s 650 699 · from his answer that he was somewhat "scared" to as he was too embarrassed...

735

Table of Contents - "S_650_699.doc"_

S-650. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Art Bell's C2C

S-651. from Ed Halerewicz regarding "Berry's Phase"

S-652. from Ed Halerewicz critiquing Paul Kirsch's UNITEL notes

S-653. from Ed Halerewicz regarding an anti-matter spaceship

S-654. from Ed Halerewicz regarding "High-Frequency Gravitational Waves"

S-655. from Paul Devine regarding Novel and Torbitt

S-656. from Mike D'Agostino regarding propulsion-less flight

S-657. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Nukes, UFOs, and Consciousness

S-658. from Mike D'Agostino regarding psychic phenomena and UFOs

S-659. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar

S-660. from Ed Halerewicz regarding interdimensional UFOs

S-661. from Mike D'Agostino regarding ET species

S-662. from Paul Devine regarding the "Torbitt Memorandum"

S-663. from Paul Devine regarding 1963 Dallas and 1947 Maury Island

S-664. from Paul Devine regarding a Novel file (introduction)

S-665. from Paul Devine regarding death threats to Bob Lazar

S-666. from Paul Devine regarding Shag Habor, Canada UFO incident

S-667. from Paul Devine regarding lack-of-response from physicists

S-668. from Paul Devine regarding Paul Bennewitz

S-669. from Paul Devine regarding Mind-Control

S-670. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar's claims

S-671. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Lazar and Corso

S-672. from Paul Devine regarding physics "mainstreamers"

S-673. from Paul Devine regarding Consciousness

S-674. from Ed Halerewicz regarding basic Quantum physics

S-675. from Ed Halerewicz regarding basic Relativity

S-676. from Paul Devine regarding writing noted scientists

S-677. from Paul Devine regarding the latest from Dr. Steven Greer

S-678. from Mike D'Agostino regarding induction fields

S-679. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Anti-Gravity

S-680. from Ed Halerewicz regarding spinning nuclei and cold fusion

S-681. from Paul Devine regarding reply from George Knapp concerning Bob Lazar

S-682. from Paul Devine regarding Field Unification Theory

S-683. from Ed Halerewicz regarding UNITEL's quantum laser model

S-684. from Ed Halerewicz regarding rotating gravitational fields

S-685. from Paul Devine regarding rotating gravitational fields

S-686. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Anti-Gravity concepts

S-687. from Ed Halerewicz regarding "Gravity Rand, Inc." [Part 1 of 2]


S-689. from Mike D'Agostino regarding the Biefeld-Brown effect

S-690. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Unidentified Submerged Objects

S-691. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich

S-692. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich

S-693. from Paul Define regarding Tensor calculus concepts

S-694. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding UNITEL's proposals

S-695. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding remote-viewing "engineering"

S-696. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding plasma lifeforms

S-697. from Jonathan Beggs regarding Reich and Tesla

S-698. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding a Collective Conciousness

736

S-699. from Paul Devine regarding E-115, Robert Collins, Walter Rodd Zechel

S-650. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Art Bell's C2C

From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, March 23, 2006 2:22 pm

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: so Ed listens to C2C ...!

--- [email protected] wrote:

> (1) Perhaps electron energy levels were mentioned somewhere in the chemistry classes but

they just didn't stick. I'm sure they were mentioned in that sophomore "Modern Physics"

class or else I couldn't have calculated what light frequencies would be absorbed the

hydrogen gas. But I seem to recall they were multiples of something rather than "xyz"

electron-volts as you often state.

>

> But the point is that such details have long been forgotten. Even the numerical techniques

that I became good at to solve nonlinear and partial diff. eq. have been lost over time. For

better-or-worse, I became a corporate mainframe programmer.

>

> (2) I think it was I who made Paul Kirsch aware of you. I probably forwarded him a

couple of your emails. I once asked him if he had ever gotten in touch with you. My "read"

from his answer that he was somewhat "scared" to as he was too embarrassed about his lack

of physics expertise (i.e., not a Michael Miller). I told him if I can do it (i.e., contact you),

then ANYBODY can!

>

> At one time, Paul was searching for a co-editor of the Interdimemnsinal Journal (that had

his interview with Miller). He asked me if I wanted to help do it. But all I could offer was

editing help. And he is as good (or better) a writer than I am. You might inquire as to the

status of that effort. He sent me a complimentary copy when I sent him a backup CD of my

site. It looked pretty nice. Is your JoATP still active?

> (3) ... … …

>> 2 Tornadoes went through my town the other week and even knocked out a few

radio stations, due to the networks sharing airwaves I found which of my local

stations broadcast Coast-to-Coast (C2C). Anyway, I guess George does the weekday

shows and Art Bell does the weekend ones. Art basically said for the next few weeks,

he'll be on vacation. But he was hinting during his absence they were going to re-air

his interview with Col. Corso. So you might want to listen for that.

>

> Well knock me down! I didn't know you listened to such stuff.

>

>> A guest he had on the other night was none other than Nick Pope. He mentioned

that he had some details about the landed craft at Rhendlishm (sp?) at his site --

nickpope.net I believe it was said and thought it was perhaps something you would be

interested in knowing.

>

http://www.nickpope.net/

737

> That incident is typically called the "British Roswell". One sighting was at the

Woodbridge/Bentwaters joint British-USAF base. And the other was in the bordering

Rendlesham forest. I forget which came first. But this is where 2 dissimilar shapes

combined into a completely new one in a soundless explosion. I have the Discovery Channel

footage archived at http://www.stealthskater.com/Videos.htm - Woodbridge and the story

at http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Woodbridge .

Perhaps the reason things are fresh in my mind is that aside from my calculus and Univ. Phys.

classes, I have been largely self-taught. I wrote a paper on General Relativity once for extra credit. And

my physics professor was dumbfounded and frankly told me that I "too smart" for the class he was

teaching.

Oh! so Paul was responsible for that Miller article I pulled off your site when doing some research

on Unitel? JoATP is, frankly, not my site. It is run by Dr. Paul Hoiland. Neither I nor any of my

colleagues have been able to contact him. So until he shows up, the Journal is more-or-less dead. One

of my colleagues found that a "Paul Hoiland" recently past away in TX. I would hate to think they are

the same people. But after all this time, it might be a possibility.

C2C … Well as I said, I caught it because of a storm outage. Most of the time I was just

hysterically laughing. I've stopped listening all ready (I might listen in the future if I hear of guest such

as Michio Kaku, but that will be about it). The so-called "science adviser" -- every time he made a

claim, it was so far off that I busted up laughing hearing. What he had to say on subjects, he didn't

really understand. The only decent science was the stuff on global warming. But then they interviewed

a real climate scientist for that. I also found one piece bemusing when the only person who really

understood the some science was a science-fiction writer blasting some nutcase on how fusion actually

works.

-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr.

