two-dimensional charged quantum fluid in an external magnetic field perpendicular to the 2D plane that has fractionally charged excitations where electrons stick to quantized magnetic flux quanta. These excitations (quasi-particles) obey a new kind of quantum statistics neither fermion nor boson except for special values of the applied magnetic field.

Laughlin starts from P.W. Anderson's idea "More is different" in which "spontaneous broken symmetry", what Sidney Coleman calls "hidden symmetry" or "secret symmetry" is the universal mechanism for the emergence of qualitatively new forms of organization of matter that is largely independent of the details of the substrate they emerge from. For example in the quantum Hall effect the ratio e^2/h is measured very precisely as long as the sample is large enough. Details of the sample are not that important. The precision disappears when the sample is made too small.

This page is about me and Jiminy Cricket Wales is the real Saddam Hussein here. He has no right to ban me from a discussion of me. That is a violation of my civil rights as an American citizen. What he does have a right to do is to remove all mention of me from sites he controls.

Waldyr Rodrigues

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Smith <f75m17h@mindspring.com> Date: March 2, 2006 10:15:23 PM PST To: walrod@mpc.com.br Cc: czarlosromanov@yahoo.com, sarfatti@pacbell.net, woit@math.columbia.edu, f75m17h@mindspring.com Subject: Waldyr's reply

Waldyr, thanks for your reply a copy of the text of which is set out below my signature. There was a large attachment called THEREVIEW.doc that I was not able to read because it crashed the mac translator that I use for .doc windows documents, so I have not included it and I do not know what it said. From context, I guess that it was a sample of math reviews using "very hard words".

I still stand by my previous message but here are a few additional comments based on your reply:

Pertti Lounesto did in fact point out errors and ambiguities in many math works, such as for example the book Spin Geometry by Lawson and Michelsohn, but he did not use such severely personally abusive terms as "self-delusion", etc.

You are also correct that "very hard words" have been used in criticism of math papers in Math. Rev. and Zentr. fur Math., but I consider such "very hard words" to be a very bad characteristic of the math community, and one that is harmful to progress. (For example, consider the difficulty faced by de Branges in getting recognition of his proof of the Bieberback conjecture.)

However, Jack is NOT writing MATH papers. He is writing PHYSICS papers, and in PHYSICS it is the PHYSICAL IDEAS that are important, far more important than correctable math technical misstatements.

The only PHYSICS criticism that I understand in your criticism of Jack's paper is that you say "... that he deduced Einstein's equations from his theory ... is self delusion or Jack is a great joker ...".

I have discussed that part of Jack's model extensively by e-mail, and it seems to me that his path to Einstein's equations is just as physically realistic as the well-known MacDowell-Mansouri path to Einstein's equations. Therefore, in my opinion, your PHYSICS criticism of Jack's paper is invalid.

Of course, Jack's PHYSICS ideas go beyond the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism in interesting ways that may even allow exploitation of the Dark Energy that constitutes almost 3/4 of the stuff of our universe. Your statement that Dark Energy / Dark Matter "... is simply an hypothesis, and I [Waldyr] am sure it is a very bad one ..." is only an expression of your personal opinion, and therefore is NOT a refutation of Jack's ideas.

It would be a great loss to human culture if math nit-picking "very hard words" impeded the development of physics technologies to control Dark Energy.

Finally, you say "... the 'dozen' ... are important men that ... will not loose the opportunity to ... eventually cause some damage to some of my [Waldyr's] students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I [Waldyr] am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one. ...".

NO !!! I have practiced law (criminal and civil) for decades here in the USA, and I can say that lawsuits are NOT "games ...[as]... ugly" as the game that you and "the 'dozen' ... important men" are playing against Jack.

In a lawsuit, you have a known adversary and you can ask direct questions and the court can compel the adversary to answer the questions. Here, Jack does not know who are "the 'dozen' ... important men" who are acting against him, and you can (and do) refuse to answer the simple, direct questions: Who are they and what have they said ?

So, please do NOT insult the lawyers of the USA by saying that they are on the same low level as you and the others who are attacking Jack.

If this disgusting episode has one silver lining, it is that it makes clear that lawyers are not the lowest scum of the earth, because it is now clear to me that the math/physics community occupies that exceptional place in human society.

Tony

=========================================================

Status: U From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@mpc.com.br> To: "'Tony Smith'" <f75m17h@mindspring.com> Subject: RES: dozen Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:16:24 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mpc.com.br X-ELNK-AV: 0 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Dear Tony,

The "DOZEN", in fact with their jokes[1] only alerted me that something needed to be done.

I do not consider that my paper is a personal attack against Jack, indeed I consider it as an advertisement of a real friend, and indeed if you read my paper carefully you will find that I wrote: '... In any case, we would like that he be aware that in writing it we found also inspiration in Aristotle [who in his Nicomachean Ethics, book 1, Chapter 6 said in a similar situation where he could not agree with the presentations of some of his friends on a given subject that: `...piety requires us to honor truth above our friends'], and also in our (late) friend Pertti Lounesto that enlightened us for many years with his posters on errors and counterexamples to 'theorems´ found in the literature on Clifford algebras.'

Moreover it is quite common for mathematicians to write reviews for Math. Rev. and the Zentr. für Math. denouncing the very bad mathematics of many published papers, and using very hard words. I am sending attached a small sample (read at least the ones written by Dieudonné).

Also, I said to Jack in a previous e-mail: 'Your Mathematics is almost completely wrong, but if your physical ideas are correct, what I doubt, they will be vindicate some of these days, and if this happens I while I am still living I will write a note to my arXiv paper gr-qc/0602111 stating that fact.'

Now, the only physical prediction of Jack's paper is: detectors will not detec dark matter.

Well, a simple explanation for this would be experiment is: dark matter does not exist. And indeed, dark matter and dark energy are 'products' of the supposedly validity of GR for the dynamics of the Universe as a whole. But this is simply an hypothesis, and I am sure it is a very bad one. Indeed, there some more autentic explanations for the phenomena suposedly expalined by the existence of dark matter, as, e..g., the Mond theory (http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue18/Physics_18.htm)

Finally I would like to comment on your stamtent: '2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed, they you will be a hero for protecting the children of the world from "self-delusion" physics.'

I think that with the modern internet the only one that can damage Jack's reputation is himself. This will certainly happen (if it did not already happened) if he continues to write statements like the one that he deduced Einstein's equations from his theory. Or this is self delusion or Jack is a great joker.

Best regards,

Waldyr

[1] As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc. So, the 'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say: you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous? Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one. ...

Mensagem original-----

De: Tony Smith [10] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 1 de março de 2006 19:50 Para: walrod@mpc.com.br Cc: f75m17h@mindspring.com; sarfatti@pacbell.net; woit@math.columbia.edu Assunto: dozen

Waldyr, you say "... I [Waldyr] never said that I was being threatened. ...", and "... I [Waldyr] received dozen of mails >from all around the world asking things like ... If I did not post my notes I would produce real damage to some of my students that are asking for financial support to continue their studies.".

The second quote is obviously a statement of fact that you (and your students) WERE IN FACT BEING THREATENED.

Whether you ever SAID that you were being threatened (that is, the first quote) is irrelevant.

You also said "... of course, I am not going to say to you who wrote to me and what exactly those persons said ...".

Do as you feel is best for your interests, but consider:

1 - The "dozen" who in fact threatened you and your students are using you to attack Jack Sarfatti.

2 - If the attack is successful, and Jack's reputation is destroyed, they you will be a hero for protecting the children of the world from "self-delusion" physics.

3 - However, IF THE ATTACK FAILS AND JACK IS VINDICATED BY HISTORY, then YOU will be seen as one who killed Jack with hemlock and History will condemn you as certainly as those who killed Socrates (to protect the children from his ideas) are now condemned, and IF YOU DO NOT NAME THE "DOZEN", THEY WILL GET OFF SCOT FREE, HAVING HIDDEN BEHIND YOUR NAME, AND ALL OF THE "DOZEN" WILL JOIN IN THE CONDEMNATION OF YOU.

You, Waldyr, should act according to your conscience, but I just want to be sure that you take the above factors into account.

If you decide to send me copies of the messages that you received from the "dozen", I would be happy, but the decision is yours.

Tony

PS - For what it is worth, I am familiar with Jack's physics ideas, and with his limitations in math technicalities, and if I were a betting person I would bet that HISTORY WILL VINDICATE THE SUBSTANCE OF JACK'S PHYSICS IDEAS.

I'm not sure what all that stuff above is supposed to mean, but it's not the place of Wikipedia to either attack or vindicate Mr. Sarfatti, but merely to recount the facts about him and his theories in a neutral manner. *Dan T.* 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of balance. You selectively recount facts harmful to Sarfatti and censor out facts that support Sarfatti. This is obvious to any objectve observer without some personal or political axe to grind. For example Waldyr wrote on March 2, 2006

" I received dozen of mails from all around the world asking things like ... If I did not post my notes I would produce real damage to some of my students that are asking for financial support to continue their studies."

Write Waldyr and he will confirm those are his words. Also Waldyr wrote:

"As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc. So, the 'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say: you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous? Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one."

Now these facts put a very different complexion on the smear you have in Jack's Wiki article. The Australian Green Party Leftist "Rebecca" removed the balancing statement, also a fact, that I put on Jack's page. You should read David Horowitz on Frontpage and "The Professors" to see what is really going on here. ;-)

ID Theft Ambi?

Ambi's Reply "I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Ambi 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)"

In that case my apology. From the history of the Jack Sarfatti page it appeared that you removed some factual material that gave the proper context for Waldyr Rodrigues's remarks cited there. For example Rodrigues wrote: "As you probably know I wrote in the last few years several very critical articles, explicitly saying that their authors did not know what they are talking about, that they used nonsense mathematics, etc. So, the 'dozen' could not leave in blank the opportunity to say: you forgot your Mathematics, etc. Why did I consider this dangerous? Simply because they are important men that in reality did not like me very much ( I have been hard with some of them also ) and I am sure that they will not loose the opportunity to mislead my contact with Jack and eventually cause some damage to some of my students. This is not a very beautiful 'game', of course, but it is a game which is being played since ever. I am quite sure that lawyers play games even ugly than this one."

ID Theft?

So you are not the "Ambi" here 04:13, 15 March 2006 Ambi m (Reverted edits by 71.139.120.94 (talk) to last version by Ambi) The hotlink there is to you.

Hullabaloo

I'm not sure I follow all the hullabaloo going on between personalities at this page, but I think this article definitely needs some serious NPOVing. It sounds a bit rantish against the subject. What kind of intro is this: "a physicist whose reputation for holding controversial and non-mainstream views extends back to the 1970s"? Anyway, whatever the issues going on here, Jack Sarfatti is a brilliant physicist, I have a few of his books on my shelf, and I intend to improve this article in the near future to make it better respresent him. I hope I'm not walking into a landmine here... ; ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you intend to put your view that he is a brilliant physicist on wikipedia, then you are walking into a landmine. The guy is a crackpot, and I'd like to see the article get as close to saying so as our policies allow. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd like to work toward having the article present him fairly. Regardless of personal negative feelings some editors apparently have for him, and whatever personality conflicts are happening here, we need to be neutral and fair and objective. Heck, Albert Einstein was the only graduate in his class who wasn't given a professorship somewhere, he was so disliked by his peers, but he was still brilliant. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If, by "fair", you mean we need to give equal coverage to his status as a crackpot and his status as an honest scientist, then I disagree. We should cover each view according to its prevalence among the scientific community. This is standard Wikipedia NPOV practice. Of course, polling the scientific community to see who thinks he's a crackpot and who thinks he's a real scientist is hard, and we're only supposed to keep views here which can be backed up by published sources. I had some stuff deleted from this article because the sources were not reputable (scientists replying to Sarfatti on USENET). If you want to repurpose this article to prevent a stronger pro-Sarfatti view, you'd better come equipped with a list of reputable published sources, because I will hold you to the same standard of verifiability that was applied to me.

The article probably does need a lot of help, so if you think you can help the article in a way that I (and others) will accept, you're welcome to try. However, your comparison of Sarfatti to Einstein leaves me questioning your own NPOVness and agenda here. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting, I think. All I know is that I've enjoyed reading Jack Sarfatti's books (as an interested layperson), beginning back with Space-Time and Beyond and the others following, and that I have at least two other books which praise his work and expertise. This article recently came to my attention when I was defending Wikipedia to a friend of mine in the scientific community (unrelated to anyone involved here, as far as I am aware) who pointed to this article as an example of why Wikipedia has no credibility in the science community. He said Wikipedia is unreliable and unprofessional and appears heavily influenced by vendetta. After reading this article myself, I actually felt embarrassed. So my "agenda" here is to attempt to improve this article and bring it up to an encylopedic standard in order to redeem Wikipedia's reputation. I realize that when the subject of an article shows up at his own article, Wikipedians tend to react negatively. It appears to me that is what has happened here. I also think that editors who are Jack's enemies and/or friends will not be able to edit objectively. It would be best if all who have a personal connection with Jack (negatively or positively, meaning perhaps you and others on this page) refrain from editing this article and let a neutral editor with no pony in the race have a whack at it for awhile. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article was a lot more malicious toward Sarfatti before Sarfatti himself arrived here. Sarfatti made legal threats here and got himself banned, but he also cajoled Jimbo himself to come here and remove some material, as I told you earlier. Now, as far as my vested interest here, let me tell you that I have never met Sarfatti, and the first time I ever interacted with him is here on Wikipedia, so I don't see myself as having a vested interest here. However, you don't have to ask me to back of from contributing to the article, because I'm not going to contribute to this article anyway. But I did mean what I said before: the guy is a crackpot, and his work is not accepted by the scientific community. I have defended other science articles like Bell's theorem, quantum mechanics, Dayton Miller and Robert Shankland from encroaching crackpot apologetics, and I intend to do the same here. A lot of people in my department think wikipedia is not serious, like your friend does. When they point to articles which contain wrong science (like the claim that relativity was disproved by Miller), or an article that claims that a person who publishes pseudoscience is a brilliant physicist (like any implication in this article that Sarfatti's work is accepted by the scientific community), then I get embarrassed, and I have to remove it. On this point, I'm fairly inflexible. To summarize, Sarfatti's work is outside mainstream physics, and any implication otherwise will require just as many reputable published sources backing it up as I was asked to provide. If you have those reputable published sources which claim that Sarfatti's work is mainstream physics, then please, bring it here, and let's have a look. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I see that Jack Sarfatti is published in respected peer reviewed journals, and as they are a little beyond my reach, it will take some effort (which I'm willing to put forth) for me to gather the responses to his papers. The books I have in my possession commenting on Jack, however, are directed more down on my level as a layperson. The first is a book from many years ago, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, for which Gary Zukav points to Jack Sarfatti as the main inspiration, the epitomy of a "dancing wu li master", which helped introduce quantum physics to interested nonscientists like me. The other book I have on my shelf is very recent, by Colm Kelleher and "eight-time Emmy-Award winning journalist" George Knapp, Hunt for the Skinwalker which addresses the very bias many scientists (I'm assuming like you) hold, namely that scientific study of anomalies is somehow not applying "mainstream" science. Kelleher and Knapp quote one of my heroes Thomas Kuhn and applies the title of "revolutionary scientist" to scientists like Jack. Some quotes from the book:

"It might sound like science fiction, but attempts to relate current physics theories to observed anomalous phenomena are being presented at conferences and published in scientific journals by physicists such as Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, Bernard Haisch, Michio Kaku, Beatriz Gato-Rivera, Jack Sarfatti, and others." (p. 237)

"There is a distinction between 'normal science' and 'revolutionary science'. In his controversial book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn argued that the majority of scientists engage in normal science. They stand on the shoulders of giants from the previous generations and rarely make giant leaps forward. Kuhn writes, 'Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory, and when successful, finds none. New and unsuspected phenomena are, however, repeatedly uncovered by scientific research and radical new theories have again and again been invented by scientists...Discovery commences with awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern science.'" (p. 259)

The book then goes on to describe how revolutionaries like John Mack, a brilliant Harvard psychiatrist and Pullitzer Prize winner was nearly run out of academia when his alleged interest in alien abductions became common knowledge. It took Alan Dershowitz coming to his defense to survive his inquisition by the university.

