| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2003 10:16:08 PM |
| Object: |
Physics, The Occult & The Intelligence Community |
Memorandum For The Record
Expanded typo corrected draft.
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Now Roberto, THIS is the kind of intelligent debate you should have in
"Psychic Vibrations" in
"Skeptical Inquirer." Too long have you and Frazier et-al been picking
easy kooky
targets that are obviously Cargo Cult whilst ignoring the more heavy
hitters on the
other side.
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Robert Sheaffer wrote:
Jack,
"Yes, I understand that your 'new theories' in physics do not require UFO
reports to be true. However, you have been suggesting that your theories
explain how UFOs are possible,"
Yes, indeed.
"which means that UFO reports (if true) tend
to confirm your theories."
Not quite. Sure, but I also mean my theories, not far from mainstream
ideas at all mind you, dramatically increase the probabilities on the
plausibility of the UFO "flying saucer" allegations, also, BTW, showing
the irrelevancy of things like the Drake Eq and how they would get here
- because of Star Gates and warp drives as now likely applications of
"bottled" "dark energy." Mike Turner has prematurely said (April 2003
Physics Today) he does not think "dark energy" can be "bottled." We will
see.
"For example, see your "Zero Point Energy Gravity
Physics Of UFOs, Star Gates, Time Travel and Parallel Brane Worlds "
(http://stardrive.org/math4/Zero%20Point%20Energy%20Gravity%20Physics.htm )"
See also my "The Next Force" published in my book "Space-Time and Beyond
II" and
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
and my remarks in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" on Disc 2 of
Paramount Pictures "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Special Collector's
Edition DVD also my appearance on "Time Travel" Ultra Science Learning
Channel (with David Deutsch of Oxford) and two shows I did on "Thinking
Allowed" Wisdom Channel.
"However, I cannot fathom how you can dismiss the consensus of physicists as
irrelevant."
I do not. What consensus are you talking about? How about this from a
PhD physicist, in the minority, who has studied the UFO subject:
"I did some investigating and interviewed retired senior USG executives
who laid the Nazi flying saucer (disguised as UFOs) claim (a la Cook's
book) to rest - it didn't exist and it didn't fly."
Which is pretty much what I have also been saying about Cook's book BTW.
Do you mean for example
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_alien_civs.shtml ?
Michio Kaku writes there about ideas quite close to my own:
"The Planck energy only occurs at the center of black holes and the
instant of the Big Bang. But with recent advances in quantum gravity and
superstring theory, there is renewed interest among physicists about
energies so vast that quantum effects rip apart the fabric of space and
time. Although it is by no means certain that quantum physics allows for
stable wormholes, this raises the remote possibility that a sufficiently
advanced civilizations may be able to move via holes in space, like
Alice's Looking Glass. And if these civilizations can successfully
navigate through stable wormholes, then attaining a specific impulse of
a million seconds is no longer a problem. They merely take a short-cut
through the galaxy. This would greatly cut down the transition between a
Type II and Type III civilization.
Second, the ability to tear holes in space and time may come in handy
one day. Astronomers, analyzing light from distant supernovas, have
concluded recently that the universe may be accelerating, rather than
slowing down. If this is true, there may be an anti-gravity force
(perhaps Einstein's cosmological constant) which is counteracting the
gravitational attraction of distant galaxies. But this also means that
the universe might expand forever in a Big Chill, until temperatures
approach near-absolute zero. Several papers have recently laid out what
such a dismal universe may look like. It will be a pitiful sight: any
civilization which survives will be desperately huddled next to the
dying embers of fading neutron stars and black holes. All intelligent
life must die when the universe dies."
See also Chapter 9 of Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour." Martin does
attack UFO Cults and Kooks in his book and rightly so, but not all
scientists and scholars researching UFOs are in that category.