Truss Technician/Independent Researcher

http://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm

S-651. from Ed Halerewicz regarding "Berry's Phase"




Subject: Berry's Phase

Hello Mark,

I accidentally deleted your message with Paul Kirsch's e-mail. I have typed out a response to the

nature of Berry's phase that you can pass onto him:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings Paul,

Mark McWilliams has passed along to me that wish to understand what exactly "Berry’s phase" is in

plain English. In words, it’s fairly simple it is just a function [of something like cos(t)±sin(t)] which

http://www.stealthskater.com/Videos.htm#Woodbridge

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Woodbridge


738

causes a geometric defect in where a vector would otherwise point without geometric perturbations.

There is a rather nice description although it may seem somewhat technical here:

http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html

The most famous example in Quantum Mechanics is, of course, the Ahronov-Bohm Effect in which

non local magnetic effects can alter the properties of local quantum effects. A nice write-up on that is

here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect

Since popular newsmagazines such as Scientific American often discuss or rather illustrate aspects of

Relativity theory, it also could be summed up in another manner. If you move in flat space-time

(Special Relativity), a vectors phase (angle) does not change as there is no geometry to modify such

motion. However, when space-time is curved (as with General Relativity), vector motion can become

deflected as seen by an observer in flat space-time. So more-or-less, Berry’s phase is just the effect of

geometry (or rather symmetry) has on the kinematics of moving bodies.




S-652. from Ed Halerewicz critiquing Paul Kirsch's UNITEL notes


To: "Paul Kirsch" <[email protected]> (more)


Subject: Re: draft for feedback

--- Paul Kirsch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,

>

> <Click> on the URL below or cut and paste to your browser. It is about 12 megs and 180

slides. {URL not listed here to accommodate the following request}. As mentioned, this is

not to be posted to the Web as I hope to sell as book.

>

> I have basically taken the UNITEL story and tried to simplify it as much as I could for a

general audience and put it in a narrative form (with my own little opinions). I am still

revising the narrative, but need to take a pause and step back from it. I have shown an earlier

version to the guys at UNITEL and they said it was good. But I didn't get some things quite

right.

>

> Ed and Mark --

> I have no where near the stature of either of you in terms of physics background. But I am

learning. I am interested in constructive criticism.

>

> I think the main thing is to prove there is enough energy to curve space with the energy

system described and perhaps I haven't really done that. I'll have to look up more references.

Whatever …

>

http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect


739

> In light and service,

> Paul

> -- Paul Kirsch

> Executive Assistant to Dr. Erkki Ruoslahti

> 1105 Life Sciences Building

> Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology

> University of California, Santa Barbara

> Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Hi Paul,

Well, I'll have to wait until I bring my laptop with me to campus so I can put that 12 meg file onto

my home computer. But I do have a few brief comments on my initial scan of the slides. First, it's

always wise to carry a dose of skepticism over just buying into the whole Macroscopic Quantum

Tunelling (MQT) hypothesis.

1) There is no such thing as a "magnetic charge". There are electric charges and magnetic fields. But no

"magnetic charges".

2) As far as nuclear physicists are concern, the Tokomak reactor is a bit of a joke. A table0top fusion

reactor had more success than that bloated project.

3) There is NO THEORY that explains what an electron should look like. The best theory on that

subject is Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). And even in that theory, it is still treated as point particle

largely due to the Klein-Gordon equation of relativistic quantum mechanics. There is zero experimental

evidence that gives even a guess to the electron's sizes. And there are about 3-or-4 different sizes it can

take in theory. So I don't buy the UNITEL hull as being built to look like an electron, though that is not

to say it couldn't have the same quantum properties in principle.

4) The Higgs Field is in NO WAY responsible for the "warping" of space-time. In fact, it could be

generally said that warping of the Higgs Field is responsible for the "generation" of mass.

5) (i) the equation "Ds^2" should be "ds^2" due to calculus notation. (ii) That equation is not complex

but rather simple as it represents the null path of a photon.

6) Planck's constant is not complex but is rather simply a product of an electrons angular momentum

around an atom's nucleus.

7) While many theorists feel very strongly that magnetic monopoles should exist, there is absolutely no

physical evidence for them at this time. Period!




S-653. from Ed Halerewicz regarding an anti-matter spaceship




740

Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 10:02 am

Subject: Re: NASA.gov - New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions

> Maybe UNITEL (and others) can use this positron-electron scheme in a small (Lazar-

like) on-board power generator to supply energy for their propulsion schemes.

> "Researchers Study Anti-Matter Concept" - 04.14/2006

> Same terrific power! Less annoying radiation!

>

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/antimatter_spaceship.htm

l

Funny, but I sent a similar message to a friend of mine. FYI: We have positron creation technology

now and have had for quite some time. So it's not new. What Lazar spoke of were virtual anti-matter

atoms -- not positrons. The trick is to see if it can be used as an aid in propulsion.

On the Lazar note, I've put together some of Lazar's claims together to check the science on as you

suggested. In my spare time, I'll work off and on that and let you know when I'm done. One thing I

thought funny so far was that Paul Potter claimed something that Lazar actually said but the other way

around. So I'm not convinced by his line of reasoning.




S-654. from Ed Halerewicz regarding "High-Frequency Gravitational Waves"

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:33:40 -0700 (PDT)



Subject: Re: more from Paul Potter ...

Hello Mark,

High-Frequency Gravity waves is just a "buzz term" that those people love to use but don't really

understand. Gravity comes in all frequencies just like electromagnetism does. So there is nothing really

special about one bandwidth as the science covers all bandwidths. The Tesla quote has some meaning

but is used out-of-context and could not thrust anymore than what the so-called "lifters" do.

Now the 3 Gigahertz frequency for supposed UFOs could be accurate as the Schwarzschild radius of

the Earth is roughly 8.89 cm [for Mark: as you know, that is about the same diameter Lazar claimed for

his so-called "gravity waveguide" and, as such, is the only bit about what he says about gravity could be

true.]. So the gravity standing wave of the Earth should in theory be about 3.36 gigahertz. Typically,

low gravitational frequencies are generated by massive bodies rotating slowly while high frequencies

would only be typically observed for things such as black hole collisions.

Also for Paul. The Tamajar ESA paper had an interesting tie into UNITEL in that the greatest

superconducting gravito-magnetic effect came from the Niobium material.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/antimatter_spaceship.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/antimatter_spaceship.html


741




S-655. from Paul Devine regarding Novel and Torbitt

From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>


Date: Thu, April 27, 2006 9:13 pm

Subject: In case you've been wondering what happened to me ...

> [email protected] wrote:

I routed you to this guy's UFO Propulsion site before. KeelyNet just posted one of his newer

articles at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/microprop.htm

>

> You might want to checkout his pages listed at the bottom of the article for anything new.

Seems more is increasingly mentioned about high-frequency gravitational waves in all

quarters (not just Robert Baker). Must be something to these things that never have been

detected and strongly doubted. Sample excerpt:

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

>> " ... ... ... ... For as Tesla once proved (see note 26), if a series of beams could be made to

concentrate on a localized area of the atmosphere and set up an oscillating resonance in that area

to a certain frequency (say to around 2-to-4 GHz where atmospheric air readily ionizes), then an

electrification of that ambient would result. And depending on how much electric tension is

developed there, it would react upon the craft as a variable thrust force.