My point is that your POV that scientists who study anomalies are "crackpots" is only one POV held by a certain segment of the scientific community; there is another segment that holds that scientists (like Jack) are revolutionary scientists who are the potential paradigm overthrowers, who aren't afraid to challenge the current paradigm which is unable so far to provide answers. Both POVs concerning Jack's work should be described accurately (and without vitriol?) in the article. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that some journalists think that Sarfatti is a pioneer in his field, but I don't think practicing physicists think it. If you want to add stuff to the effect that nontechnical journalists consider him pioneering, I will qualify it as such. Also, it's not because he investigates "anomolous" phenomena (like telepathy) that I think he's a crackpot (though that certainly doesn't help), rather it's because of what I've read of his work in other areas. See for example this. Or his amusing new "string theory" paper, linked below. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Boy, you're quick. Well my edit got messed up, so I'm fixing. It may be a few days before I'm able to respond. I'll check out your links. Colm Kelleher btw is a research scientist, not a journalist, just clarifying. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert Space Article

What sentences in Sarfatti's Hilbert Space article prove that Sarfatti is a "crackpot"? Remember that article was intended for a non-technical audience. What remarks in Sarfatti's ENDORSED String Theory paper prove that he is a "crackpot"? If you Lethe are going to make such personal attacks without identifying yourself, you should be prepared to defend them with details if you are an intellectually honest scientist/mathematician. Also technical errors that may or may not be in those two papers do not imply crackpottery. For the historical record since History is being made here. Here is an example of what "Lethe" considers "crackpot":

bcc On Mar 18, 2006, at 2:49 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 3/18/2006 1:21:12 AM Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes: Do you mean the closed inexact 2-form? You mean the LHS correct?

"The LHS is the pullback of the Spherical Coordinate mapping {R, Theta, Phi} to the "cartesian" coordinates formulated as the functions phi1,phi2,phi3.

phi1 = R sin(Phi) cos(Theta) phi2 = R sin(Phi) sin(Theta) phi3 = R cos(Phi)

Note that (phi1)^2+(phi2)^2+(phi3)^2 is constrained to be equal to R^2 The map fails to be diffeomorphic at R = 0, which is the source of the topological defect."

Yes, well that's fine and elementary analytic geometry on the S2 vacuum manifold. In 3D physical space, the shape of the locus of minima of the scalar field potential happens to have the same topology as the surrounding surface of the defect in physical space. For a STABLE defect of non-trivial homotopy

d' + r + 1 = d

d' = dimension of defect in physical space of dimension d

r = dimension of subspace of physical space that surrounds the defect in physical space.

r + 1 = number of real "Higgs-type" scalar field components of the local ODLRO order parameter that support the stability of the defect in physical space.

r = dimension of locus of minima of the manifold of degenerate order parameters = number of independent Goldstone phases when r > 0 so I guess this is ACCIDENTAL?

For example, if d = 3

Choose d' = 0, i.e. a point monopole defect in physical space.

There is only 1 unique surrounding surface of that stable defect in physical space i.e. r = 2 S2 in physical space i.e. 2 Goldstone phases Theta & Phi with the vacuum manifold S2.

Therefore phi1, phi2,phi3

Same S2 in both physical space and vacuum manifold fiber - though they are very different ideas.

Similarly if d' = 1 a vortex line defect in physical space, r = 1 i.e. phi1 & phi2, a single Goldstone phase Theta and S1 for both surrounding surface in physical space and for vacuum manifold fiber.

Now what happens in d = 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 ... I don't know off-hand - one needs to look at the homotopy groups.

One point of my paper is that d = 11 & d = 10 are natural from the POV of local gauging of the Poincare space-time symmetry group i.e. equivalence principle in full glory

I am not saying one can immediately deduce all the Calabi-Yau structure from that alone, but WHY 6D pops out naturally in sense of equivalence principle as the key organizing idea!

Anytime I see "closed inexact p-form" I think "Bohm-Aharonov effect"! Coupled with single-valued order parameter, I think "quantization of the relevant deRham integral" that has physical meaning as a Bohr-Sommerfeld constraint.

i.e. the sin|Phi|d(|Theta|)/\(d|Phi|) expression? Right? The RHS is OK that's from Baez's book.

"Gee Jack, I know that I have sent you emails regarding hedgehog fields, etc. over the years. I have not read the Baez book, nor do I have access to it here in the Provence. Can you tell me, Does it give a constructive proof for all singular (closed but not exact) p-forms?"

No, it would be worth you publishing a table of them from d = 11 on down. I mean not buried in a larger paper.

"However, I have shown how to construct the closed but not exact 2-form (which I emailed to you). The methods to construct ANY closed but not exact p form appears in my book Vol1 chapter 8: Kiehn, R. M. (2004) Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, "Non-Equilibrium Systems and Irreversible Processes Vol 1" http://www.lulu.com/kiehn Print on Demand books published by Lulu Enterprises, Inc. 3131 RDU Center, Suite 210, Morrisville, NC 27560 I have used these topological techniques over the years in several publications, but more directed to the applied physics - engineering arena of hydrodynamics and plasmas."

The LHS I got from Waldyr's paper essentially. It's tentative and I am not happy with it.

"IT is OK, but IMO it is deceptive for it utilizes cyclic functions, that mask the singularity."

What I am pointing to is that such a closed inexact 2-form that is physically a GMD area flux density exists from the 3 real scalar inflation field components that fit into spacelike surfaces and allow stable point defects.

"There are other types of stable singularities, such as distributed singularities that cause tangential discontinuities. This comes from the theory of Dynamical Systems. These singularities are also recognizable from the general idea that such objects are related to p-forms which are homogeneous of degree zero."

Perhaps that sort of generalization will be relevant to Calabi-Yau structure when d = 10?

On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:

" Jack, your formula (0.1) is acceptable, but remember that the RHS involves coordinates that are not cyclic, where the LHS is in terms of cyclic coordinates, obtained from the coordinate map {R,THETA, PHI} to {phi1, phi2 ,phi3}. with R^2=phi1^2+phi2^2+phi3^2 see detail above in my first paragraph."

Well you can say the same thing about the S1 formula that I got straight from John Baez.

i.e. dTheta = [psi1(dpsi2) - psi2(dpsi1)]/(psi1^2 + psi2^2)

"YES, the symbolism d(Theta) appears as if is exact. But Theta is NOT an arbitrary function, it is a cyclic function that is not defined globally. The notation in terms of cyclic functions masks the singularity. Note that the general formula for a closed but not exact 1-form is : . A_closed = [psi1(d(psi2)) - psi2(d(psi1))]/(a (psi1)^m + b (psi2)^m)^(2/m) . where a and b are constants of any sign, and m is any integer.

d(A_closed) = 0, mod the singularity points.

Jack, If you had read Chapter 8 vol 1 you would have seen the way to write examples of closed but not exact p-forms, for any p-forms, that yield deRham period integrals (quantized closed forms). I applied these concepts to the more mundane fields of hydrodyamics and electromagnetism in the 80's and 90's when I was interested in turbulence and irreversible dynamics with "emergent" coherent defect structures that appear in fluid flows. I demonstrated the emergence of several such macroscopic objects as solutions to the Navier - Stokes equations. The discovery of the topological defects in fluids that I have called Falaco Solitons (1986) greatly stimulated my work in the area of topological singularities. and continuous topological evolution.

There was even one application to QM, where the topologically quantized 3 forms played a role. The importance of the closed but not exact N-1 = 3 form A^G was first anticipated in: R. M. Kiehn and J. F. Pierce, An Intrinsic Transport Theorem Phys. Fluids 12, 1971. The concept was further employed in R. M. Kiehn, Periods on manifolds, quantization and gauge, J. of Math Phys 18 no. 4 p. 614 (1977), when the 3-form A^F was recognized. QM applications are described in R. M. Kiehn, Are there three kinds of superconductivity, Int. J. Mod. Phys B 5 1779. (1991) The spherical coordinate map to cartesian 3D is singular at R = 0. Hence that is the singular point that must be removed. Why the three functions on the RHS must be Goldstone bosons is not clear to me. However, that is the impression I got from your first reading."

That's simply a matter of clarifying the informal language.

I never wrote that. You are reading things into that that I did not intend. It's standard text book that 3 real scalar fields in 3D space have S2 vacuum manifold with 2 independent Goldstone phases (2 Goldstone bosons) using the standard Mexican Hat potential. The stable defect is a monopole i.e. point defect.

"Topological methods can lead to an equivalent field structure to the monpole, but the monopole does not exist. Instead, it is excised out as a topological hole."

Yes of course.

Two real scalar fields only give a line defect with 1 Goldstone boson.

A single real scalar field gives a wall defect. Details are in the Toulouse reference in the paper.

"This sort of stuff (without the QM lyric) was used by Kondo during and just before WWII to explain Dislocation theory. I have used the ideas to describe circulation dislocations in fluid flow (not crystals) produced by airfoils. The reason I state this is to emphasize that the topological period integral techniques are not based upon microphysical quantum arguments. They apply at all scales. The homogeneity of degree zero condition means that period integrals are independent of a choice of scale."

Well yes, that is certainly part of my point in talking about emergent macro-quantum theory to explain the huge scale of the megaverse of parallel pocket universes populating the zero point energy /\ landscape with extra-dimensional Calabi-Yau "hair" as it were giving the populated 10^500 valleys of the the landscape in the eternal inflation scenario of Susskind. With signal nonlocality we do not have to wait forever to detect the landscape outside our Hubble and/or observer-dependent horizons because information in form of locally decodable signals is not limited to lightlike and timelike worldlines. Write up a paper for archive with the correct formula - just don't use insulting language like "delusion" like Waldyr did.

"see http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/cosmosarxiv.pdf which will appear as gr-qc/0603072"

Is that a historical first for the archive? Waldyr did write he did under pressure from powerful people who do not like him anyway and who threatened his students - a remarkable admission for history of physics.

"I think that such pressures on Rodrigues are just AWFUL."

But a fact of life. As money dries up people get panicky and desperate like too many rats in a cage. Meantime he should temper his comments in a revised version like George Ellis did for Leonard Susskind. I never claimed that all the math in that paper is completely rigorously correct in final form - it's pointing to an important physical insight is my claim.

" You might find interest in http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/cosmosarxiv.pdf which will appear as gr-qc/0603072

Who exactly is Lethe?

What is "crackpot" in Sarfatti's http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 ? What are Lethe's degrees in physics etc? What's his CV that makes him competent to make such a harsh judgment on a public figure with a PhD in physics from the University of California whose views are taken seriously at very high levels of the USG Intelligence-Defense Community?

I wonder whom you are addressing? I doubt anyone else reading this will know my real identity. If you want to know that, you'll have to ask me. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Lethe, you wrote " John Baez. My favorite mathematician and personal hero." It is well known that John Baez has a strong personal issue with Jack Sarfatti that is at least ten years old and obviously you are a student of Baez's. You are a mathematician not a physicist. There is an important difference there. BTW Baez's vendetta against Sarfatti is not reciprocated by Sarfatti. :-)

Lethe you really seem to have a bug up your bottom personally against Jack Sarfatti. It's obvious and if you had any real intellectual integrity you would recuse yourself. What's your problem? Did you ever meet Sarfatti in person? Did he insult you in some way? Or have you forgotten? :-)

I don't think I can debate with you whether you yourself are a crackpot without violation of WP:NPA. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You Lethe have already violated every canon of professional ethics in your vague smears without any details hiding under the rock of anonymity. Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency? Apparently not.

Is Jack Sarfatti a "crackpot" because?

re: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022

1. His views on paranormal phenomena?

2. His views on alien extra-terrestrials?

3. His politics?

4. His physics ideas such as

4a. Einstein's gravity emergent from the inflation field?

4b. Signal nonlocality as the essential signature of life?

If not any of the above then what?

Note 1 on the archive paper: Asking why you get a defect there is asking why you get a snow crystal of some particular shape in a snow storm i.e. contingent accident of history. The homotopy tells you why some kinds of defects are stable. You have been confusing the order parameter manifold fiber space with coordinate patches in the base space. In 3D space, the surface in physical space that surrounds the location of the defect in physical space has the same topology as the order parameter manifold and this has added to your confusion. For example, S1 for line vortex with 2 real scalar field order parameter in 3D space and S2 for point defect with 3 real scalar field order parameter in 3D space.

On Mar 18, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Paul the PHYSICAL MEANING of R = 0 here is R(x,y ...) = 0 where R is the amplitude of the ODLRO physical field. It has nothing to do with setting up a spherical coordinate system in flat 3D space. You have no physical sense of what the problem is here.

"So you are saying that when he wrote"

"The LHS is the pullback of the Spherical Coordinate mapping {R, Theta, Phi} to the "cartesian" coordinates formulated as the functions phi1,phi2,phi3.

phi1 = R sin(Phi) cos(Theta) phi2 = R sin(Phi) sin(Theta) phi3 = R cos(Phi)

Note that (phi1)^2+(phi2)^2+(phi3)^2 is constrained to be equal to R^2 The map fails to be diffeomorphic at R = 0, which is the source of the topological defect."

"Kiehn was not talking about a coordinate map? That when he writes "Spherical Coordinate mapping", he is not talking about spherical coordinates? That when he says that the map from "Spherical Coordinates to 'cartesian coordinates' fails to be diffeomorphic", he is not talking about a coordinate map at all? That R is not mathematically a polar coordinate at all? At any level?"