Also WHEN? Furthermore, the fact is that MOST physicists have not
bothered to really investigate the
UFO data professionally and, therefore, their opinions on the subject
are not to be taken at face value. Physicists also jump on the latest
fashions and many are in fear of losing their jobs if they express
radical opinions. Peer pressure is very strong to be "respectable" and
not take chances. Furthermore, many physicists are not at all familiar
with the facts of the new cosmology and have not yet thought deeply of
the implications of "dark energy", the stuff is too new. Also, I am
privy to some general information from deep in the USG intelligence
community that most physicists are not privy to. Whether that
information is true or not is another matter. However as my own work
evolves the probability that it is true is increasing rather than
decreasing. Remember I was started on this quest 50 years ago in a
project headed by Eugene McDermott. Do some homework and find out who he
was in the scheme of things in WWII and later and who his cronies were.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:4FXg10gfPIgJ:mindcontrolforums.com/hamboneplaces.html+%22Jack+Sarfatti%22+%2B+%22the+aviary%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
See also "The Star Gate Conspiracy" by Picknett & Prince and
"The Cosmic Trigger" by Robert Anton Wilson as well as my book "Destiny
Matrix" and Martin Gardner's
"Magic and Paraphysics" in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus"
and http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g18.htm
Also Ron McRae's "Mind Wars" and Jim Schnabel's "Remote Viewing: The
Secret History of America's Psychic Spies"
and for broad historical background Erik Davis's "Techgnosis" which in
novel form is seen in the genre of "The Da Vinci Code" and "Foucault's
Pendulum" for example.
In short whatever The Game is, there are a lot of players.
"Indeed, nothing could possibly be *more* relevant to a
scientific theory - that is the process science uses to separate the wheat
from the chaff."
Vague generalities. I have specifics in my e.g.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
I am all for separating the wheat from the chaff. That's exactly what I
do in my book "Space-Time and Beyond II" with the claims of Puthoff and
Haisch on the same subject of vacuum zero point energy that we are
talking about here. I welcome detailed refutations etc. of my specific
technical points by qualified competent people.
"Of course, this process takes some time to operate, but a
few years is probably enough. As I said earlier, when your 'new physics'
theories are written up favorably in a publication such as Nature or
Science, then I will take them very seriously. Until that happens, my
assumption is that they are probably not correct."
It's too bad you are not able to think critically on these matters for
yourself, but must blindly rely on The Pundits.
Mainstream physics, science in general, is ultra-conservative and
rightly so. I support that conservatism. What
you are saying is that you are irrelevant to The Game. Intellectual
honesty would demand that you then say
that you have no opinion, but are sitting on the fence when it comes to
basic issues of physics in regard to
UFOs. The situation has changed dramatically in past 2 years or so. This
is the point. Now you can stick your
head in the sand and be in denial. Your choice. I welcome competent
professional rebuttal of my specifics BTW.
"Prof. Littelton is insisting that we must naievely accept eyewitness UFO
claims at face value, which goes against everything that psychology has
learned about the unreliability and malleability of human memory (as well as
what we all know about the human propensity to exaggerate and fabricate). If
he is right, then we must also accept accounts of witches flying on
broomsticks and changing into animals. In any case, the fireball of Dec. 9,
1965 was amply documented by science, carefully studied, and published in
scientific journals. Just because somebody claims, with no proof whatsoever,
that it zigzagged around and that MJ-12 or whoever turned up to confiscate
it, we do not throw out a perfectly good, reasonable explanation for an
exciting but unproven and unreasonable one. Except in the Universe of
UFOlogy (one of the many worlds of physics, no doubt, but a peculiarly wacky
one)."
Robert Sheaffer - - Skeptical to the Max!
Visit the Debunker's Domain - http://www.debunker.com
Resources Debunking All Manner of Bogus Claims
Also: Skepticism / Astronomy / Opera / more
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: "Scott Littleton" <yokatta@oxy.edu>
Cc: "Robert Sheaffer" <>; "Rosanne C Losee"
<>; "Richard Dolan" <keyhole@rochester.rr.com>; "Don
Ecker" <decker0726@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer's UFO debunking
Note I correct a typo below in the original.
My point in all of this as summarized in my semi-popular SLS talk in
Austin Oct 24, 2003
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
does not depend on any particular alleged UFO contact incident like the
interesting one you describe below.
The probabilities have changed drastically since 1999 Type 1a
supernovae data that ~ 70% of all the large scale "stuff" of the
Universe's past light cone of our detectors is in the form of a "dark
energy" anti-gravity field of powerful negative pressure that began to
accelerate the expansion rate of the universe about half way though its
history to now, i.e. about 7 billion years ago. This dark energy is
the same as Kip Thorne's "exotic matter" in his 1986 Star Gate paper
and it is the same stuff needed for Alcubierre's weightless warp drive
metric of the early 1990's and it is the same "negative matter" needed
for exotic propulsion that British Ministry of Defense Chief Scientist
Herman Bondi told us Cornell students about in ~ 1960 that Stalin's top
physics Spy Master Y. Terletskii was also very keen on.