>>

>> If an energy wave can deliver "at a distance" the required electric field, then propulsion is just

as simple as...reaching for an apple.

>>

>> Indeed, there is ample data to suggest that some UFO propulsion systems operate in the SHF

(3-30 GHz) frequency range. In France, physicists have found that the sonic shock wave ahead

of Mach 1+ aircraft can be nullified by the use of microwave ionization. In the United States, a

report from the USAF indicating that UFOs use a dual 3 GHz frequency electromagnetic power

wave (see note 27) as part of their propulsion system has led researchers to an intriguing and new

development in the understanding (and perhaps someday duplication) of UFO propulsion (see

the Propagated High Frequency Wave Propulsion page). ...

>> ... ... ..."

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

>

> I need to compare his current site with what I have previously archived (at

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Potter) to see if there's anything new that should

be save.

Mark,

Well, what can I say? It's hard to know where to begin.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/microprop.htm

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Potter

742

I notice my last message to you was about a month ago. (It seems infinitely longer!) I said I wanted

to hold off on a detailed critique of your "MAJ"-document draft for your website until I had more time.

Well, that day -- when I have more time --- has still not arrived. This is the first chance I have had to

come up for air.

Basically, deadlines have been nipping at my heels for months past . They finally caught up to me.

And there are still more to come. I estimate the last deadlines -- that I know about at present --- will

keep me busy until the middle of next month at least.

After I have reached a stopping place with this pure research, it will still be necessary to collate all

the results. And I doubt I can collate this mass of material in two weeks. So I am presently thinking it

will be June before I can start sending to you the material I had in mind to send you a month ago. The

material, that I hope to be able to share with you, includes :

● material on "Branton" (that, at least, should be quickly and easily done!) ;

● material on the Torbitt Document, the Torbitt Memorandum ( or, Were Werner von Braun, and

NASA, involved in Dallas ?, et al. ) ;

● a critique in detail of your "MAJ" - first draft ;

● some new material for that MAJ-document from my source here in Madison ;

● a comment on the death-by-murder of Commander "Brook" (USN) from that document;

● material on Chrisman/Crisman/Chrismon/Crismon (Dallas,1963 ; Maury Island, 1947) ;

● material on Gordon Novel.

I will almost-certainly have to let these letters accumulate and then send them all at once as a group.

Already, there are some things you can do in order to help both of us :

The "Chrismon" (the Tacoma UFOlogist and radio personality, apparently) is described (by Torbitt)

as having been grown up by the year 1920, and as having been a Syrian. You know more about this

subject than I do. Does that sound right? Do you have any independent method of getting information

about the subject of the second 1947 Maury Island incident? Something does not sound right about that

description above.

Much of the time this past month has been spent pursuing information relevant to Gordon Novel.

Why Gordon Novel? Where did his name come from?

His name came up in your "Lazar_21.doc" document that you just recently sent me. That name set

off more than a few alarm bells and whistles. Novel has been accused of active involvement in Dallas.

And he also played a bit role in Watergate. (He was also involved in the Bay of Pigs.) A common

thread throughout his life appears to have been theft and mis-direction.

Now, here is what I am doing. I am trying to build a file on Novel. When finished, then I intend to

share it with you. My intention is that Bob Lazar should be offered a right of refusal concerning this

material. However, Lazar apparently has largely closed himself off from the outside world and from his

own past.

George Knapp may be the only person Lazar trusts. I think that you and Knapp should get to know

each other (if you don't know each other already). (And likewise for Lazar!) Therefore, I think it would

be a good idea to offer this material to Knapp first. (He was on C2C the other night as guest host, and I

743

got his e-mail address). If Knapp already knows this material, then no harm is done. Knapp can offer

the material to Lazar. If Lazar refuses it, then still no harm is done for by that time, you and I and

Knapp will have it. And Lazar (if he does not already know about Novel) may change his mind later on.

And here is what you can do. Reach out to Knapp. Advertise your own WS. Ask Knapp what he

and Lazar collectively know about Gordon Novel. And tell him that unless you hear from him to the

contrary in a timely way, you will forward for Lazar -- through Knapp himself -- the material you expect

from me (when I am finally able to send it all to you). Clear? You may object and say, "Paul, send it to

him yourself!" But if I do that, then I will simply refer him straight back to you and to your website.

After all, it's on your WS that I found the document with Novel's name in it.

Besides, your website could use publicity with someone like a George Knapp. And you deserve it

because of all your hard work over these years. (And suppose that Lazar should take the initiative in

getting in touch with you, thanking you for the material!) [StealthSkater note: I thank Paul for the

kind words. But my real intent all along has been just to archive this material in a place where

people a lot smarter than me can figure out what it's all about. If websites never disappeared or

articles removed, then nobody would be reading this now because there wouldn't have been any

need to do all of this. Any true answers will be reward enough for me.]

Do not feel the need to wait to hear from me again before sharing with me the results of any

exchanges that may take place between yourself and either Knapp and/or Lazar. Or concerning

"Chrismon" (as "Torbitt" spells the name), either. It's just that I don't know when I will next be able to

write again to answer any such message you may send me. (There's always the possibility that Knapp

and Lazar already know everything that I could send them about Novel. In that case, Why bother? It

may be new to you, 'tho' ...)

In haste,

Paul.

S-656. from Mike D'Agostino regarding propulsion-less flight

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>


Date: Sat, May 6, 2006 2:50 pm

Subject: Thanks for keeping me in the loop

Hi Mark,

Thanks for keeping me "in the loop". I've been back in the States for a few months, running around

like a chicken with no head … busy, busy. Although productive, it feels good to relax for a week-or-

two, just to gather my thoughts.

Regarding what appears as anti-gravity effects. There are a variety of means of generating the

apparent effect: superconductive grav-shield; superconductive HFGW; Gertsenshtein effect; ELF-grav

shielding; Mach's principle; off-center rotors; gyroscopic-precession; variation of Mach's principle;

Lenz-law levitation; geomagnetic levitation; rotating magnetic field device; Hutchinson-effect; Poynting

vector propulsion; and of course, the Biefeld-Brown effect.

744

The basic principles behind the Biefeld-Brown effect is commonly demonstrated in the construction

and operation of a simple device called the "Lifter", although very primitive still remains mysterious,

based on the standard model of societies mainstream physics.

When I say "primitive". I mean primitive in several regards. The poor coefficient of electrical

energy required to lift one once. The Lifter requires 15, 000 volts before upward motion is experienced.

Also the Lifter is typically unstable and limited in its flight control and navigation. Field manipulation

is fixed and impractical at best.

Today it is common for the electronics industry to utilize multiple layers with various forms of micro

stripping as a conductive wire or guide for electrons in motion. In the RF (radio-frequency)

communications/ESM/ECM/ECCM in the defense industry, it is common to also use micro-stripping

technology as a RF waveguide in creating various forms of polarization for RF propagation through

creative designs of antennas for various purposes.