Paul formally it's the same, but PHYSICALLY it's completely different! You are not grasping a fundamental idea here.

phi1 = R sin(Phi) cos(Theta) phi2 = R sin(Phi) sin(Theta) phi3 = R cos(Phi)

Are for local order parameter c-number ODLRO fields in a fiber space over a base space-time x,y,z,t ! That is,

phi1(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) sin(Phi(x,y,z,t)) cos(Theta(x,y,z,t)) phi2(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) sin(Phi(x,y,z,t)) sin(Theta(x,y,z,t)) phi3(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) cos(Phi(x,y,z,t))

A defect is defined by

R(x,y,z,t) = 0

The locus of points (x,y,z,t) in space-time where R = 0 is the domain of support of the defect. The relevant homotopy group determines the shape of this domain of support.

e.g. for 2 real scalar fields it's the first homotopy group that is non-trivial giving a space curve, i.e. world sheet of the defect in spacetime. For 3 real scalar fields its the second homotopy group that is nontrivial giving a point in space, i.e. a world line in space-time.

Superfluid helium and superconductors have 2 real scalar fields. The EM Bohm-Aharonov effect corresponds to this - even at microquantum level the wave function is 2 real scalar fields in NRQM where solid state physics is done.

I have been doing loop quantum gravity without loop quantum gravity using 3 scalar fields in 3 + 1 GMD (Geometrodynamics) that is a projection down from possibly as much as 10 scalar fields. The scalar fields come from spontaneously breaking or hiding symmetries. We have both internal symmetries and space-time symmetries. There is also the local gauging.

The Einstein equivalence principle is simply a special case of the local gauging of space-time symmetries in general.

If we locally gauge the Lorentz space-time symmetry group we get 6 torsion field component 1-form gauge potentials. If we also hide that local gauge symmetry we get 6 Goldstone phases that require. I posit 2 more Goldstone phases from hiding some internal symmetry from the pre-inflation false vacuum because IF I do that I get Einstein's 1915 GR emergent tetrad fields in a consistent BOOTSTRAP manner. Eight Goldstone phases are a vacuum manifold from 9 real scalar ODLRO local c-number post-inflation vacuum coherent order parameter fields. The 6 Goldstone phases seem to correspond to the 6 degrees of freedom of Calabi-Yau. The mass gaps from the 6 torsion fields eating the 6 Goldstone phases is Calabi-Yau compactification.

The two effective Goldstone phases in the 3+1 spacetime base space are

Theta = |Theta^a| a = 0,1,2,3

Phi = |Phi^a|

the a-metric is Minkowski

Theta & Phi timelike are real, i.e. spherical S2 "elliptic" vacuum manifold fiber

Theta & Phi spacelike are imaginary, i.e. 1 + 1 hyperbolic vacuum manifold fiber

On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:59 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Asking why you get a defect there is asking why you get a snow crystal of some particular shape in a snow storm i.e. contingent accident of history. The homotopy tells you why some kinds of defects are stable. You have been confusing the order parameter manifold fiber space with coordinate patches in the base space. In 3D space, the surface in physical space that surrounds the location of the defect in physical space has the same topology as the order parameter manifold and this has added to your confusion. For example, S1 for line vortex with 2 real scalar field order parameter in 3D space and S2 for point defect with 3 real scalar field order parameter in 3D space.

On Mar 18, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Paul the PHYSICAL MEANING of R = 0 here is R(x,y ...) = 0 where R is the amplitude of the ODLRO physical field. It has nothing to do with setting up a spherical coordinate system in flat 3D space. You have no physical sense of what the problem is here.

"So you are saying that when he wrote

'The LHS is the pullback of the Spherical Coordinate mapping {R, Theta, Phi} to the "cartesian" coordinates formulated as the functions phi1,phi2,phi3.

phi1 = R sin(Phi) cos(Theta) phi2 = R sin(Phi) sin(Theta) phi3 = R cos(Phi)

Note that (phi1)^2+(phi2)^2+(phi3)^2 is constrained to be equal to R^2 The map fails to be diffeomorphic at R = 0, which is the source of the topological defect.'

Kiehn was not talking about a coordinate map? That when he writes "Spherical Coordinate mapping", he is not talking about spherical coordinates? That when he says that the map from "Spherical Coordinates to 'cartesian coordinates' fails to be diffeomorphic", he is not talking about a coordinate map at all? That R is not mathematically a polar coordinate at all? At any level?"

Paul formally it's the same, but PHYSICALLY it's completely different! You are not grasping a fundamental idea here.

phi1 = R sin(Phi) cos(Theta) phi2 = R sin(Phi) sin(Theta) phi3 = R cos(Phi)

Are for local order parameter c-number ODLRO fields in a fiber space over a base space-time x,y,z,t ! That is,

phi1(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) sin(Phi(x,y,z,t)) cos(Theta(x,y,z,t)) phi2(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) sin(Phi(x,y,z,t)) sin(Theta(x,y,z,t)) phi3(x,y,z,t) = R(x,y,z,t) cos(Phi(x,y,z,t))

A defect is defined by

R(x,y,z,t) = 0

The locus of points (x,y,z,t) in space-time where R = 0 is the domain of support of the defect. The relevant homotopy group determines the shape of this domain of support.

e.g. for 2 real scalar fields it's the first homotopy group that is non-trivial giving a space curve, i.e. world sheet of the defect in spacetime. For 3 real scalar fields its the second homotopy group that is nontrivial giving a point in space, i.e. a world line in space-time.

Superfluid helium and superconductors have 2 real scalar fields. The EM Bohm-Aharonov effect corresponds to this - even at microquantum level the wave function is 2 real scalar fields in NRQM where solid state physics is done.

I have been doing loop quantum gravity without loop quantum gravity using 3 scalar fields in 3 + 1 GMD (Geometrodynamics) that is a projection down from possibly as much as 10 scalar fields. The scalar fields come from spontaneously breaking or hiding symmetries. We have both internal symmetries and space-time symmetries. There is also the local gauging.

The Einstein equivalence principle is simply a special case of the local gauging of space-time symmetries in general.

If we locally gauge the Lorentz space-time symmetry group we get 6 torsion field component 1-form gauge potentials. If we also hide that local gauge symmetry we get 6 Goldstone phases that require. I posit 2 more Goldstone phases from hiding some internal symmetry from the pre-inflation false vacuum because IF I do that I get Einstein's 1915 GR emergent tetrad fields in a consistent BOOTSTRAP manner. Eight Goldstone phases are a vacuum manifold from 9 real scalar ODLRO local c-number post-inflation vacuum coherent order parameter fields. The 6 Goldstone phases seem to correspond to the 6 degrees of freedom of Calabi-Yau. The mass gaps from the 6 torsion fields eating the 6 Goldstone phases is Calabi-Yau compactification.

The two effective Goldstone phases in the 3+1 spacetime base space are

Theta = |Theta^a| a = 0,1,2,3

Phi = |Phi^a|

the a-metric is Minkowski

Theta & Phi timelike are rea,l i.e. spherical S2 "elliptic" vacuum manifold fiber

Theta & Phi spacelike are imaginary, i.e. 1 + 1 hyperbolic vacuum manifold fiber

On Mar 19, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Mar 19, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you ask "... why some kinds of defects are stable ..." and mention "... the order parameter manifold ...".

"Are you going to relate this stuff to singularity theory ? In other words, do your defects correspond to the singularities of catastrophe theory?"

I don't know. There is a lot of literature on that.

"If so, Saul-Paul is very expert on the subject, and if you want an introductory book you might look at Catastrophe Theory for Scientists and Engineers, by Robert Gilmore (Dover 1993) and there are also (less introductory) Singularities of Differentiable Maps, Volume I, by V. I. Arnold, S. M. Gusein-Zade, A. N. Varchenko (Birkhauser 1985) and Geometric Differentiation, by Ian Porteous (Cambridge 1994)."

I don't have time to do that. If you find out let me know. I have Mermin's classic 1979 RMP paper but have not read it yet.

Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory Without Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory?

Paul, FORMALLY the defects are defects because the CLOSED INEXACT CARTAN p-FORMS that represent them have RESONANCE DENOMINATORS that explode at R(x,y,z,t) = 0 making the effective domain of the DeRham period integrals not simply connected i.e. discrete non-trivial homotopy winding numbers from single-valuedness of the the set {R(x,y,z,t), Theta^a(x,y,z,t), Phi^a(x,y,z,t}. Now Kiehn seems to have general formulae for closed inexact p-forms for any dimension d of space even d = 10, 11? i.e. R(xi,t) where i ranges say up to 11. I have only been talking of the 3D base space foliation of 3 + 1 space-time to get Loop Quantum Gravity Without Loop Quantum Gravity i.e. a closed inexact GMD AREA FLUX DENSITY 2-FORM with a quantized DeRham period integral from surrounded point defects whose winding (wrapping) numbers are the surface Bekenstein-Hawking BITS with world holography obviously built in since the d(Area Flux Density 2-FORM) = VOLUME FLUX DENSITY 3-FORM is LOCALLY ZERO just like F = dA in Bohm-Aharonov effect in EM or like v = (h/m)dTheta in neutral superfluid helium all for closed inexact 1-forms. Now that's my simple PHYSICAL IDEA here. How to make it "rigorous" mathematically is secondary and obviously can be done as a mop-up operation.

Now as to:

The two effective Goldstone phases in the 3+1 spacetime base space are

Theta = |Theta^a| a = 0,1,2,3

Phi = |Phi^a|

the a-metric is Minkowski

Theta & Phi timelike are rea,l i.e. spherical S2 "elliptic" vacuum manifold fiber

Theta & Phi spacelike are imaginary, i.e. 1 + 1 hyperbolic vacuum manifold fiber

This last statement begins to look like the string theory world sheet fiber - doesn't it?

"Crackpot" is a term of abuse

Humorous but inappropriate material moved to Wikipedia:BJAODN 42: The Answer to Bad Jokes, the Universe, and Other Deleted Nonsense. -Will Beback 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Amusing"? Hardly unless one is a sadistic sociopath. "Inappropriate" yes because they were factually false slanders indicating abnormal sociopathy in the writer of them hiding under anonymity whilst assassinating Sarfatti's character.

Let us be clear that in the scientific world "crackpot" is a term of abuse. It has the same force as when in the political world Senator Joe McCarthy called people "Communist", "Fellow Traveller", "Red" etc. Or when the Nazis and the Islamofascists use "Zionist" etc., or when the Ku Klux Klan use "nigger", "kike" etc. So let's be clear about that. There are pseudo-scientists of course, but if one professional accuses another of being so and then hides behind anonymity and refuses to justify vague smears with details presented in a professional way, then that person is guilty of a severe breach of ethics at the very least.

The "Death Penalty" Big Lie again

Apparently the text to which the remarks below are addressed have been removed or warped to a pocket parallel universe next door? Again a lie. Sarfatti NEVER threatened the "death penalty" That was Art Greenfield? who goes under the alias "Antigray" who used those words. Sarfatti never did. That's the same kind of lie that John Baez has spread about Sarfatti and Gell-Mann in the elevator. The elevator incident was with Ed Siegel and Gell-Mann that Sarfatti told as a funny story. Baez substituted Sarfatti's name for Seigel's. Hardly evidence. The above is all smear. Real evidence of scientific crackpottery would be a professional discussion of detailed statements that Sarfatti makes about physics. BTW technical errors in physics do not imply crackpottery. The usual physics crackpot says Einstein's theories are wrong. Does Sarfatti? NO! The usual physics crackpot says quantum theory is wrong. Does Sarfatti? NO! So let's start there. What specific sentences in the two articles cited by Lethe above are evidence that Sarfatti is a crackpot? Start there. Justify your vicious smears with evidence. On Sarfatti's experience in http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html that is part of a pattern involving many people including a high-level retired CIA officer and the high strangeness around Uri Geller. That story is in Sarfatti's book "Destiny Matrix." It's a true story and if your fearful mind cannot accept it without you spewing bile that's your problem. Sarfatti's reaction to cowards who hide behind anonymity to vilify him and assassinate his character as several of you are obviously doing is sufficient reason for him to get angry at you.

Some Progress?

OK so one of you Inquistors says that Sarfatti's story of his strange 1953 contact and what happened 20 years later with a lot of famous people including some important CIA people makes him a "crackpot." Is that a correct description of the evidence against Sarfatti so far? Yes? No?

Antigray

Sarfatti has been accused of making statements actually made by Antigray. For the record: Nick Pope on Art Bell now - very interesting. Tizard started UK MOD UFO program in 1950 under Churchill - monitoring metallic craft - not just lights in sky. Art Bell mentions silent large black triangle craft that he witnessed near Area 51. Nick Pope - light beam scanning ground & low hum from the craft 20 mph floating then takes off high speed - from military observers. Close to April 1 1990 correlates with a Belgium AF observation 3 years earlier. Any odd reports April 1 would be dismissed as spoof of course. Pope got no cooperation from USG even when he was at MOD working on UFOs. Pope still works for UK MOD. The silent hypersonic triangle craft are not USG nor UK Nick Pope says. They are ET. USG responses generally lame and no one believes them, e.g. explaining SILENT triangle craft as "C 130" or Randelsham as a "light house.."

Begin forwarded message:

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net From: antigray@cs.com SERPO Story Exposed Hi Jack, I dug up our previous information about Victior Martinez and am sending it to the list members, along with information from Bill Hamilton about the science fiction writer that originally wrote the Serpo story. Lets hope this expose puts an end to this big waste of time. From now on if anyone receives further spam from Martinez, they can just delete it. A few people have unsubscribed already because of Victor's continual spamming. Art

Hi Group, Using Victor Martinez as a source throws up a lot of red flags, literally, as he works under red flags, being an admitted communist agitator. For 7 months last year he and a small group of other communist radicals invaded Dr. Jack Sarfatti's open list of physicists who are working on advanced weapons and propulsion projects for the USG and attacked the members and their work with nasty comments, communist spam propaganda, etc. I personally spent a lot of time counterattacking them as soon as they posted their propaganda and attacks and exposing who they were and what they were doing so that the productive members of the group did not have to waste their time answering them. They finally gave up after I bitchslapped them day after day. The following is some emails between myself and Dr. Jack Sarfatti when Martinez stopped his attacks on the physicists and instead got into the disinformation game with the phony SERPO stories. Art Greenfield

Date: 12/7/2005 5:46:46 PM Eastern Standard Time From: ANTIGRAY To: sarfatti@pacbell.net Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:59:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes: Subj: Re: Whole Lot Of Disinforming Going On? Date:12/7/2005 10:59:55 AM Eastern Standard Time From:sarfatti@pacbell.net To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Ryan is coming to my office tomorrow. I did not know about his Werner connection. I knew Werner very well - story is in my book. Thanks for the heads up! Bill was on George Noory last night. Listen to the program on the WEB. On Dec 7, 2005, at 12:49 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack, When Mr. Ryan comes to your office, ask him for Victor Martinez's contact information. Once we have that I can get him checked out and find out who he is and what his game is, just like I did with his doper buddy Dennis Myrtzyk. I'm surprised that Ryan did not background check Martinez before he went on the radio and spread the Serpo story. Maybe it is all an organized disinfo campaign run by useful and useless idiots. Art

=========

Hi Jack, We can't forget Victor Martinez: What's wrong with this picture? LOL From serpo site:

1) Information released by Anonymous , exactly as originally posted. Some comments in [square brackets] were added by the moderator, Victor Martinez, and have been retained. Uncorrected typos have also been retained. Martinez, however, corrected many typos and grammatical errors before posting, and states that he has done some “cutting and pasting” of the information supplied directly to him by Anonymous ; therefore the information is not exactly as originally written. As more information becomes available, this section will be kept fully updated.