Now Roberto you can easily check the specifics of what I say in the
above paragraph.
One need not be a rocket scientist to connect these dots! Any Gum Shoe
can see the pattern here. :-)
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 11:04 AM, Scott Littleton wrote:
"If what happened near Kecksburg, PA, on December 9, 1965, was the
result of a "fireball," it was certainly a most peculiar one. I've
never heard of a fireball that maneuvered, changed course, slowed
down, and came in for a landing, nor one that immediately attracted
the military, a tight security cordon, and mean-faced guys wearing
long black overcoats who intimidated witnesses. But then it seems
that anything is possible when it comes to the wacky-worldview of
knee-jerk debunking. Or does your highly public take on this and
other UFO-related phenomena perhaps reflect a commitment to the
cynical, pseudo-patriotic, and thoroughly "black" world of
Government-sponsored disinformation?"
Cheers,
Scott
C. SCOTT LITTLETON
President, Phi Beta Kappa Alumni in Southern California
Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TEL (323) 255-5477
FAX (323) 982-0264
http://www.oxy.edu/~yokatta/home.htm
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic"
--Sir Arthur C. Clarke
"I think we're property. . ."
--Charles Fort
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 05:07 PM, wrote:
Whatever the real happenstance, it remains that the UFO phenomenon is
patently real and substantial. Even disregarding the thousands of UFO
witnesses worldwide who can testify to their reality, we can still refer
to the hundreds of close encounters by UFOs on military and airline
pilots. There is a wealth of material at hand for anyone truly
interested. I refer here to narcap.org for a start.
Many of these pilot encounters (not just mere sightings, but planes
being dogged and tailed and manipulated by UFOs in close proximity) are
backed up with radar reports. The real incident of a massive influx of
UFOs on radar screens over DC back in the 50's is amply documented.
The truth is that there is plenty of real UFO data at hand. Then there
are the thousands of UFO unclassified docs from the alphabet soup of gov
agencies.
The other truth is that these so-called "skeptics" are really playing
hard and fast with the *some-all* policy (if some of the data is
erroneous, then all of it is). As Dr. Jacques Vallee so articulately
said, many skeptics will pick and choose among the wealth of data,
choose one piece that is particuarly cumbersome, pounce on it,
pontificate loudly, and use it as an shining example that all UFO data
is worthless. A psychologist would have a field day with this.
Yes, there is some data that needs to be re-analzyed and possibly
omitted. Does it mean that all data is useless? .
In the end the only useful question to ask anyone who submits a theory
to what it could be, or not be, is rather whether they are well up on
their UFO material. In the vast amount out there, the more one reads,
the more one is compelled to read. Not the reverse. Ignoring the data
might carry a real risk. RCL
Well said, balanced by I think a research librarian who has studied the
data.
.
|
|
| User: "digger" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics, The Occult & The Intelligence Community |
04 Nov 2003 03:56:17 AM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Robert Sheaffer wrote:
Jack,
"Yes, I understand that your 'new theories' in physics do not require UFO
reports to be true. However, you have been suggesting that your theories
explain how UFOs are possible,"
Yes, indeed.
"which means that UFO reports (if true) tend
to confirm your theories."
Not quite. Sure, but I also mean my theories, not far from mainstream
ideas at all mind you, dramatically increase the probabilities on the
plausibility of the UFO "flying saucer" allegations, also, BTW, showing
the irrelevancy of things like the Drake Eq and how they would get here
- because of Star Gates and warp drives as now likely applications of
"bottled" "dark energy." Mike Turner has prematurely said (April 2003
Physics Today) he does not think "dark energy" can be "bottled." We will
see.
"For example, see your "Zero Point Energy Gravity
Physics Of UFOs, Star Gates, Time Travel and Parallel Brane Worlds "
(http://stardrive.org/math4/Zero%20Point%20Energy%20Gravity%20Physics.htm )"
So, THIS is how Frederic knew what gravity is made of!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edmond Wollmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics, The Occult & The Intelligence Community |
03 Nov 2003 11:19:59 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Memorandum For The Record
Expanded typo corrected draft.
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
NIXED, kookboi.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