Now if micro-stripping technology and Pi-based spiral arrangements on a multi-layer skin is used to

create and guide extremely high voltage with pulsed DC while turning on-and-off different micro-

stripped spirals, a more advanced form of the Biefeld-Brown effect -- which becomes a multiplexed

rotating and modulated electro-static field -- may be created. [StealthSkater note: Isn't this was

happened in the Philadelphia Experiment??]

If the field is pulsed at a frequency which is the resonate frequency of the craft itself, different forms

of field manipulation may be feasible. An induction field. The initial field may be a type of standing

field, symmetrical. Although to experience motion activating guide elements embedded within layers of

the skin of the craft with a positive charge, the field would become asymmetrical in the direction of

travel "In Theory". If the field is operated in a uni-directional mode, basic flight may be achieved

utilizing the "fly-by-wire" computer technology commonly used in high-performance aircraft at present.

One of the byproducts of this active field would be to shield the craft from the space it is

experiencing motion through. When active, the craft would actually never be in physical contact with

the surrounding air or space it is flying through. And protect the crew from harmful radiation when not

operating in the atmosphere of a planet.

Using super-conducting and super non-conducting material would be required for such a craft.

EG&G along with Boeing has some precision material which appear interesting. The actual beauty of

this craft would be the guides and elements used in shaping and manipulating the field itself would be

entirely embedded within the thin skin of the craft itself. If by accident the craft was dissected, most

wouldn't understand how such a craft could even fly unless they knew what they were looking for. Just

some food for thought, Mark.

One more thing I wanted to bring to your attention regarding the inverse gravity field propulsion.

When the craft previously described would land, turning the field off wouldn't be required. By

modulating the field frequency to increasingly higher frequencies, the field in essence decreases in the

space it physically occupies, basically shrinks, becomes enfolded within the center of the craft without

causing harm to the occupants of the craft due to the skin effect of high frequency, high voltage. To

activate the field for propulsion purposes and encapsulate the craft, decreasing the field frequency to a

resonate of the craft itself would be required. A singularity would exist within the containment area of

the craft when the field is enfolded within the center of the craft. And it is static and landed.

Mark, try not to become too distracted by all the dis-information floating around. Sometimes the

beauty of a concept is hiding in plain sight.

745

Best Regards,

Mike

S-657. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Nukes, UFOs, and Consciousness



Date: Fri, June 2, 2006 2:26 am

Subject: RE: Nukes, UFO's, Consciousness

Hello Mark,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are trying to get a snap-shot of the "Big Picture".

Regarding the physical security components; ex- Intelligence and Special-Ops personnel -- and the

hiring practices of those companies and corporations which are engaged in R&D -- support Intel

collections and analysis. It is a common practice to hire ex-Spcl ops and former Intel personnel. This

process makes the screening and background checks much easier.

In other instances, the security personal have been sheep-dipped. They are, in fact, active military

personnel on assignment for a defined period of time. By hiring former special-ops and Intel personnel -

- in addition to making the screening and background checks easier -- it also provides a backdoor to

other elements within the community as alliances are many for many from the different

compartmentalized elements which makeup the community. To someone outside, it would appear

convoluted although it actually provide a means of checks and balances to those administering the

darker programs.

Mark, if you are looking for conspiracies around every corner, that's exactly what you will see!

Many who have approached the over-all field of ETs, their crafts and agenda with a critical eye will

always find their own versions of the so-called truth, blended with dis-information as well. This is how

the "game" is played. Many in the process of sorting out what may be fact from dis-information have

also been unwitting perpetrators of dis-information as well, unaware that they themselves act as carriers.

It has become common for many to become polarized in such a way many now think of any event

with the word "UFO" as being lumped together with "Big Foot", "Lockness" monsters, and "Ghost".

This has had the desired effect of desensitizing many to just ignore or treat the entire subject as a joke

with no aspects of truth. Even in cases involving credible multiple witnesses and trace evidence at the

landing site, many will turn a blind eye, subconsciously.

For others, their beliefs alone is all that is required and as a result, almost every moving light in the

night sky is seen as an UFO. Many who know those who take this stand just think of them as crazy or

nuts and leave it at that. Some have become lost within the infinite conspiracy theories and think one-

or-two Earth- or space-based groups controls and is responsible for many events or influences everyone

and everything.

Are the facts out there? Are there still unexplained effects which defy the standard model of our

present state of public Science? Is there other Life out there beyond planet Earth? And out of the

746

mathematical possibilities of other life among the stars, are some species more advanced than us on

planet Earth? And could we have been visited by some of these more advanced species?

I believe the answer to these questions is Yes!

How one decides to think of, organize, and correlate this data is a matter of how one decides to think

and process the information. Data mining and processing comes in many forms.

Mark, there are very valid reasons we have secrets whether it be a person or a government. Are

there dis-information campaigns underway? Yes!

Like a good poker game, you wouldn't want everyone else at the table to see your hand, would you?

Propaganda and dis-information has been with our species shortly after intelligence and espionage itself.

Putting the conspiracy claims and hundreds of theories aside, sometimes it is necessary to return to the

basics.

Regarding the general UFO phenomena, previous studies by both the Military and Civilian

organizations have stated on many reports that typically 95% of reported sightings can and in many

cases have been explained. The remaining 5% perplexes many. Within this remaining 5% of

unexplained sightings is where careful analysis and modeling has been of use.

If we eliminate sightings involving only one or several untrained observers within close proximity of

each other with no landing/hovering trace evidence involved (residual static, ionized and none ionized

radiation, scorched/high tempeture soil/vegetation exposure, etc.) and look at the remaining unexplained

cases which do involve trace evidence and multiple trained observers situated 1000+ yards or miles

apart, it stills leaves a significant number for analysis purposes. Usually in the range of 2-1.5% remain.

Out of this percentage where multiple trained observers and landing or hovering sites where trace

evidence is present would form a modeling profile of interests.

Identifying the similar characteristics and correlating them together would strongly indicate an aero-

spatial craft, based on reported cases that utilize unconventional aerodynamic propulsion and operating

under intelligent direction and control does appear to be "real”. The major as well as the minor

militaries around the World have been aware of this for some time. These aero-spatial craft exhibit

aerodynamic performance characteristics which defy our present understanding of conventional

aerodynamics in general. They have also been identified by most military organizations globally as

potential shortcomings and deficiencies in their (i.e., the militaries') present state of tactical aircraft.

For obvious reasons, there is a great interests by major militaries in understanding the technology;

power plant, navigation, communications, defensive, offensive capabilities along with the propulsion

systems behind such aero-spatial vehicles.

Out of the numerous sightings which fit within the modeling profile stated above, there appears to be

a wide variety of different configured aero-spatial vehicles. This would indicate different vehicles are

designed to provide different functions along with the strong possibility that there are probably

numerous advanced species performing reconnaissance.

In addition, on many occasions military as well as civilian ATC (air traffic controllers) have either

reported a positive radar contact or no contact at all during reported sightings, which meet the modeling

profile above. This has raised great concern among many.

747

Based on this common sense, reasonable and logical approach described above through examining

each and every case, on a case-by-case basis, those which meet the profile described above -- be it small

-- would strongly imply this aerial phenomena called "UFOs" (as in Unknown Flying Objects) is valid

and real.