Jack, Since Victor is an admitted communist agitator and drug user, why would any military insider give him highly classified information? Then why would he release it to professional physicists like yourself to help the American defense establishment? I smell a rat. Art

Subj: Re: C2C Date: 12/7/2005 5:03:04 PM Eastern Standard Time From: ANTIGRAY To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Subj: Re: C2C Date: 12/7/2005 11:04:40 AM Eastern Standard Time From: sarfatti@pacbell.net To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com

yes I missed part of it - fell asleep. Write up your commentary for the list. On Dec 7, 2005, at 12:11 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack, Are you listening to the BS on C2C? Art

=====

Hi Jack, If anybody wants to hear that C2C show, in most radio markets it is usually rerun just before the new Coast To Coast show for the day. Check the radio schedules in your area. You didn't miss anything by falling asleep except maybe some aggravation. I bet Victor Martinez and his cronies are laughing their asses off at George Noory, Bill Ryan, for being gullible enough to believe the material he gave them and for putting it on the air. It is a major coup for the disinformationalists. They are probably getting drunk and stoned in celebration right now: WE DID IT COMRADES. WE FOOLED THOSE AMERICAN ASSCLOWNS. Rick Doty said there was a SIMILAR story that leaked out about 20 years ago about an "exchange program." No details were ever released. Whether the current story of exchange was the same or just a made up coincidence could not be determined. Bill Ryan could only repeat the information found on the Serpo website. He could not elaborate on anything when asked because he said what's on the site was all the information he had to work with. He said Mr. Anonymous had promised to give Victor Martinez more of the story over the next few weeks. Victor and his cohorts are probably getting stoned as we speak for inspiration to write more. Does anyone really think that a retired military person in their right mind would hand over classified information to a degenerate admitted commie pothead like Victor Martinez? Victor should plagiarize some good science fiction so that the Serpo story installment reads better. No mentally competent ex-military person would write crappy amateurish reports like that. The military personnel supposedly sent to Serpo would have been top notch personnel, with a mission to observe and report what was on the alien planet. They would have all been trained to use a common military report format. Let's say they had to write a report about their observations as they tested an alien aircraft's capabilities on the planet Serpo as part of their mission to learn what we need to know. They would have written up what they observed in their respective disciplines along typical lines as follows as an example:

What Characterizes a Good Report? A good report is clear, concise, well-organized, timely, and provides a complete and balanced assessment. Style. Clarity and brevity are critical. Avoid long-winded, rambling narratives. Make your point and get out. Avoid being "tutorial"—assume the reader has a technical background, but knows little or nothing about your particular article. Do not waste his or her time with general background about basic principles or information that is universally true of all systems of the type tested; keep your discussion focused on results related to the test item specifically. At the same time, since not all your readers are specifically aeronautical engineers, avoid the use of highly technical jargon (especially in the summary and evaluation sections of the report). Plain language will result in the least misunderstanding. This proscription does not apply to the Supporting Data sub-section, which is written for engineering personnel and can be as technical as necessary to make the point. Organization. Because of the varied backgrounds and interests of your readers, the organization of the report should be clear and hierarchical, allowing each reader to find the specific type of information he/she needs. Extremely detailed descriptions of system design, data, and problem analysis disrupt the flow and may be considered distractions by high-level managers who are more interested in the "bottom line." Consideration should be given to placing these data in appendices or publishing them in separate archival reports. Completeness. Ideally, the test team will report only on characteristics and conditions which influenced the test and on both expected and unexpected results. In this way, all information in the report will be both necessary and sufficient to document the study. The goal is to create a report from which the reader could re-create your test and attain the same results. The idea of sufficiency is clear enough, but the idea of necessity is more subtle. For example, when conducting a performance flight test, details of the engine and its installation (normally aspirated, turbo-charged, type of prop, etc.) are important. When conducting a handling-qualities flight test, however, engine information is far less critical. Thus, while the engine may be a turbo-charged, eight-cylinder engine driving a four-bladed prop, including this information in the handling qualities report is not necessary. Balance. A well-written report provides a balanced assessment of the test item. While it is recognized that favorable aspects of test system performance usually require less verbiage to relate than do deficiencies, the balance of good and bad news must be consistent with the overall assessment. Mixed messages are sent when a writer provides a single sentence reflecting an overall favorable evaluation, followed by endless pages of discussion of undesirable characteristics. Be fair, be neither an antagonist nor a protagonist of the system, be unemotional and be sure the collective weight of your writing leaves the reader with a correct and unambiguous impression of your message. Timeliness. Above all, reports must be timely to be effective. To meet reasonable deadlines, it is imperative that test teams draft as much of the report as possible prior to the start of tests and continue to update the report as the tests are conducted. Waiting for all tests to be completed before beginning to document the results not only makes the task overwhelming, it makes it unlikely that the report will be completed on time. Do not underestimate the time necessary for preparation of the report itself. If the data reduction is not complete by the 50% hack on your time-line, you're already behind schedule.

==============

I saw nothing professional in the Serpo report. It sounded like a stoner's vacation report. Art

...

Posting by Anonymous (8 December, 2005) Victor: Yes, I did listen to the entire show. Never heard this guy George Noory before, but he seemed to be a very open-minded narrator and for that, me and my DIA colleagues were very pleased. The show caused a lot of buzzing in the halls of the DIA! Bill [Ryan] and Rick [Doty] both did an excellent job. I was hoping you [Victor Martinez] might just show up and add your own comments since you know more about me than anyone else as well as the program, but I guess that wasn't possible.

I know CIA can't investigate what DIA is doing but they can pass on information about individual misconduct and illegal activities to the appropriate people. Art

=========

In a message dated 12/9/2005 3:32:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes: Subj: Murad Date:12/9/2005 3:32:33 AM Eastern Standard Time From:sarfatti@pacbell.net To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com

In a message dated 12/9/2005 2:57:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes: Subj: Re: Martinez Info Date:12/9/2005 2:57:49 AM Eastern Standard Time From:sarfatti@pacbell.net To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com ...

On Dec 8, 2005, at 11:48 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack, Here's something else that is odd. On the Serpo site anonymous posted this to Victor: Posting by Anonymous (8 December, 2005)

Victor: Yes, I did listen to the entire show. Never heard this guy George Noory before, but he seemed to be a very open-minded narrator and for that, me and my DIA colleagues were very pleased. The show caused a lot of buzzing in the halls of the DIA!

From Art: Can you check with any trusted DIA contact you have to see if people at DIA are really pleased. This sounds made up.

Bill [Ryan] and Rick [Doty] both did an excellent job. I was hoping you [Victor Martinez] might just show up and add your own comments since you know more about me than anyone else as well as the program, but I guess that wasn't possible.

From Art: Why would a commie stooge know so much about Mr. Anonymous and the exchange program. Oh yeah, I forgot, he is a commie spy too. LOL

I called Mr. _____ this morning.

[ EX U.S.G OFFICIAL WHO IS MANAGING THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF "Project SERPO" FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION ]

That's Kit Green.

From Art: Why doesn't the "USG official" release all of his files to someonelike Bob Woodward if he wants it to get out for "public consumption." Releasing it to a commie useful idiot like Martinez who has no credibility would cast doubt on the authenticity of the work. I have enough info on the games that Martinez has been playing the last few months to totally discredit him. I've held off emailing info on him to Lisa Lyons at C2C so as to let this play out. I want to see the photos they are supposedly going to release. Art

=============

In a message dated 12/9/2005 2:23:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes: Subj: Re: Martinez Info Date:12/9/2005 2:23:17 AM Eastern Standard Time From:sarfatti@pacbell.net To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com Received from Internet:

He never met Martinez. He is trying to find out more about him. Martinez is putting his own stuff into Anonymous. Ryan figured that out. So we really don't know the actual document's contents only a distorted version. On Dec 8, 2005, at 11:15 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack, Did Bill Ryan give you any information on Victor Martinez, like address and phone number? Did Bill ever meet him in person?

No Did anyone follow Bill Ryan to your office?

No I just want to make sure this whole charade isn't just a clandestine way for Martinez and his radical jerkoff friends to track you down.

Ryan is OK. British Bloke. I think MI6.

Thanks, Art

Victor shows his true colors (RED). Subj: Re: OUTRAGE: Guardsmen 'played cards' amid New Orleans chaos sez official! Date: 9/4/2005 11:14:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: victorgm@webtv.net To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com CC: sarfatti@pacbell.net Received from Internet: click here for more information

ART, Well, you're right about that: I am EXTREMELY liberal -- a "leftie" as Sarfatti would call me -- and am PROUD of it. The great majority of my student's parents are liberal Demorcrats and, as you know, California voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, so I fit right in.

As far as being a leftist agitator? You betcha! LOVE IT! -

Subj: Re: Wikipedia, The USA Patriot Act and Sarfatti's BAD PHYSICS ideas! Date: 10/16/2005 3:12:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ANTIGRAY

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Victor, Thanks for the invite but I don't do drugs. Did you know that long-term marijuana use changes your brain chemistry and makes you psychotic and schizophrenic? Art Check it out man: http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Cannabis_and_psychosis?OpenDocument

Look what it did to Charles Manson. Scroll down. <aoladp://MA12743987-0002/Untitled01>

As if that isn't bad enough, you could go to jail for possession and bad things really start to happen. Check it out: Going to prison soon? Wondering what it will be like? Or perhaps it's just time for a new nickname? Well, you've come to the right place! Simply enter your first and last name in the form below and click Submit. And remember... DON'T DROP THE SOAP http://www.prisonbitchname.com/

=====================================

In a message dated 10/16/2005 2:15:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, victorgm@webtv.net writes: Subj: Wikipedia, The USA Patriot Act and Sarfatti's BAD PHYSICS ideas! Date:10/16/2005 2:15:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time From:victorgm@webtv.net

Received from Internet:

OK, ART:

You got me there! Correct: I am NOT a teacher, I dropped out of high school in the 10th grade, have a tested IQ of 91, and Dennis and I get "high" ALL of the time from our little home-grown garden of weed.

Why don't you and the Doc join us some time so we can all get high as kites?! -

Received: from smtpinvite-3301.bay.webtv.net (209.240.205.169) by

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Wikipedia, The USA Patriot Act and Sarfatti's BAD PHYSICS ideas! Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:00:16 -0700 To: antigray <ANTIGRAY@cs.com>, Victor Martinez <victorgm@webtv.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Brightmail: Message tested, results are inconclusive

Martinez is a piece of you know what stinking up the hood. He knows no physics at all. On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:21 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Victor, Naw, no need to turn you into the FBI. You are just one of the Islamofascist's Useful Idiots. You are pretty harmless. You are no threat to Dr. Sarfatti's work because you do not have enough knowledge of physics to understand it in the first place to be able to refute any of it. You never did state your curriculum vitae when I asked you for it. Is it because you are ashamed that you flunked out of high school and are not really a teacher as you claim? From everything I've read that you have written you don't seem very well educated. Do you do a lot of grass like your buddy Dennis Myrtzyk? It makes you stupid. Why do you think they call it dope? Hahahahah. So, what college did you go to and where do you teach school? Art

In a message dated 10/15/2005 7:54:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victorgm@webtv.net writes: Subj: Wikipedia, The USA Patriot Act and Sarfatti's BAD PHYSICS ideas! Date:10/15/2005 7:54:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time From:victorgm@webtv.net To:sarfatti@pacbell.net CC:KDavidson@sfchronicle.com, AntiGray@cs.com Received from Internet:

Hey, ART: I'm one of the Islamofascists who's tried to sabotage the Doc's crackpot theories; can you submit my name to the FBI,... I have a shit load of stuff to tell them about Sarfatti's BAD PHYSICS ideas!

Bring it on! -

=================

From: "William Hamilton" <astroxplorer@...> Date:Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:57 am Subject:Re: [Astrosciences] Re: SERPO entry #16-- Unfortunately, Disinfo From Non-Credible Source xplorer2x

Excellent addition to information about Martinez and cronies. He has a hyperactive personality and can't stop talking in person.

At the MUFON LA meeting last night, a lot was discussed about the SERPO story. It is so bad that all of the people I heard talk about it said they thought it was phony and I was happy to hear that as people seem to have an inbuilt detector on this stuff.

Bill

From: "William Hamilton" <astroxplorer@...> Date:Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:42 pm Subject:The likely source for the SERPO story xplorer2x

This was posted January 25, 2006 on the Above Top Secret Board where members have been picking apart this hoaxed up story.

The original story may have been written by a woman named Sheldon as a CIA disinfo campaign. However, it looks like additions have been made by 'anon' and his helpers which look suspiciously like they were keeping track of the ATS Board. Perhaps some of those who have had CIA connections could find this Alice Bradley Sheldon.

Bill Hamilton AstroScience Research http://www.astrosciences.info "I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible." Fred Hoyle

posted on 25-1-2006 at 09:07 AM Post Number: 1941916 (post id: 1966952) - Interesting reading. However these are not real events that are being described although the document they come from is real. I saw this information in 69 or 70 in Whitehall. Originally it was a CIA document authored by a lady named Alice Bradley Sheldon. It's main purpose if you will parden the phrase was to "scare the crap out of the Soviets" in response to them scaring the crap out of us. In the 60s during the warmer part of the cold war the KGB successfully led the US government to believe that a number of nucleur devices had been concealed in disused mines and caves close to four large American cities. These bombs could be detonated by sleeper agents at any time Moscow wished. It was not completely disproved that this was fake until 1990.

The Serpo report was part of the CIA's reposte to this and an attempt to trump the Soviets. Its aim was to make them believe that we had acquired lethal extraterrestrial energy devices and that we had a cosy freindship with these all powerfull EBENs who would be very unhappy if Moscow attempted to harm the United Statesin any way. To a degree I believe this effort was effective to begin with. However it came unstuck when the CIA tried to overreach the information by adding photographs and also trying to spook allies such as ourselves who were better equipped to analyse the information and bugged to the hilt by the KGB.

Why this information is being released again now I do not know. Possibly in the past the DIA could have been fooled by the CIA into believing that Serpo was a real event and the annonymous source may genuinley want to release this information. Alternatively the DIA may have got it direct from the KGB most likely with a few choice modifications added by them.

I'm sorry to have to pour cold water upon your entertainment or maybe I have only added fuel to your fire.

=======================

From: "William Hamilton" <astroxplorer@...> Date:Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:41 am Subject:More info on the possible source of SERPO story xplorer2x

Alice Bradley Sheldon is a Sci-Fi writer.

Alice Bradley Sheldon ( wrote under the pen name James Tiptree).

James Tiptree, Jr. Award. Created in 1991 to honor the innovative fiction of Alice Bradley Sheldon . The Tiptree Award is presented to speculative fiction that explores and expands gender roles—and in the process touches on the most fundamental of human desires.

James Tiptree, Jr: ex-CIA agent, gender-bender, enigma

James Tiptree Jr., aka Alice Bradley Sheldon, lived a life as bizarre as any sci-fi novel. One of the founders of the CIA and a former soldier, she was neurotically shy and spent the last part of her life as a depressive recluse. She masqueraded as a man in the literary world, and she committed suicide at the age of 72, reportedly out of a desire to "take myself off the scene gracefully . . . while I am still me." Although the SF world pondered James Tiptree Jr.’s true identity for many years, the greater effort lies in defining the woman behind the name.

Alice Bradley Sheldon was born in 1915 into a family of explorers. She traveled the world with her parents before marrying in 1934 “the first guy who asked [her],” William Davey.

"He was beautiful, he was charming, he was a poet, he had references from the deans at Princeton--but they forgot to mention that he was an alcoholic and supporting half the whores in Trenton,” she told a friend. In 1941, Bradley and Davey divorced, but not before she underwent a botched abortion which would preclude her from having children with her next husband, Huntington Sheldon.

After her divorce, Bradley joined the WACs. Despite prohibitions against women functioning outside a service capacity, she became the first woman in photo-intelligence in the entire armed forces. She met Sheldon while on assignment in Europe, and they were married almost immediately. “Ting” was to be the great love of her life.

When the war ended, the couple returned home and made attempts to start an egg hatchery. Fortunately, they received a slightly better job offer from the U.S. government. Bradley recalled: "Washington was calling, yammering for Ting to come down and set up American Intelligence. They called for me under my maiden name as a photo interpreter at the same time. …And so, waiting for Art Lundell, Sid Stallings and I set up the original P.I. shop down at the CIA.”

Overwhelmed by the pressures of CIA life, Bradley soon dropped out. In 1967, at the age of 49, she completed a PhD in experimental psychology, and on the day she finished, she wrote her first short story. The next year, she adopted the pseudonym James Tiptree Jr. (taking the name “Tiptree” from a jam jar) and published five stories--one in The New Yorker. She was not outed as a woman for 8 years.

The contradictions in her life led to gripping, breakthrough fiction. Tiptree received both Nebula and a Hugo Awards for the story “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” in addition to a Hugo for “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” and Nebulas for the “The Screwfly Solution” and “Love is the Plan, the Plan is Death,” and met with wide acclaim for “his” grasp of science, “his” ability to create strong female characters, and “his” vivid imagery.

After many years out of print, Tiptree’s collection of short stories, Her Smoke Rose Up Forever, has been reprinted with the original author’s notes. The title could be a description of Bradley’s own life: A blaze of brilliance long gone but survived by a literary legacy that still acts as both a sign of and a smokescreen for her true identity. http://www.starhaven1.net/Tiptree.htm

===============================

And so it goes. Art Greenfield Publisher's site for my book: http://www.booklocker.com/books/1417.html

Synopsis: WARNING reveals a frightening alien agenda, a long-term program of social domination and periodic controlled genocide. Mankind is now in great danger. We have a terrible problem to overcome. Resolution requires international solidarity, then forcible negotiation with the aliens.

Copy of Book Cover:

http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/1/59/113/358/1591133580.jpg

Orders placed through the major book stores may take longer-

Barnes &Noble:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=warning+by+art+greenfield&userid=2ZUPHEORHH&cds2Pid=946

Booksamillion:

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2782892733325&pid=1591133580

Amazon.com Germany:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1133397193/302-2360769-8792040

The paperback version is also available through these UK bookstores in England:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1078292624/026-2248010-4133249

http://www.pickabook.com/cgi/author.php?type=isbn&query=1591133580&Go.x=20&Go.y=21

Nick Pope of UK MOD on C2C

On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Mar 19, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Susan Waitt wrote:

"Why, then, would Dean Radin tell us otherwise when he gave a talk to a group of about 75 people at our Inn? He said these silent triangular craft were equipment transport platforms that had cloaking devices. (a la http://www.viewzone.com/cloaking.html http://www.chameleo.net/ ) Susan"

Why is that "otherwise"? The point Nick Pope made last night is that they are "alien" they are not ours. Nick as MOD official contacted his DIA/CIA counterparts and USG asked UKMOD if the triangles were a UK secret project! You can listen to this online on C2C. USG does not have a C 130 size aircraft that can silently hover and then take off at enormous acceleration. A balloon can silently hover and move along at 20 mph a few hundred feet altitude and be made to appear metallic I suppose - but not to accelerate as observed.

The silent hypersonic triangle craft are not USG nor UK Nick Pope says. They are ET. USG responses generally lame and no one believes them, e.g. explaining SILENT triangle craft as "C 130"

Original Message -----

From: "Jack Sarfatti" Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Fwd: SERPO Story Exposed Alice Bradley Sheldon = AKA James Tiptree Jr

Nick Pope on Art Bell now - very interesting. Tizard started UK MOD UFO program in 1950 under Churchill - monitoring metallic craft - not just lights in sky. Art Bell mentions silent large black triangle craft that he witnessed near Area 51. Nick Pope - light beam scanning ground & low hum from the craft 20 mph floating then takes off high speed - from military observers. Close to April 1 1990 correlates with a Belgium AF observation 3 years earlier. Any odd reports April 1 would be dismissed as spoof of course. Pope got no cooperation from USG even when he was at MOD working on UFOs. Pope still works for UK MOD. The silent hypersonic triangle craft are not USG nor UK Nick Pope says. They are ET. USG responses generally lame and no one believes them, e.g. explaining SILENT triangle craft as "C 130" or Randelsham as a "light house."

On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Susan Waitt wrote:

"Radin didn't suggest that the USG transport dirigibles could accelerate .... but rather that they had a cloaking device that made it appear as though where once there was a craft, suddenly it was gone - All that could be detected was an image (projected) of the night sky immediately above the craft. You are saying that Radin was therefore talking about something entirely different. Susan"

I have no idea what he was talking about. I wasn't there. He could be misinformed. Obviously if only silent floating at low speed at low altitude it could be a huge cleverly designed dirigible - the key is the alleged sudden acceleration reports of the Black Silent Triangles.

As Nick Pope confirms, and as my pilot friend in the USG air forces loop told me, many pilots both military and civilian see these metallic UFOs at close range ROUTINELY but UNDER-REPORT them because they do not want to be butts of jokes like "Freddy the Saucer Freak" and making such reports are "career stoppers."

The SERPO DISINFORMATION SAGA

For the record Sarfatti was contacted by Bill Ryan and also people in the USG Intelligence Community and asked for his opinion on the following story. Sarfatti said it is essentially a hoax that allegedly reached as far as Dick Cheney's staff.

On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:34 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Victor, Thanks for your response. I do have some questions for you since you seem to be in a relaxed talkative mood. Please explain how a commie doper activist such as yourself can be given classified information by a supposed Intel agency or Intel agency ex-employee and given the job of spreading disinformation? Doesn't anyone do background checks or drug testing anymore before they hire disinfo agents? Sheesh. You'd think they'd release the SERPO information to credible journalists like Bob Woodward if they wanted the public to believe it. Let's hear the whole story on how you became the official mouthpiece to get the news out, since you are not a credible journalist, scientist, etc., what gives? Journalists like Woodward, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, have very large audiences and they would be eager to reveal news of somethiong like SERPO if it was true, even if the source was anonymous. Woodward did it previously with his anonymous source, "Deep Throat." So, why would someone use you as a "Deep Throat?" (I know there is an obvious joke in there but I will resist the temptation.) You have no audience or credibility. What's up with that? Don't they want the story to be believed?

If Scott Littleton was calling me a neo-Nazi agitator on an open list, I did not answer it because I never saw it. Send me a copy of it if you have it. Maybe he is still mad at me because I exposed his clever use of half truths.

I think it is hilarious that Barnes & Noble and Borders have misclassified my book as science fiction. It could explain why it is selling so well there. My publisher has my book classified under "history" because most of the information about what our alien Repto Sapien cousins have done to us in the past is of a historical nature. I was just thinking about having my publisher contact B & N and Borders to change the classification but I have a feeling they misclassified it on purpose as a business decision because they needed sci-fi titles to sell which would make them a lot more money on volume. It could also explain why I was approached by a major movie studio to do a screenplay from my book because they are interested in making a movie out of it. I am collaborating with Kim Schwartz, an experienced studio screenplay writer right now to do the screenplay. Sci-fi movies are the biggest blockbusters. This is really weird. Now what would really be funny is if you become a whistleblower and tell the bookstores and movie studio that my book is not sci-fi, it is all real!!! Hahahaha. Too funny. I might send you a free copy of the book for the added publicity. Art

In a message dated 3/19/2006 11:40:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, victorgm@webtv.net writes: Subj: The Truth about SERPO / The likely source for the SERPO story Date:3/19/2006 11:40:47 AM Eastern Standard Time From:victorgm@webtv.net

Received from Internet:

Hey, ART:

1) "Project SERPO" story a hoax? Not according to the attached e-mail.

From Art: The attached email doesn't prove it is real either.

2) Also, if I remember correctly, Jack Sarfatti's friend, Professor Emeritus, C Scott Littleton at Occidental University really put YOU in your place as a neo-Nazi agitator on an open list,... remember that, Art, for which you had NO comeback!

3) Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go light up with some of that special weed I just love so much!

NOTE TO EVERYONE: While Art Greenfield promotes his book as NONfiction, it's VERY IMPORTANT to note that it's officially listed by both Barnes & Noble and Border's Books as:

"SF/FANTASY, Science Fiction" with a sales rank of 597,194!

Art Greenfield Publisher's site for my book:

http://www.booklocker.com/books/1417.html

Synopsis:

WARNING reveals a frightening alien agenda, a long-term program of social domination and periodic controlled genocide. Mankind is now in great danger. We have a terrible problem to overcome. Resolution requires international solidarity, then forcible negotiation with the aliens.

Copy of Book Cover:

http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/1/59/113/358/1591133580.jpg

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=warning+by+art+greenfield&userid=2ZUPHEORHH&cds2Pid=946

Booksamillion:

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2782892733325&pid=1591133580

Amazon.com Germany:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1133397193/302-2360769-8792040

The paperback version is also available through these UK bookstores in England:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1078292624/026-2248010-4133249

http://www.pickabook.com/cgi/author.php?type=isbn&query=1591133580&Go.x=20&Go.y=21

REMEMBER, it's: Officially listed as "SF/FANTASY, Science Fiction!" From: "Larry Dicken" <dickenl@comcast.net>

Bill and Victor,

How true (booh hooh!). All that exposition somewhat for nothing in the course of history. There is so much going on and so many topics, I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember the mention of the name Chapman and ultimately his being exposed as a hoaxer by himself – so typical of the members of the ATS forum. It’s all a big “spy” computer game to these people – create a hoax and see how many people fall for it and also play the white knight on the horse charging forth to expose the hoaxers. I know that none of us have time to “play kiddy games” with ATS folks or any one else, who may, like me, have forgotten what happened two months ago, or never heard about it until now. I did copy Bill Hamilton on the original message to Victor. You must admit, I called it right about Chapman being an attention seeking hoaxer himself in my piece without naming the guy.

Victor, there is a message, below, that maybe should go out from me that I excerpted and modified from the original message:

There continue to be armchair skeptics about in cyberspace, who are still trying to disprove the SERPO story with the promotion of exotic theories, hearsay and character assassination, as demonstrated by the revival and use of the now “old news” ATS Forum-Chapman incident. These armchair skeptics don't really know whose character to attack. There are only messengers for SERPO and no actual witnesses or experiencers of the SERPO trip reality to attack. How frustrating it is for the skeptics. Maybe that is the brilliance of this disclosure plan.

I personally am not convinced by the current evidence that the story presented so far is totally the truth, but the real true story seems to be there in the haze somewhere. I intend to keep looking and analyzing instead of quickly stating an negative opinion and parroting the unsubstantiated opinions of others.

Larry Dicken Web Site and Executive Producer The Jerry Pippin Show

www.jerrypippin.com

Original Message-----

From: Bill Ryan [11] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:13 AM To: >Victor Martinez; Larry Dicken Cc: jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: The likely source for the SERPO story

Hi, Larry, All –

The ATS member “Chapman”, who posted this, later admitted to hoaxing the information in his posts.

Best wishes, Bill

From: Victor Martinez <victorgm@webtv.net> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:48:51 -0800 To: Larry Dicken <dickenl@comcast.net> Cc: <jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net>, <Contact@serpo.org> Subject: RE: The likely source for the SERPO story

WOW! Brilliant piece! OUTstanding!

From: Larry Dicken <dickenl@comcast.net> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:39:00 -0500 To: <jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net>, 'Victor Martinez' <victorgm@webtv.net> Cc: Bill Hamilton <Astroxplorer@astrosciences.info> Subject: RE: The likely source for the SERPO story

Actually, in my research, conducted right after the message from the supposed ex-Whitehall employee turned up back in January, I determined who this woman was. She was, before turning to full time writing, an MI-6 not CIA agent, whose husband remained an MI-6 agent long after she "retired." She was a famous English SCI-FI writer with a man's pen name (James Tiptree, Jr.), which was not unusual at the time (SCI-FI authors were real men - no ladies allowed).

It makes good common sense that Alice Sheldon could have penned the core of the Serpo Story, which, as such, was given to her husband to use in the cold war spy shock games, as the person posting on the ATS forum from England stated. I think her creation might have born some resemblance to the SERPO story, but I would guess that she only wrote the equivalent of a 10-20 page short story, not a 3000 page log transcription. Spy and politicians aren't interested in trilogy novels, only short summary reports.