Mark, I know it is easy to get lost in the hundreds of theories and conspiracies flying around. But

like data mining, it all depends on what you’re looking for and how to extrapolate the data so it holds

high confidence and validity. There are actually many well-documented cases involving multiple

military personnel and trace evidence as well.

Got to run for now. But I will follow-up as time permits.

Best Regards

Mike

S-658. from Mike D'Agostino regarding psychic phenomena and UFOs



Date: Sun, June 4, 2006 11:16 pm

Subject: Nukes, UFO's, consciousness

Hi Mark,

Regarding psychic phenomena, remote-viewing, etc., it would appear what was once considered

“Inside” programs by the U.S. Government have now been "farmed out", from what one of my sources

tell me. This source wishes to remain unidentified for obvious reasons.

The question has always been is there some real validity to these types of programs? The answer

that I have received from various sources still active within the community is "Yes". But within margins

of degrees. What I have been told is when the information received from these programs is coupled

with other more conventional sources of information, it can actually enhance and better define

intelligence collected by other sources for a particular set collection objective. In many instances where

the many pieces of collected data do not always correlate, the information from a remote-viewing

program can -- and has -- filled in the missing gaps. Back to the question again, is there really some

validity to the remote viewing, psy-programs, the answer appears to be "Yes" … but always within

certain defined limits.

What was explained to me is that the reason it is difficult at best -- or impossible -- to get results in

the 100% arena is based in Quantum Physics and the “Many Worlds” alternate reality concepts. When

remote-viewers -- or even these very gifted psychics who usually assist police and sheriffs investigators

in murder investigations -- are perceiving locations, people, and events, they are perceiving from and

through a medium which is in essence every "where" and every "when" --spatially and in time.

[StealthSkater note: Hawking's "MultiVerse" -- the sum of all possible histories/timelines]

So what may be accurate and valid information in another alternate reality system can sometimes be

mistakenly interpreted as in this reality system. I realize this must sound confusing. But as the concept

goes, there are an undefined and growing number of reality systems. Some systems would appear

almost identical to what we call our system of reality. Other systems would appear so different -- almost

748

alien in some respects. This is the primary reason even the most successful psychics would find it

impossible to be 100% accurate each and every time they applied their psychic abilities. In addition, the

concept would indicate even if an event didn’t happen here in our reality system, it did occur in some of

these other alternate reality systems. [StealthSkater note: the challenge would be for a remote-

viewer to focus only on our present reality and ignore the other quantum-viable realities.]

The former Princeton Engineering Anomalous Research (PEAR ) research group -- along with

several other universities conducting research into Consciousness research -- have demonstrated that

focused, directed-thought intent can and has effected random number generators -- random events

generators at a distance with no physical contact to the subject. This has been demonstrated in dozens

(if not hundreds) of experiments. Although what many people with a very critical eye will quickly point

out is the effect at best is usually very subtle. This effect does demonstrate something very important.

Consciousness is an “Active Field” and interacts with our environment in a manner, which pervades our

common sense and logic. In the field of Quantum Mechanics, it just confirms what many already know:

the observer of a quantum experiment affects the outcome of that experiment. [StealthSkater note:

more on remote-viewing archived at http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#RV ]

It should be noted in regards to the paragraph above, in linear systems the measured energy output is

never greater than the energy originally input to any dynamic system. Although in nonlinear systems,

the energy output may be disproportionately greater than the originally energy input. This would

strongly suggest it is possible to have Macro-effects even though the original energy catalyst was very

subtle since what we call reality is neither absolutely orderly or absolutely chaos. Cascading effects in

predominately nonlinear systems would make the emergence of Macro events possible even though they

usually appear infrequently.

The subject of nonlinear dynamics is a subject onto itself. Prof. Bohm has stated in some of his

manuscripts regarding implicate and explicate orders that absolute chaos actually doesn’t exist. What

we perceive as chaos Prof. Bohm speculates can be orderly systems operating within higher orders of

symmetry. Others have stated what appears as chaos can be probable states or unrealized states of

possibilities. It's interesting to note in digital RF communications involving direct sequence spread

spectrum communications, or ultra-wideband digital spread spectrum communications as system

efficiency increases an interesting byproduct is an increase of randomness as well. What would be

detected as noise or static to a conventional narrowband RF receiver is data to a synchronized wideband

spread spectrum receiver. Today, it is common to have multiple channels operating simultaneously

without causing interference to each other or the typical narrowband radio receiver. Although the

background noise level, static would increase as the intelligence is buried within or below the noise

floor.

I think most people are familiar with what is called the Divining (or "dowsing") rod. When someone

trained and familiar uses a divining rod, the rod itself operates as a tool to detecting water, oil, metal,

underground streams of water, etc. The rod itself has no special attributes, although when used by

someone familiar and skilled in the use of the split rod, it becomes an active tool to detecting a wide

range of materials.

I have personal used divining rods on occasion as well as witnessing others who use them to make a

living. In Florida as well as Nevada and other states, it is a respected field and part-time occupation.

How and why the divining rods operate and get results is anyone's guess. Although I can only assume

we as biological beings are far more sensitive and subconsciously aware than most would imagine. And

the rod is just a simple component, similar to a wire connecting different components to form a complete

circuit for a desired purpose and function.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#RV

749

In my previous email, I statedthere is a likelihood that we have probably been visited by several

different advanced species from planets other than Earth. Some former military officers -- who are or

have been active member of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) -- have speculated that some of these

advanced species when within their aero-spatial vehicles may actually be part of (and complete) the

circuit of the craft itself.

Just as the divining rod is a tool to detecting water, oil, etc., in such a scenario the aero-spatial craft

would require an operator to complete the circuit and function as a transport. As I described above, if a

person can consciously affect a random number generator without physical contact, it wouldn’t be

difficult to envision the same basic principle taking place for a more advanced species to activate, direct,

and control an aero-spatial vehicle by their physical presence and directed thought alone.

[StealthSkater note: same thing Col. Corso hypothesized =>

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Corso ]

Also by the same sources stated above, it is also likely these more advanced beings could mentally

operate as a collective as well. Famous psychologist Carl Gustav Jung wrote and speculated about an

unconscious human collective in which information is shared unconsciously and possibly

subconsciously through a species wide collective. [StealthSkater note: similar to the Star Trek "Q-

continuum"?]

Although at first appearance this may seem insane to even ponder, there is material publicly

available which supports this theory. Cleve Backster in his recently released book titled Primary

Perception demonstrate with over 30 years of laboratory experiments with plants, yeast cells, human

cells, etc. that there is constant communications taking place. Cleve will not say or speculate on what

this medium is or is not. The effects are easily repeated and recorded. It is not E/M (electromagnetic); it

is not RF (radio frequency). The effect cannot be shielded. And the effect is instantaneous. Cleve

Backster`s research has been and continues to be selectively ignored by the mainstream scientific

community.

Mark, just another dot to connect to a much larger picture. I will follow-up as time permits.

Best Regards

Mike

S-659. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar



Date: Mon, June 5, 2006 12:37 pm

Subject: Bobo

Mark,

Thought you would like an update to my digging into Lazar. At the moment, I really do think he

never had a degree in physics although may be perhaps an electronics degree and -- at best -- and

conceptual physics course. But nothing really beyond that based on his descriptions.

I have two-or-so things that could be inferred about the science he speaks if you assume there are

some nuggets to it. But I'm rather surprised that if true why he would not point them out. I will wait

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Corso

750

until I have had enough time to fully critique his many statements to say what those concept are at this

time.

However, I will attach a portion of the April C2C interview that I've included in my present task so

that you can have a taste of what was talked about. I marked where Knapp and Huff were speaking. All

other text is straight from Lazar and [ ] bracket are my own comments FYI...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Coast to Coast AM 2006)

Gene Huff: ... I think Bob not elaborating in "The Lazar Tape" and other interviews on

Element 115, umm, has caused some problems. When a lab synthesizes some 115 and if Bob

would explain how they do that I mean these, these particles... But the 115 that Bob dealt

with was kept under neutron bombardment [italicized as the statement tends to support the

notes within the Joe Vaninetti Diary] at rest and [sic] Bob and what ehh [sic] it could have

been an isotope or what -- I don’t know I’m not a physicist -- of 115.

But there were a lot of extenuating circumstances about this 115. It wasn’t just a clump

of 115. They had to take great care to make it exist, right? Yeah, I mean... When they

synthesize elements and there’s a variety of ways and you know a popular new way is

nuclide fusion [this is actually the “popular” old way] where you just accelerate particles or

subatomic particles at each other and cyclotrons or linear accelerators and just smash these

things together or by other means [the other means is how the synthesized Z=115 atoms were

produced, a procedure which he seems largely ignorant]

...they can never measure ah or analyze these elements in depth when they make it that way.

...I never do interviews. [an interesting contradiction]

George Knapp: ... If it’s not stable as what you described, how do you explain that? Well,

both sides are actually correct to some degree. Yeah, it was something that I said was

possible [this implies that he in the past suggested that it was possible to create 115 under

laboratory conditions; however, this is a blatant contradiction with earlier proclamations of

“heavy” star systems]




S-660. from Ed Halerewicz regarding interdimensional UFOs



Date: Mon, June 5, 2006 3:56 pm

Subject: Re: Dan Aykroyd, David Sereda on C2C about interdimensional UFOs

> Ed --

>

> Chuck Clark retired to Rachel, Nevada to do some astronomy and be closer to his son. He

has ventured out into Area-51 to take some sophisticated (if illegal) photos of military craft.


751

I got his story from Darlington's book and archived part of it in (I think)

WorldReports_1.doc . He said his interest in UFOs began when he and other kids playing a

baseball/softball game noticed them playing cat-and-mouse with jet interceptors in 1956 (if

memory serves) Los Angeles. He seemed to have replaced Glen Campbell at the Al-i-en Inn

due to a feud between Campbell and the Travises.

>

> He argues that UFOs could be a dimensional phenomena as opposed to an interstellar one.

Then I saw this at C2C today:

>

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

>>

>> http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/06/04.html#recap

>>

>> George Noory welcomed Dan Aykroyd (first hour only) and David Sereda (full show),

who talked about their new documentary film, Dan Aykroyd Unplugged on UFOs. Aykroyd,

who's had a long-standing interest in ufology, said he's had two of his own UFO experiences

and that he serves as the Hollywood consultant for MUFON. Of all the cases he's studied, the

one he said that stands out most for him featured police officer audio tapes with live

descriptions of a UFO that was pursued around Trumbull County, Ohio in 1994.

>>

>> The case that has impressed Sereda the most dealt with multiple incidents in Cairo in

1968-70 (website/photos). It involved sightings of the Virgin Mary which were accompanied

by unknown aerial objects, which he classified as "angelic UFOs." He also discussed UFO

footage shot in Phoenix by Jeff Willes that showed a translucent craft, which Sereda believes

indicates the presence of higher frequency wavelengths.

>>

>> Sereda also shared his theory about Roswell: The 1945 testing of an atomic bomb at the

Trinity site in New Mexico sent out gamma radiation and such higher frequency vibrations

could have knocked out interdimensional UFOs in the area. We didn't see the effects until

two years later (because of "time dilation") when 2 spaceships crashed on either side of the

Trinity location.

>>

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

>

> If nuke tests open up some sort of dimension portal, it might be due to some other effect

than gamma radiation. Remember that I told you that some effects about the Hiroshima blast

are still classified to this day. And it's well-established that UFO sightings go hand-in-hand

with nuke tests. I just wonder why the knee-jerk reaction to order a worldwide moratorium?

Plus he doesn't guess at what happens to the UFOs after they gain entrance to our realm.

They seem to eventually go away. (Does the portal catch up to them like the freak storm in

the movie "The Final Countdown"?)

>

> Makes me wonder if the not-so-credible source Richard Boylan wasn't onto something

regarding holographic portals, We Ho Lee, and LANL. Plus the "time dilation" stuff smacks

of the P-X and Montauk.

> I wouldn't think the "higher vibrations" (certainly that has to be something else -- perhaps

akin to Reich's "orgone") would be gravitational waves or the like.

>

> Maybe I can find out more about this Sereda fellow and others who are promoting this

interdimensional (hyperspace? consciousness? zen?) hypothesis.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/WorldReports_1.doc

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/06/04.html#recap

752

>

> -- Mark

Hi,

Every now-and-again, I listen to C2C after my initial accidental catching of the station where it airs

locally. And I caught the one the other night as it happens. More often than not, Science is often

misunderstood on that program (for example, Noory seems to think proving extra dimensions ala string

theory [by satellite] is a major paradigm shift. It is not. The proposal of extra-dimensions has been

around since the 70s).

The idea of a nuke opening up an inter-dimensional portal is laughable to the extreme. If that were,

the case the Sun and all other stars would serve as giant wormholes. This is simply not the case. As for

the program last night, he was trying to argue that Trinity caused a time dilation effect upon the UFOs.

Hardly inter-dimensional travel.

Even if you go the ET route with nukes … Well if a probe was in orbit, it would be pretty easy to

spot a gamma ray burst. So I don't at all see the connection which you assert. Your assertion among the

matter just makes me think of the zebra adage. If it has hoofs and a mane, think a horse not zebra!

There may be a connection there if your sources are to be trusted. But I highly doubt it would be

anything as exotic as would want to believe.

And on the inter-dimensional UFO principle you like so much, essentially any method of "FTL"

would require a trip through hyperspace. One example being the UNITEL MQT concept. And another

the flawed hyperdrive concept brought up at this year's STAIF conference.

The one thing of interest was his mention of a "gravity wave generator" seen only at certain

wavelengths. That would be interesting if true and if he was willing to share the photo to the public. I

hope his DVD sales are good, though. It would be nice to get paid to do the scientific work I do on

exotic/propulsion physics in my spare time through his proposed think tank. Though his interpretation

of the Dirac sea of negative electrons was way off-key, that's what happens when non physicists attempt

to use physics to attempt to describe metaphysical principles.