Also, by the time this story might have been laying on a desk in MI-6 in 1969 or 70, the real hay-day of cold war spying was over, and Alice Sheldon was well on her way to being a prolific writer, not likely to have much time or desire to do much spy-writing for her hubby. And, she would only have written part of the story about the crew of 12 leaving for Serpo in 1965 and perhaps her idea of what they would encounter there. But, she could not have anticipated the trip home which did not occur until 1978 or what might have happened up to 1969 or 70 when this report was purportedly seen at Whitehall.

A common sense explanation, unsupported by vetted witnesses and verifiable documents, should not be accepted as the truth. It is only an interesting theory.

The premise that maybe the story, in full or part, appears in one of her books has to date not been shown to be true, and until someone examines every one of her books written from 1969 forward, I think there is no evidence that the "Anonymous" Whitehall employee is correct in his statements, as no other written material ascribed to Sheldon relating to the SERPO story has been uncovered and presented.

It is quite equally possible that, because Alice Sheldon was a very well known SCI-FI writer from England, this person who posted on ATS created himself a plausible but fabricated story to try to prove that Project Crystal Knight was a cold war spy ploy. One can easily assume that this person is either planting a story under orders from the DIA, CIA or whoever or is just another forum based private citizen seeking attention. I go with the latter as being the explanation.

Again, we are dealing with hearsay. This ATS poster has no document in hand, or any witness other than himself to prove that this "CIA" report ever was seen at Whitehall. And, who ever said this was a CIA report? Actually, it is purportedly, according to the SERPO "Anonymous" being transcribed from DIA transcripts of debriefing tapes, all still stored at DIA headquarters.

If you wanted to play spy games with the Russians the CIA or DIA would likely have planted the little story using a willing American SCI-FI writer to create it. Let's see if someone can find this man or woman here in the US and produce the original manuscript and present it to the armchair skeptics who are still trying to disprove the SERPO story with theory, hearsay and character assassination.

The armchair skeptics don't really know whose character to attack. There are only messengers for SERPO and no actual witnesses or experiencers of the SERPO trip reality to attack. How frustrating it is for the skeptics. Maybe that is the brilliance of this disclosure plan.

I personally am not convinced by the current evidence that the story presented so far is totally the truth, but the real true story seems to be there in the haze somewhere. I intend to keep looking and analyzing instead of quickly stating an negative opinion and parroting the unsubstantiated opinions of others.

Larry Dicken Web Site and Executive Producer The Jerry Pippin Show www.jerrypippin.com

Original Message-----

From: jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net [12] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:59 PM To: Victor Martinez Cc: Larry Dicken Subject: Re: The likely source for the SERPO story

Victor I agree. We have not done anything with it, I was just telling hamilton he is a little behind the times. Jerry

Original Message -----

From: "Victor Martinez" <victorgm@webtv.net> To: <jerrypippin@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:55 PM Subject: Re: The likely source for the SERPO story

JERRY: Actually, I included this piece in one of the POSTINGS (#12 or #13), so it's old news to me. BUT, until someone gets a hold of the actual book we'll never know, now will we? I would say the phrase "hoaxed up story" is more descriptive of the Burisch hoax than it is of SERPO!

Is there some sort of point?

Is there a point to all of that badly-formatted stuff that was apparently pasted in from e-mail? *Dan T.* 13:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Par for the course with Sarfatti, I'm afraid. I hope he doesn't think anyone's going to read through all that. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lethe you are disgracing yourself with your continued cowardly anonymity and obvious personal bias. If you had any sense of fair play and decency you would either stand up and be counted and identify yourself for the record or you would crawl back under your rock and be silent. Have a nice day and sweet dreams. Have you nothing better to do than to attack intellects superior to yours? Have you ever created anything original of importance comparable to Sarfatti's prediction of the supersolid in a peer-reviewed physics journal back in 1969 before Tony Legget's similar prediction? The fact of this confirmed by George Chapline of Lawrence Livermore and David Finkelstein of Georgia Tech IN WRITING reproduced in Super Cosmos for all to see including the actual paper? What have you done to advance knowledge that will be remembered? Your continued hiding of your identity shows you to be a sad little person a mere cipher with a Commisar complex who gets a thrill in the virtual assassination of creative free spirits with vision.;-)

You provide an excellent motivation for me to make sure that I never reveal my real name here. I'm afraid of what you would do with that information. Call my department, maybe. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a cowardly cheap shot, but not surprising. So you are not to be held accountable for your smears? If you have done nothing wrong, if you have not violated professional ethics, then why would you even worry if Sarfatti were to complain? What do you have to fear if justice and truth is on your side? If you can't take the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen. You have no courage. You are a coward. You have not made an intelligent argument that Sarfatti is a a crackpot, a crank or a kook. You hide behind anonymity and simply make vague smears. You are a character assassin and are a shameful example of everything wrong in the leftist academic world today largely populated by mean-spirited spiteful small-minded mediocrities dominated by not-even-wrong ideologies especially in the social sciences. You have not made any important original contributions to mathematics or physics. If you were a creative scientist you would not be spending your time attacking scientists who are having original thoughts on the important physics problems of the day that deal with real observations. Sarfatti being among the first, if not the first, to publish the prediction of the supersolid back in 1969 in a peer-reviewed journal when he was an assistant professor of physics at San Diego State is a fact. That he also was hired at UKAERE by Ron Bullough for summer work in 1966 and wrote an important paper with Marshall Stoneham on the Jahn-Teller Effect and the Goldstone Theorem in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London - hired because of his original ideas for gamma ray lasers and laser containment of hot fusion plasmas is also a fact that can be corroborated. How dare you? Shame on you. PS The picture by Goya on your personal page is very revealing of your own perverse character. You should see a psychotherapist - seriously. You have some deep personal problems obviously. Tell us Lethe, were you abused as a child? "Saturn eating his children" is the picture you chose to represent yourself. Also why do you choose "Lethe" is that a Freudian response? You want to forget? What is it you want to forget? There are allegedly remote viewers employed by the Department of Defense who can probe your mind at a distance. But I suppose any such claim is "crackpot" eh? Sweet dreams Lethe. :-)

Now I wish it were possible to even keep my username and userpage hidden from you. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity of the Character Assassins

Lethe, you have no morality, you have no sense of decency and fair play. That Goya painting you put on your talk page shows that you are a sick puppy. Hopefully you do not have bodies buried under your basement? :-) You obviously realize that your academic colleagues would not approve of your unprofessional behavior here. You remind me of Hannibal Lector with that map of your psyche you posted. If you attack a man, you should be prepared for a counter-attack especially when the attack is a vicious smear. What's wrong with you? History is being made here and one day your true identity will be ascertained. You have no right to remain anonymous and assassinate people's characters. If Sarfatti wanted to he could easily use his intelligence connections to find out who you really are. You are not important enough to waste those resources on. You are clearly indicting yourself as a coward. Go ahead and make specific objections against Sarfatti's physics in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 . You are obviously not able to do so. You are like a sniper hiding on an overpass shooting people driving by. That's the kind of mentality you are displaying Lethe especially with that picture you have posted. You fit the profile of a wannabe serial killer psychopath getting his thrills virtually. Well if that keeps you off the streets then I suppose Sarfatti is willing to be the target of your abuse and of the abuse of the other ciphers who have done the same using anonymity. The point here is that even if you find errors in Sarfatti's work that does not make him into a "crackpot", "crank" and "kook." Everyone makes errors. Sarfatti's clear record is that he instantly acknowledges and corrects errors intelligently pointed out. He has always done so.

Entered for the record off a public list:

Sarfatti wrote: "Roberts should emulate David Horowitz who pulls no punches and names names and gives specifics! One may not agree 100% with David but one must respect his candor and his willingness to confront his targets head on."

On Mar 21, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"If Roberts were to be specific and NAME NAMES - who he accuses rather than use the what has become euphemism "Neocon" = "Jew" - then I would have no problem. I might not agree with his points, perhaps I would agree with some I don't know, but given the context of the times one should not used vague smears anymore. If Robert has a problem with say Wolfowitz he should say so and confront his targets man to man - not hide behind labels."

On Mar 21, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"This article was written by Paul Craig Roberts, a traditional conservative ("paleoconservative") who is a former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover institution, and a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. A constitutionalist, perhaps, but hardly a neo-Nazi. Here is a conservative Republican who evidently views the Bush administration as dangerously incompetent -- a view now shared, apparently, by a majority of the American public and a rapidly growing number of congressional Republicans."

Sarfatti: He blames it ALL on the "Neocons" a euphemism for "Jews." It's not Bush's fault it's the Jews who control Bush - that's the Nazi/Islamofascist message here.

Zielinski: I think what this article illustrates is the huge rift that has now opened up between traditional conservatives and "neoconservatives" (or at least those still aligned with the original AEI/PNAC program) in the politics of the Republican party.

Since most American Jews do not identify themselves as "neo-cons", and since according to recent polls I've seen a majority of American Jews now think the Iraq war was a mistake, I don't see how this can simply be about "blaming the Jews".

Which* Jews? Russ Feingold?

Sarfatti: If you look at the Neo-Nazi/Islamofascist Media you will see "Neocon" = "Jew". It was not that way at the beginning but it has become so in past 2 years or so. Of course a lot of neoconservatives are Jewish and former Communists, which does not help, but many are not.

Zielinski If I were you I would be much more concerned with the study recently released by Harvard's Kennedy School,

Sarfatti: RUN BY REAL COMMIES. READ CLIFF MAY ON THAT!

Zielinski: which does not mince words in its assessment of the influence on US foreign policy of powerful pro-Israel lobbies such as AIPAC. That definitely puts the cat among the pigeons. Hold onto your hats -- the ensuing debate should be quite a slugfest.

Yes, Harvard is taking Saudi money -- but without Saudi money the $US and our entire financial system would probably have crashed and burned many years ago.

Sarfatti WE HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF COURSE, BUT A POGROM WILL NOT MAKE THINGS BETTER. The Islamo-fascists want to murder ALL the Jews - neocon or not. That's obvious. That's the point here. It's very simple. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Jack Sarfatti wrote: I am not following politics closely these days. Seems to me that the not-so-hidden message is "Blame it all on the Jews." Yes? No? Is it really that simple as portrayed in the article? Definitely it does describe Stephen Schwartz's mentality, which I know well from 30 years direct experience. But Stephen seemed an extreme case - no? Rense is a well-known anti-Semite of course.

Begin forwarded message: http://www.rense.com/general70/collapse.htm

On Mar 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Cliff May, a former NY Times Reporter and head of a think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies with ex-DCI James Woolsey, and ex Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick on the Board wrote to that alleged "crackpot" Jack Sarfatti:

That is indeed the message coming from both the far left and the far right.

It coincides with the message of the Militant Islamists.

So there is a steady drum beat of blame the Jews or blame Israel or blame US support for Israel.

Historically, this is hardly unique. It is not less troubling because of that.

From the FDD newsletter that went out today:

Harvard University, having accepted a $20 million gift from the Saudis, has now issued a new paper that, in the words of a New York Sun editorial, sounds "like the rantings of President Ahmadinejad of Iran or Louisiana anti-Semite David Duke."

The paper was written by two American professors, Stephen M. Walt and John Mearsheimer. Walt is the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School, a graduate school for students preparing for careers in public service. Mearsheimer is co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago.

Walt and Mearsheimer are particularly upset over what they call "unwavering U.S. support for Israel." Perhaps these scholars believe that "wavering" support would be better? Maybe Washington should support Israel's survival during those months that contain the letter "r" in them (e.g. October, November, December). During other times of the year (e.g. June, July, August) the U.S. could favor Israel's annihilation and the genocide of its people.

The authors also say that Washington's "related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security." Yes, that makes sense. Other peoples may want to choose their leaders and experience freedom -- but not Arabs and Muslims. Arabs and Muslims prefer to live under the jackboot of dictators (like Qaddafi). This is evidently what they believe -- and teach -- at Harvard.

The Sun goes on to ask: "If the Islamists only hate America because of our support for Israel, why are they setting off bombs in Indonesia and Spain, which are hardly in the vanguard of support for Israel? How would abandoning Israel assuage the angry Islamists rather than encouraging them to press on to completing their end goal of making all of America subject to Islamic law? Why do the actions of the so-called Israel lobby -- AIPAC is an American organization of Americans -- constitute manipulation worthy of an 83-page paper, while the extensive lobbying activities of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the petroleum industry merit hardly a mention, let alone condemnation?"

On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Colin Bennett wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote: "Rense is a well-known anti-Semite of course"

Yes, certainly Rense is a vicious anti-Semite. He runs scores of articles applauding the Holocaust Revisionists, for example, and stokes up rumours about the most fantastic Jewish international intrigues fully worthy of the pre-war Der Stürmer. He has run articles on the Protocols of Zion , and other pieces saying that the concentration camps were were merely transit camps which suffered from unavoidable wartime shortages. Two articles appeared in which attempts were made to reconstruct Rudolf Hoes, the commandant of Auschwitz, saying that he was tortured to extract the confession of six million.executions. At least a third of his programming is plain and simple Nazism, frankly, and as a Jew, I choose my words very carefully.

The trouble with Rense is that he manages a kind of liberal double-take which he exploits brilliantly. A master of the web and radio media, he runs quite a few compromised Jews such as Chamish and Makow, great writers in many respects, but who are vicious critics of Israel and everything the country stands for. Clever again, Rense's site is a terrific web site as far as non-Jewish matters are concerned, and he interviewed me at length about two books of mine. These were Looking for Orthon (the biography of George Adamski) and Politics of the Imagination (my prize-winning biography of Charles Fort) On these occasions he was polite, well--informed, and enthusiastic about these books. However, my latest book An American Demonology received a stony silence after I mentioned that I was a Jew on a list.. I run my own web site of some twenty thousand hits per day. And naturally this gives me a network of insider-informants. I was told by one Rense insider that I was to "draw my own conclusions" and by another (even closer Rense friend) that "it would not take you long to work it out if you really thought about it." Keep Smiling! Colin Bennett Author, London. http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk.

What's the point?

The point of citing Antigray is to show Sarfatti's daily involvement in on-going work with the USG Intelligence Community in the "open source" sector of MASINT of NID headed by John Negroponte -- i.e. use of the Web as an intelligence-gathering instrument in the interest of US National Security in the area of "technological surprise threat assessments." All that Dan T is ABLE to see is the bad-formatting. Obviously, he is not capable of understanding the meaning of the text - yet he is evidently arrogant enough to pass judgment on what is out of his range of comprehension. The point is to show to scientifically literate readers the daily activity of Sarfatti as direct evidence for them to decide if the vicious allegations and character assassinations against him made in largely anonymous vague unsubstantiated smears or downright lies by cowards e.g. the "death threat" and "contact employer" lies are true or not. The truth is that most people are obviously not smart enough to grasp the novel conceptual connections that Sarfatti makes such as his recent reformulation of the principle of equivalence as the local gauging of all space-time symmetries of the action. It's Plato's Allegory of The Cave with lesser minds like those who mostly post here denigrating what they do not properly understand. Others fear the spooky paranormal high strangeness that disturb their false comfy narrow views of reality and call him a crackpot, kook and crank for those reasons as they do Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson who is an active researcher in the paranormal and consciousness. The light is simply too bright for lesser minds. What most of you people do not see is that you are simply besmirching what you do not understand. BTW Waldyr Rodrigues's remarks, primarily made under pressure from what he described as "powerful people" who did not "like" him and would use any excuse to damage his funding, used the word "potpourri" because he was not able to follow all the connections Sarfatti was making between what to the mainstream are unconnected ideas. Waldyr is a good mathematician he is not a physicist. Also Waldyr invited Sarfatti to UNICAMP in 1984 as a full professor and was a great fan of his book Space-Time and Beyond (1975)! This shows how threatened Waldyr felt for his students, whose grants were threatened. That such a thing happened is itself of extreme historical interest when one asks "Why?" Anyone can contact Waldyr directly to confirm the truth of all this.

Jack Sarfatti's Politics

On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

You can be sure I will discuss this with my old friend Michael Savage who has what 8 million Americans listening to him? No doubt he is already on top of this. http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

This article is bogus Islamofascist propaganda. It's a disgrace showing the validity of David Horowitz's "101 Professors" that anti-American traitors are the Enemy Within and have practically taken over the American higher education system. It's the usual set of bogus lies and half-truths from the Nazis controlling their Arab-Iranian Puppets. The article has the same accuracy as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This article reflects a real Axis of Evil collaboration of the Old Left and the Nazis. Its agenda is simple. Murder all the Jews! The publisher of New Republic has commented on it. So has Horowitz. I do not agree with Horowitz 100%, but he is right on this one.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21758

On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Lewis, John E wrote:

"An interesting article by two professors: one from Harvard and one from the University of Chicago. It’s long, but might be worth the read."

John E. Lewis, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Miami School of Medicine 1400 NW 10th Avenue Suite 605C (D-80) Miami, FL 33136 Phone: 305-243-6227 Fax: 305-243-4687 E-mail: jelewis@miami.edu

And here is a response to that hate-the-Jews trash. Reasonable men can argue that the Neocon's doctrine of pre-emptive war is wrong, that Iraq was a tactical error etc. However, this is now being used as part of the Terrorist Propaganda Machine to further the objectives of Al Qaeda and similar groups with the objective of killing all the Jews, i.e. finishing what Hitler started. The "brains" behind the current war on terror are the same old Nazis from WWII I mean their sons and daughters. They are using the Loony Left Academics in an Unholy Alliance to destroy America and they are nearly succeeding. China is also helping - China wants to occupy America and they are close to succeeding there as well. They own us now lock, stock and barrel as this deal in the Bahamas proves. We are letting the Red Chinese Army control the flow of nuclear weapons into the US mainland - weapons that China can give to Al Qaeda. http://www.softwar.net/kashing.html

Harvard's New Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

By Lowell Ponte FrontPageMagazine.com | March 23, 2006

"Anti-Semitism can appear in many forms, many disguises. Its latest camouflage can be seen in “The Israel Lobby,” an article in the March 23 London Review of Books by Political Science Professor John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Dean Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

This article is an extract from “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” their March 2006 self-published academic “working paper” that is neither peer reviewed nor published in any scholarly journal. Although ballyhooed as a work by two major scholars, they acknowledge that it “should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position” of either Harvard or the University of Chicago.

This working paper, carefully timed to make news just ahead of Israel’s election and a planned leftist propaganda barrage against two accused pro-Israel lobbyists, is really an 83-page Opinion-Editorial article based on the authors’ personal prejudices.

This Mearsheimer and Walt attack is so nastily slanted against Israel that their paper ought to be called The New Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No wonder that among those praising their paper most loudly is the Southern white racist, former American Nazi Party enthusiast and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, now himself a Ph.D.

The footnotes that comprise almost half of this paper reveal the left-wing sources that have shaped Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s anti-Israel prejudices – among them Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, The Nation, AntiWar.com, CounterPunch, Salon.com, assorted writers and scholars published by the far-Left publishing house Verso, and the British socialist newspaper The Guardian.

The Israeli source they approvingly cite most often is the newspaper Ha’aretz, whose socioeconomic views are too complex to describe easily in terms of the American political spectrum. Ha’aretz might be called the New York Times of Israel, and in fact has a business relationship with the Times. It is secular, supported the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat and in Israeli-Palestinian matters tends to be on the Left.

But even the chief U.S. correspondent of Ha’aretz in his blog on March 16, blasted Mearsheimer and Walt, describing their paper as “academic garbage” and an example of “the decline of academic values and the misuse of academic titles by contemporary American pseudo-scholars.”

For daring to say this, he wrote on March 20, some readers accused him of being an agent of the “Israel Lobby.”

The “Israel Lobby,” write Mearsheimer and Walt, is a “short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership….”

This Lobby, they write, includes organizations such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), many of which “are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process.”

But “The Lobby,” they continue, “also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson, as well as former House Majority Leaders Dick Armey and Tom DeLay. They believe Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will.

“In addition,” they continue, “the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will.”

This “Israel Lobby” is pernicious for several reasons, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. “AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress,” they write, and through such political influence its prompts elected officials to put Israel’s national interest above that of the United States. This has diverted many billions of American taxpayer dollars, made the U.S. an enemy in the eyes of more than a billion Israel-hating Muslims around the world, and been a key factor in getting the U.S. into the present conflict in Iraq.

The “Israel Lobby” virtually controls American media, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. It has shaped public opinion with unwavering propaganda images of Arabs as terrorist villains and of Israelis depicted as pro-American Davids surrounded and threatened by an Islamic Goliath. This, too, has distorted American politics and policy in Israel’s favor.

Mearsheimer and Walt applaud Eric Alterman, left-wing journalist of The Nation and fellow at the George Soros-supported Center for American Progress, for writing a 2002 article that listed the names of American journalists and pundits “who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification.” The 56 journalists he labeled as reflexive Israel supporters ranged from Fox News Washington bureau chief Brit Hume, to African-American scholar and columnist Thomas Sowell, to writer and Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. Full disclosure: Alterman also named Marxist-turned-conservative David Horowitz, Editor-in-Chief of FrontPageMagazine.com.

One of the crudest tactics in formal debate, as Speech 101 students are taught, is “poisoning the well.” If the side opposing you has an expert, smear the expert ad hominem. If this tactic succeeds, you can then duck having to respond to that expert’s logic or evidence.

Alterman, while describing himself as fair and balanced in his view of Israel, simply smeared every major supporter of Israel he could think of by poisonously claiming that all would always side with Israel regardless of the facts and was therefore untrustworthy. (But whenever journalists such as Alterman are accurately listed among those reflexively inclined to take the side of the Left on every issue, the Left denounces this is “McCarthyite name-calling.”)

Mearsheimer and Walt do the same kind of well poisoning to preempt would-be critics. “One of the shrewdest things the authors do in their paper,” wrote Ha’aretz’s Washington correspondent, “is dismantle the anti-Semitic counter attack when they claim that the main source of power of the Jewish lobby is the anti-Semitic blame game. Thus if you call the study anti-Semitic, you play right into their hands.”

Okay, you be the judge. According to Mearsheimer and Walt, “the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews…The IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] conducted numerous cross-border raids against its neighbors…and though these actions were portrayed as defensive responses, they were actually part of a broader effort to expand Israel’s borders,” a manifestation of “Israel’s expansionist ambitions.”

Reading Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s litany of Israeli alleged expansionism, atrocities, alleged Israeli killing of Egyptian prisoners of war, imperial ambition and the like, you would never know that Israel gave away nearly half of its own tiny territory as part of a peace agreement. Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the early 1980s. (My wife and I remember visiting Yamit on the Mediterranean days before it was handed back to Egypt.)

Reading Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s paper, you would never know that at Camp David in 2000 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, pressured by outgoing President Bill Clinton, offered Yasser Arafat 95 percent of everything the Palestinians demanded, only to be rebuffed. Islamist Palestinians insisted that nothing less than the total eradication of Israel would be acceptable. Barak’s “purportedly generous offer” is dismissed by Mearsheimer and Walt, who write that it “would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of ‘Bantustans’ under de facto Israeli control.”

Despite this rejection, Israel has been transferring effective control of Gaza and most of the West Bank to Palestinian (i.e., terrorist Hamas) control. But Mearsheimer and Walt dismiss this giving away of another large percentage of Israel-controlled land as more evidence that Israel is expansionist and imperialistic. Go figure.

What other nation in the history of the world has voluntarily given away as much of its direct national territory (not distant colonies, as England did), territory bought with the blood of its soldiers in war, to achieve elusive peace as Israel?

“Europe’s crimes against the Jews provide a clear moral justification for Israel’s right to exist,” acknowledge Mearsheimer and Walt. “But Israel’s survival is not in doubt – even if some Islamic extremists make outrageous and unrealistic references to ‘wiping it off the map’ – and the tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the United States to help Israel….”

Now let’s see: One out of every three Jews on planet Earth was systematically exterminated by genocide during the past 60 years, murdered just for being Jews. Israel stopped Saddam Hussein from acquiring the means to make nuclear weapons in 1981, and had Israel not acted, Iraq would have possessed such weapons by 1990, in time for its annexation of Kuwait. Hussein was paying $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber who killed Israelis. Iran, led by a madman who funds and arms Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and who believes an apocalypse two years from now will herald Islam’s takeover of the world, is rushing to acquire its own means to atomic weapons. And Mearsheimer and Walt, using rhetoric that echoes eerily of anti-Semitism, blithely proclaim, “Israel’s survival is not in doubt.”

Dr. Mearsheimer, by the way, stirred his first controversy in 1990 by proposing that the United States should encourage West Germany to develop a nuclear arsenal. As an elite academic (who at least served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force), he is the leading proponent of the international relations theory called “Offensive Realism.” This theory assumes that every great power strives for global hegemony and becomes progressively violent as it nears this goal. The U.S. does this globally; Israel does the same regionally and through its tail-wagging-the-dog “control” over U.S. policy.

In Mearsheimer’s abstract universe, peace is preserved by a balance of power. A world with America as the sole Superpower, he believes, is a dangerous world. Much like George Soros, he wants to see America made much weaker relative to other nations. For the same reason, he wants Israel weakened. Nuclear weapons in more hands, including Germany’s, Mearsheimer believes would create a “multipolar” world in which no one nation would dare throw its weight around. As in this new paper, he ignores fears of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

Dr. Stephen Walt developed the “Balance of Threat Theory,” which has much in common with Mearsheimer’s “Offensive Realism.” Walt, too, sees America’s sole Superpower status as a bad thing. Dr. Walt, incidentally, has been on the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, famous for its doomsday clock near midnight and advocacy of global nuclear disarmament (i.e., verifiable American but not necessarily verifiable Soviet nuclear disarmament). He has also been a guest scholar at the left-leaning Brookings Institution and a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His 2005 book Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy by leftist publisher W.W. Norton suggested that America was somehow wild and savage and needed to have its claws and fangs pulled. In 2003 Walt and Mearsheimer co-authored the tract An Unnecessary War to criticize U.S. intervention in Iraq.

James Taranto, who writes the “Best of Web” column for OpinionJournal.com, has done an able dissection of several of the worst errors and falsehoods in Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s paper, musing on Tuesday:

The close U.S. relationship with Israel has a psychological basis as well as a moral and strategic one. Both the U.S. and Israel, after all, are immigrant nations, founded and originally settled by people who, for various reasons, got the hell out of Europe. One can see why Europeans who stayed behind, and whose societies are considerably less dynamic than either ours or Israel's, would resent those who rejected the European way.

Further, World War II left Europe owing an incalculable moral debt to both America and the Jews: America because it saved Europe from its own savagery, Jews because they were the primary victims of that savagery. European anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are often hard to tell apart, and it may be because they both reflect a self-loathing aspect of the European psyche – a neurotic need to compensate for an overwhelming sense of historical guilt.

As intellectuals who want to see America and Israel weakened, and to see Europe and the Muslim world strengthened, Mearsheimer and Walt may be reflecting the unreal nature of their own ivy-covered minds, or they may be playing to today’s fashionably left-wing academic biases. But in their prose one can hear something visceral, a hint of the dark emotions Taranto glimpses. This is the tone we heard at Tuesday’s presidential press conference when Arab-American reporter Helen Thomas tried to include Israel as a factor in the blame she was casting for the war in Iraq.

“The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective,” write Mearsheimer and Walt. We have heard such rhetoric before from anti-Semites: “Those sneaky, deceitful Jews are always lying to gain control.” The Israel Lobby, they write, has for decades done the same thing by deceitfully accusing every critic of Israel of being an anti-Semite.

Perhaps this is what Sigmund Freud called “projection,” the tendency to see in others what you yourself are, e.g., of a thief to believe that everybody else steals. Mearsheimer and Walt seem eager to accuse anybody who sincerely supports Israel of being a member of “the Lobby,” thereby implying that they are dupes, fools, or conspiring knaves.

“There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel. The Lobby’s activities are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” Mearsheimer and Walt at one moment concede. “For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the Lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just much better.”

So why did they write an 83-page tract hinting that those in the Lobby are agents of a foreign power bent on subverting American democracy? Americans supporting Israel is democracy. What these two left-wing academics find objectionable is that Israel’s supporters lobby successfully.

Incidentally, have Mearsheimer and Walt ever criticized the left-wing activists who reflexively accuse their opponents of being warmongers, imperialists, bigots, racists, sexists, or homophobes? Just asking.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor Mearsheimer and Walt label an “apologist” for Israel, has described much of their paper as “trash.”

“It could have been written by Pat Buchanan, by David Duke, Noam Chomsky, and some of the less intelligent members of Hamas,” Dershowitz told the New York Sun. “An intelligent member of Hamas would not have made these mistakes.”

Among the mistakes Dershowitz cited was Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s claim in the paper that Israeli “citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.” The authors, said Dershowitz, had conflated Israel’s law of return with its criteria for citizenship. “That’s right from the neo-Nazi Web sites. Anybody can be a citizen of Israel. It confuses the law of return for the criteria for citizenship. They never mention that a Jew cannot be a citizen in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.”

Dershowitz, reported the Sun, “also objected to the paper’s claim that the 2000 Oslo offer to Yasser Arafat would have created ‘Bantustans.’ Mr. Dershowitz said, ‘They should talk to President Clinton about that. The West Bank territory would have been completely contiguous.’”