S-661. from Mike D'Agostino regarding ET species



Date: Wed, June 7, 2006 11:30 pm

Subject: Nukes, UFO's, consciousness

Hi Mark,

At present, countries which have been identified by international regulatory agencies as having

nuclear weapons are the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Pakistan, Israel, and

India. Mark, unlike yourself, I have not done an intensive study into UFOs being present during actual


753

tests of nuclear weapons by the major countries above. Although many have their own theories

regarding the agenda of what has come to be known as extraterrestrial aliens, ETs, or EBEs. Some

have stated their agenda is to secure certain ores; others say it is water. I have heard many theories as

I’m sure you have. If there are several advanced species visiting our planet, maybe each has their own

unique agenda as well.

The EBEs called and commonly described as the "Grays" or the "kids". Some former Military

officers connected with MUFON have told me their agenda is a simple one: to infuse new genetic

material into their gene pools. It is by far the simplest explanation. The Grays do not multiple and

procreate as we do. Instead they -- according to some sources-- use incubation tanks on a large scale

and genetically are basically "copied" or cloned as I have been informed through some of my sources.

If new but subtle changes are introduced, there are little problems. But if they make copies of copies

and this process is repeated continually, the end result are riddled with defects until copies are no longer

possible. Diversity is required to continue the process of evolution, so it appears. It would be like

making a copy on a copy machine, then continually making more copies from the previous copies.

Eventually you end up with something that is totally eligible. DNA sequencing is similar it is necessary

to introduce new sequences into the gene pool in order to continue to replicate and clone successfully.

These changes may be very subtle, but necessary.

The theory is that they will occasionally secure new genetic material from time-to-time to ensure the

survival of their race. This would lend credibility to some of the reported "abduction" cases reported.

But not all of them. In addition, it may lend credence to what we understand as a psychic link or bond

between twins in our society, between human twins. The concept of a psychic collective would be

understandable and reasonable to masses created of a replicated-cloned dependent species. This psychic

bonding or linking can in a primitive way be thought of as quantum or photon entanglement at the time

of biological inception. Although in human society it is more common to deny such abilities exist as it

is frowned upon in human societies. The typical approach for social and educational development is

that if an effect can’t be rationally explained, it is far easier to deny the effect exists at all.

Another source who previously worked with the ONR (Office of Naval Research) claims that the

EBEs known as the "Grays", DNA sequencing is 99% that of humans and 1% sequencing which closely

resembles that of sea turtles and or dolphins. Although, again, I have no means to verify the information

other than taking it at face value.

Several years ago, another contact of mine working for the Dept. of Energy claimed that he was

hired to study 200 dropa stones. => http://www.crystalinks.com/dropa.html

This is only one of many sites for info on the dropa stones (or disc as they are called). He claimed

they are authentic although I don’t have first-hand experience. To make things even stranger, this same

person claims spontaneous mutations in the lineage of the human genome may have been manipulated.

Which open up another can of worms to ponder.

Mark, in light of this and other information imparted to me by others, your previous question

regarding the appearance of UFOs during nuclear weapons testing may be simple: their (the Grays)

concern that we (humans) will either destroy ourselves or at the very least damage the gene pool they

require to ensure their own perpetuated existence. Although it appears more interesting to believe very

complex conspiracies are present, the mainstream population loves a great mystery even at the cost of

dismissing Occam’s razor in the process. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon

should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable

predictions of the explanatory.

http://www.crystalinks.com/dropa.html

754

Regarding conspiracies, it should be noted they usually involve a number of different elements

operating in concert to complete a set objective in a clandestine manner. The more the complexity of a

conspiracy, the more variables involved as complexity increases so to the possibility of detection and

over-all failure.

Best Regards

Mike

S-662. from Paul Devine regarding the "Torbitt Memorandum"



Date: Tue, June 27, 2006 2:59 pm

Subject: The "Torbitt Memorandum" (or did Werner von Braun and NASA kill JFK?

Mark,

In my " \In case you've been wondering what happened to me ... "(April 27, 2006) e-mail, I promised

some material on the so-called "Torbitt Document" or Torbitt Memorandum. (The "Torbitt" here is a

pseudonym.) The thrust of this document is that Werner von Braun and NASA, the FBI (but not the

CIA!), and the Nazis killed JFK in Dallas. There follow my conclusions about this Memorandum

which, officially, is: Torbitt, William, (1970), * Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal *. When

finally published (1996) in book form -- under the title * NASA, NAZIS & JFK: The Torbitt Document

and the Kennedy Assassination * ( Adventures Unlimited Press ) as by William Torbitt -- the original

Memorandum was buried inside the middle of a much larger work that I call the "Torbitt Document".

And that represented the collective efforts of about 4 people altogether.

(1). And so, the Torbitt Document -- the book -- is not all by Torbitt. There is more to the Torbitt

Document, in book form (1996), than just the (1970) Torbitt Memorandum. In fact, about four separate

people contributed to the published version of it. Only the (1970) Memorandum itself is by Torbitt.

(2). In the second place, to prove murder, you have to prove 3 things: (i) motive ; (ii) means ; (iii)

opportunity.

(3).There is nothing in Torbitt proper -- the Torbitt Memorandum --which provides (i) a motive for

Werner von Braun to have killed JFK. Torbitt is obviously a lawyer because he argues in a very

legalistic way. He argues that if any part of a whole organization is guilty of a crime, then everybody in

the entire organization -- including the leadership -- are guilty of the crime.

Now, Torbitt --- as nearly as I can understand him --- believes that elements of a certain umbrella

security organization (DISC) was involved in killing JFK. But Torbitt also puts Werner von Braun at

the top of this umbrella organization. (This is a statement which, if true, is something that I had not

known before). Therefore, Werner von Braun killed JFK.

But Torbitt's reach exceeds his grasp. In the first place, there is no evidence known to me that

Werner von Braun ever did that kind of "security" work for the Government (in the sense of murdering

"spies" and "Communists" etc. in Government). And so, he would never have had (ii) the means or (iii)

the opportunity to kill JFK in Dallas, whether-or-not he was ever in the DISC, let alone at its top. (The

755

DISC was also involved in investigating the backgrounds of people to be hired to work for NASA. And

the job of hiring people to work for NASA is a job at which Werner von Braun would have been

imminently good. And so, the DISC would have investigated the backgrounds of people -- chosen by

von Braun to be hired to work for NASA -- before they were actually hired)

(4). There is something else in the Document (the 1996 book) but not in the 1970 Torbitt Memorandum

proper that is as close as the entire Document (the 1996 book) ever comes to providing (i) a possible

motive for NASA to be involved in Dallas. And this material is in the "Forward" by David Hatcher

Childress (a C2C guest ), which was not even part of the original 1970 Torbitt Memorandum and which

is not even by Torbitt. The material comes from the caption to an un-numbered lower photo on an un-

numbered page xii in the published book, and from the last paragraph on page vii of the "Forward"

section (both by Childress, neither by Torbitt ). I will quote from them for you.