What Dean Walt is saying, Dershowitz told the Sun, “is, ‘some of my best lobbyists are Jews. Don’t confuse what we are saying with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” He continued, “Sorry, but it sounds very similar to me. The only difference is the Protocols are a forgery, but this is actually written by two bigots.”

Martin Peretz is editor of The New Republic, a magazine named in Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s paper as one of those publications that “zealously defend Israel at every turn.” Peretz told the Sun: “It is easier to attribute disloyalty to Jews than to question the loyalty of Islamists. This is really questioning the loyalty of Jews, that is what this is about. Everyone is looped in, even people who are a little dicey about Israel like Aaron David Miller and Howard Dean. This goes from the lobby in capital letters, from Jerry Falwell to every left-wing Jewish Democrat in the House. It is the imagining of a wall to wall conspiracy and therefore it’s nutsy.”

And this anti-Israel paper has attracted its share of nuts.

“I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is,” racist David Duke told the Sun in an e-mail. “It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started…the task before us is to wrest control of America’s foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV.” Walt retorted, “I have always found Mr. Duke’s views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world.”

David Duke is now also a Ph.D. issued in 2005 from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management in the Ukraine, an institution that has been accused of harboring anti-Semitism. Duke is also an author of such works as Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question in 2004 and his 1998 autobiography My Awakening, whose title sounds ominously like another autobiography titled “My Struggle,” Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

In college, Duke celebrated Hitler’s birthday and wore a Nazi uniform around campus. He was kicked out of ROTC at Tulane University because, according to one source, as an activist for the American Nazi Party, he was ineligible to be commissioned in the U.S. military.

In 2004, David Duke endorsed John Kerry for President. Duke has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war for some of the same reasons Mearsheimer and Walt express. Duke embraced a slogan that says in a few words what these two scholars took 83 pages to say: “No War for Israel.”

As Ben Johnson of FrontPage Magazine reported, David Duke has been a big booster for leftist war critic Cindy Sheehan. On Syrian National Television in November 2005, Duke again summed up in a few words the bottom-line message of these scholars’ more caged and qualified report.

“The Zionist neocons…are crazy,” David Duke reportedly said. “The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism – they are absolute evil and they are crazy. All they know is more power, and so there is a real danger, I should say, for Syria, and a danger for Iran….”

And others have reacted favorably to this paper. “I think that the people who wrote that report were working for the interest of the American people,” a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s guidance council, Abdulmo’em Abulfotah, has been quoted as saying. “I ask a question here: Is it in the interest of the American people to clash with 1.3 billion people in favor of 5 million people who represent the Zionist project? Not even the Jews, but the Zionists.”

“Thanks to the Lobby,” wrote Mearsheimer and Walt, “the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.”

Blame it on the Jews, they are saying, if America is hated, hit by terrorists, and forced to fight in Middle Eastern wars.

But in his first statements after 9/11, the mastermind of its murder of 3,000 Americans Osama bin Laden said not a word about Israel and the Palestinians. The focus of his anger was American troops stationed in the “Land of the Two Holy Mosques,” as he calls Saudi Arabia. Has nobody ever told Mearsheimer and Walt that Islam has been trying to take over the world for almost 1,400 years – long before the restoration of the ancient Jewish State in 1948? If their fear is imperial expansion, where is their concern about Islamist fanatics determined to impose a single world government under the dictatorship of one Muslim Caliph?

“These neo-cons and Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government and our boys and girls are dying in Iraq,” said the Nation of Islam’s leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan last February.

Israel is the tail wagging the dog, which is America. I’m warning you, America. You better get rid of them neo-cons. That’s the synagogue of Satan. They have made America weak…and your country has been taken from you by the synagogue of Satan. They own Congress…And the Christian right, with your blindness to that wicked state of Israel…That land is gonna be cleansed with blood. Mearsheimer and Walt have issued a paper that differs from the message of the hatemongers David Duke and Rev. Louis Farrakhan more in style than in substance. Does this hard fact give these scholars second thoughts, or sleepless nights? Does it show them why so many whose loved ones were gassed in the Holocaust are committed to Israel’s survival? The savagery is not in America’s or Israel’s policies, nor in those who lobby for them. It is in the darkness just beyond the light of our shared civilization’s fragile vigil campfires."

Sarfatti grades History Channel's shows on Reverse Engineering Alien ET Propulsion as C+

From: Jack Sarfatti [13] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:01 PM To: Gary S. Bekkum Subject: C+ for History Channel "Alien Propulsion" Kaku, Kraus

No, Nick Cook had nothing to do with these shows. So Nick has a real opportunity now to do it right. The stage has been set. I dutifully sat through ALL the shows from 2pm to 7pm.

The stuff on Roswell was usual debunking with Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine claiming "confabulation of false memories" etc. By implication Colonel Corso is a liar if Sherman et-al are correct. Take your pick - what is real?

Michio Kaku, Larry Krauss, Frank Drake, & briefly Marc Millis on the 2 shows on reverse engineering alien technology.

The show was completely superficial "and then a miracle happens" they are all way behind me - even Kaku & Kraus.

After wasting time on maglev of a frog they finally get to weightless warp drive (Alcubierre) but they do not explain the basic physics well at all. It was very poor and I am surprised that Kaku and Kraus could not do better. I could do MUCH BETTER!

No mention of dark energy. No mention of zero point energy. No mention of connection between zero point energy and dark energy.

What's their energy source? Anti-matter - completely LAME!

They talk about "warp drive" and mention idea that space behind the ship expands and space in front of the ship contracts and they mention no time dilation, which is good, but they do not mention consequent reverse Doppler shift. They then essentially say "a miracle happens" and the magical anti-matter drive allows

1. weightless warp drive - they do not use those words

2. wormhole generator

3. plasma cloak device

4. offensive WMD weapons including lasers and anti-matter beams.

5. teleporter and cloner - no mention of no-cloning theorem and that their clone device violates quantum theory. Kaku should know better about dealing with that, but he probably was not allowed to determine content.

6. Also some lame stuff on SETI.

Some good stuff on Nazi saucers and spinoff on American saucers 40's - 70's culminating in current stealth fighters.

On Mar 16, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

W = mg

W = weight = inertia x non-geodesic inertial g-acceleration

For example on LNIF surface of Earth of total mass M and radius R

g = GM/R^2

universal for all test masses m.

Now what an alien saucer does is to make

W = 0

That's geodesic warp drive i.e. Paul Hill's acceleration field, George Trimble's "G-Engine", Robert Forward's "negative matter propulsion", "Acubierre's warp drive" etc.

You do not change m at all! What you do is make g = 0 via metric engineering the gravity curvature-torsion fields.

These fields emerge from coherent Goldstone phases of the inflation vacuum field. So you need to lock into those phases to control the local curvature-torsion fields in the neighborhood of the ship. And you must do it with small amounts of power!

If you read Sir Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" you will see that changing inertial rest mass m of particles will destabilize matter causing an explosion ripping the ship apart - a matter disruptor beam weapon.!

You cannot change e/m and a few other key parameters of atomic and nuclear physics very much without destroying the universe as we know it.

So what are these so-called "experts" suggesting?

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Note reference to "cancel inertia" in my 3 books I show why this is a BAD DANGEROUS THING TO TRY - if you succeed you have a WMD and can destroy life on Earth. It's a really stupid thing to try. We can discuss why. That's NOT HOW the alien saucers fly BTW!

In principle you can do it by tampering with the Higgs field intensity Yukawa couplings in the standard model.

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Who exactly did History Channel consult on the "reverse engineering"? Note reference below to "our experts." On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yes, I will watch it today. On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

"I think there are more episodes than were shown on C4? Note the two part "Alien Engineering" below."

"Alien Hunters. Airs on Thursday, March 16 at 2:00pm ET

For centuries, cultures worldwide have speculated about the existence of intelligent life beyond Earth's bounds. With modern astronomy's birth, old myths transformed into compelling new theories. We study ways in which scientists have reached to the stars and new technology that may have already recorded evidence of alien civilizations. TVPG Real UFO's. Airs on Thursday, March 16 at 3:00pm ET

Ever since the military started using sophisticated airplanes, they have sought ways to build an aircraft that can fly undetected, maneuver like a helicopter and fly like a jet. The Nazis were the first to pursue the idea of building a disc-shaped aircraft. After the war, the Americans, Canadians and Russians all were able to build aircraft similar to the German prototype, perhaps based on the concepts smuggled out by German engineers. This episode looks at top secret flying saucer designs of the Air Force, with specific dates, times and locales of flights that may point to the real explanation behind the many UFO sightings beginning in 1947, and why the saucer design was abandoned for stealth technology. TVPG

Roswell: Secrets Unveiled. Airs on Thursday, March 16 at 4:00pm ET

In 1947, a strange object fell from the sky near Roswell, New Mexico, and the lives of many civilians and military personnel would never be the same again. The Air Force's key players come forward with their version of events that summer. Yet, alien conspiratorialists remain skeptical. Eyewitness accounts from Roswell locals and testimonies of respected scientists weave a pattern of inconsistencies that cannot be so easily dismissed. TVPG Alien Engineering, Part 1. Airs on Thursday, March 16 at 5:00pm ET

Prepare for an exercise in imagination. Suppose that an alien spacecraft crashed in the desert and we humans recovered it. What could we learn from its engineers? Using data gleaned from years of UFO sightings, we recreate a typical ship using cutting-edge animation, discover why aliens choose the craft shapes they do, learn how they overcome the effects of Earth's atmosphere, defy gravity, cancel inertia, and travel faster than the speed of light! Our experts--reverse engineers---show us what's "under the hood" of alien craft. We explore the technology that makes other-world visitations possible, what distance-shrinking device or wormhole excavator permits ships to travel space's expanse in minutes, and how the semi-transparent spacecraft skin functions. At first inspection, the technology seems crazy, but according to our experts, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. TVPG

Alien Engineering, Part 2. Airs on Thursday, March 16 at 6:00pm ET

If an alien spaceship crash-lands on Earth, the first thing we'll want to do is take it apart and learn how it works. Maybe go for a tour inside and learn what kind of options it has--like an anti-matter reactor, laser weapons, and even a teletransporter. Amazingly, many of these "science fiction" devises are based on real science. And many have human-designed counterparts right here on Earth. Super-powerful laser weapons can be found on our own prototype weapons. We're even researching ways to hide vehicles behind plasma-generated "invisibility cloaks". Cutting-edge animation and live-action recreations help us "imagine" an alien spacecraft and learn how many amazing devices and mechanisms are really possible, and likely to be available in a few years. TVPG

Texas' Roswell. Airs on Tuesday, March 21 at 12:00am ET

In April 1897--50 years before the alleged UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico--a mysterious airship crash rocked the small town of Aurora, Texas...or at least, that's how the legend goes! The tale includes the wreckage from the ship, a funeral for the dead "alien" pilot, and thousands of witnesses from across the country. And the Aurora crash allegedly took place five years before the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk, so whatever was in the air was not manmade. Eyewitness accounts of the crash, mysterious metal found at the site, and the hunt for the only known alien graveyard are all combined into a story that has even the most adamant debunkers baffled. Is this the case that finally proves that UFOs are real? Join us as we separate fact from fiction. TVPG

Beyond The War of the Worlds. Airs on Tuesday, March 28 at 12:00am ET

In print worldwide for over a century, The War of the Worlds is H.G. Wells at his best. Beginning with its literary origins, we trace the path of this amazing story from riveting magazine serial through the panic broadcast of 1938, and then to major motion pictures. We uncover the long-forgotten 1968 broadcast that again drove thousands into the streets of Buffalo, New York; and gain exclusive access to a new animated feature film. Loaded with state-of-the-art special effects and stunning reenactments, we revisit not only the famous but the obscure, including the radio broadcast in Ecuador that cost 20 people their lives. Filled with vintage film clips and previously unseen interpretations of the Martians, this is one you won't want to miss! TVPG"

Lethe's inappropriate behavior violating Wiki rules

On Mar 26, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote to his list: Apparently Lethe wrote: He was formerly known as "Jack Sarfatt", and changed his surname to "Sarfatti" in 1974. (His earlier publications are written under the name Jack Sarfatt, and later publications under the name Jack Sarfatti.)

The above is false. My real name was "Sarfatti". My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. My two brother's names are Michael and David Sarfatti. The "i" was omitted by error on my 1939 birth certificate and my father had it CORRECTED in 1974. My real name was RESTORED!

Untitled

Mediator intervention

Example of Mainstream Physics Applied to UFO Problem for USG Intelligence Community

So What About The Books?

The monsters are due on Wikipedia

Posting of birthdate

ISSO 1999-2001

Involvement with paraphysics section

My impressions

Birth Date Issue

Vanity Press Issue & Dancing Wu Li Masters

Eye Witness Testimony on Writing of Dancing Wu Li Masters

Verifiability

Cranknet

Vanity publication vs self-publication

Gang Of Two!

Cap Weinberger & The CIA Chipman File

My Role in Reagan's Decision to Launch SDI

Sarfatti-Mussolini Connection

Name Dropping

Nasty Vicious Spiteful Insulting "Trivia"

Staying Cool

Jack as Conceptual Performance Artist

Apparent or what?

That's good. It's a wrap.

Grammar cleanup

"Denounce"? No. Not appropriate

High strangeness

Categories

I am not a pseudo-sciientist

Mainstream Physics

Self published works

Kooky? NO! High Strangeness? YES! USG INTELLIGENCE interest in? YES!

Do you think I am an idiot?

The Spooky Reality of the 1953 Contact

The article OK now except for total lack of mention of my 3 books

Jimbo Wales complains about Wiki Quality Control

comment on "Gang of Two talk section"

What Non-Mainstream Physics?

Great Spirits Scorned

Published works

Mediator check

New Development on Faster-Than-Light? No. Nick Herbert finds Jensen's error

Screen Writer Ron Stahl on how to interview Jack Sarfatti

Siegenthaler Test Case D Tobias & Others Continue Their Slurs and Insults Vandalization of my page

Violations of Federal Law

Sarfatti denies making any legal threats

Original research?

Contacting employers claim

Why I feel like Saddam Hussein on Trial

Waldyr Rodrigues

=========================================================

ID Theft Ambi?

ID Theft?

Hullabaloo

Hilbert Space Article

Who exactly is Lethe?

Is Jack Sarfatti a "crackpot" because?

Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory Without Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory?

"Crackpot" is a term of abuse

The "Death Penalty" Big Lie again

Some Progress?

Antigray

=========

=====

==============

=========

=============

=====================================

=================

=======================

===============================

Nick Pope of UK MOD on C2C

The SERPO DISINFORMATION SAGA

Is there some sort of point?

Anonymity of the Character Assassins

What's the point?

Jack Sarfatti's Politics

Sarfatti grades History Channel's shows on Reverse Engineering Alien ET Propulsion as C+

Lethe's inappropriate behavior violating Wiki rules