(5). From the caption: "President Kennedy, von Braun, ... Kennedy's special assistant for Science and

technology Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner ... tour the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center on September 11,

1962. An impassioned discussion of the best method to travel to the Moon occurred just after this photo

was made. Von Braun insisted that the gigantic Saturn V rocket was the only method by which a

voyage to the Moon was possible. Kennedy and Weisner apparently were arguing with von Braun about

other methods of travel to the Moon."

(6). And from the last paragraph on page vii: "Perhaps the Kennedy space program and the von

Braun/military industrial complex space program (commonly known as NASA) just didn't mesh.

Electric spacecraft, magnetic spacecraft, gyro spacecraft, and other alternative propulsion means were

simply not an acceptable alternative to the oil companies and their defense department associates."

(7). But this as (i) a motive to kill Kennedy is all hogwash. The fact is that if the Americans wanted to

be able to meet their own, self-imposed, end-of-the-decade deadline for landing on the Moon, then there

was simply no alternative to the Saturn V rocket because there simply was not enough time to perfect

from scratch any new and alternative technology. And even the Saturn V rocket had to work -- and

work right -- the first time. Which it did, fortunately! (It was PBS/NOVA, I believe, which did an

excellent program on this some years ago.)

(8). If you are going to find (i) any possible motive for Werner von Braun or for NASA to be involved in

killing JFK, then a more likely motive would have been provided by a (Sept. 29, 1963) speech JFK

made to the U.N. in which he offered to call off the race to the Moon in return for Russia agreeing to

cooperate with the U.S.A. in a joint program of exploration in outer space. But this speech -- as a

possible motive ... on the part of such a former Nazi as Werner von Braun ... to kill JFK -- is not even

mentioned in Torbitt. Not at all, not anywhere. The source for this speech, BTW, is Leroy Fletcher

Prouty, (1992) , * JFK : & * (Birch Lane Press / Carol Publishing Group ) , Chapter 19 , page 289 .

(9). Furthermore, there is the question of the sources for "Torbitt". Jim Marrs -- who identified Torbitt -

- says that Torbitt had 2 main sources for his Memorandum: an FBI agent and an agent with the Secret

Service. But in the Torbitt Document (the book), there is an "About the Author" section on pages 195-

197. Therein it is stated that Torbitt's 2 sources were an agent of the Customs Department [sic] and an

agent with the Narcotics Bureau.

Now, this contradiction is fatal. Firstly, it means that there is no truthfulness about sources -- so why

believe anything the man says at all?! (This, unfortunately, does not prevent him from being right, of

course!) Secondly, if "About the Author" is right -- and if Jim Marrs is wrong -- then Torbitt was using

as sources people who had no connection with what they were talking about. For the thrust of the book

is that it was the FBI and not the CIA which murdered President Kennedy. And yet neither the Bureau

756

of Customs nor the Bureau of Narcotics are the Federal Bureau of Investigation! Neither Bureau is the

CIA, either! Therefore, neither source necessarily knew what it was talking about.

(10). But Torbitt is not all wrong. He got a few things right including -- but not limited to -- the

following assertions. Some rogue members of the FBI were involved in Dallas. Hoover was involved

in it. Torbitt says -- correctly -- that Johnson was involved in it. Torbitt says that Nazis (in the sense of

the Nazi International, international Naziism) were involved in Dallas. And again, he is right.

Torbitt is right when he says that JFK was murdered by a " fascist cabal ... who planned to lay the

blame on honest right-wing conservatives if their first ploy -- to lay the blame on Oswald and the

Communists -- was not bought." And I do think that Torbitt is right in his Memorandum when he goes

into the sponsorship behind the plots (ca. 1961-1962 ) to kill French President General Charles de

Gaulle (think "The Day of the Jackal " here). And in fact, an ambush -- virtually identical to an ambush

that failed against de Gaulle in 1962 -- worked against Kennedy in Dallas the following year. And it is

known who tried to kill de Gaulle. And Torbitt simply assumes that the same organizations were

involved in both plots. Without much proof, it seems to me.

(11). Otherwise and in conclusion, old bean, it seems to me that if in general, you publish or mount on

your website as being factual anything taken from Torbitt, then you will be damned as a dupe of dis-

information for your trouble. (How's that for alliteration?!)

(s) Paul

S-663. from Paul Devine regarding 1963 Dallas and 1947 Maury Island




Subject: RE " Chrisman/Crisman/Chrismo /Crismon (1963 Dallas, 1947 Maury Island)"

Mark,

In my (April 27, 2006) "In case you've been wondering what happened to me ... " e-mail, I promised

you something on the (Tacoma , Wash.) UFOlogist, Fred Lee Crisman as per the quotation in the

"Subject" bar above ). This man played a role in the 1947 Maury Island UFO incident. And New

Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison called him to testify in connection with DA Garrison's

investigation into the murder of President Kennedy (much of which murder was, in fact, planned in New

Orleans).

Many serious charges were laid by Torbitt in his 1970 Memorandum (see my e-mail on Torbitt)

against a certain "Chrismon" -- someone whom DA Garrison apparently (but for unknown reasons)

identified with Fred Lee Crisman, the Washington State UFOlogist. I undertook to investigate these

charges. There follow my results.

Oddly enough, you came very close to solving the case yourself for you have archived part of the

1971 Age of Flying Saucers by Paris Flammonde

[http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Flammonde_01.doc ]. If

you had archived just a little bit more, then you would have solved a good part of the mystery of Fred

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Flammonde_01.doc

757

Lee Crisman (as far as that mystery can be solved nowadays). The relevant material is on page 215,

from Chapter 17 ("The Last Gods Going Home"). I quote it for you:

"Without question, the strangest of all Flying Saucer -- assassination connections arose

in a totally unrelated manner. In December of 1968, Jim Garrison summoned to New

Orleans for questioning before the grand jury Fred L. Crisman of Tacoma, Washington,

who had figured so prominently in the 1947 Maury Island mystery which was partially

investigated by Kenneth Arnold. Having made his appearance, Crisman left New Orleans

and was not mentioned again by the district attorney's office as of mid-1970." [I have left

out 2 footnotes -- 20 and 21 -- from the typescript above as I cannot reproduce superscripts

with my limited knowledge of the Web].

Thus far concerning Mr. Crisman alone.

This does not solve the mystery completely because "Chrismon" was linked by Torbitt -- and

Crisman all-but-certainly was linked by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, as well -- with 2 other men

named Bowen and Osborne. The mystery of the identity of "Chrismon" remains, for me. The mystery of

the identity of "Chrismon" aside, the mystery of Bowen/Osborne can be solved.

But not in such a short, simple paragraph as the above paragraph concerning the Tacoma Crisman.

But these other names also have nothing demonstrable to do with the (Tacoma ,Wash.) Fred Lee

Crisman (born ca. 1920). Or with flying saucers, either. And so with your permission, I will omit them.

Otherwise, let me know and I will cobble something together and forward it to you.

--- Paul ---

S-664. from Paul Devine regarding a Novel file (introduction)



Subject: A Novel File (Introduction)


INTRODUCTION

The website www.anomalies.net/area51/s4/boblazar/joe/39-40.jpg -- the diary of Joe Vaninetti --

records (on pages 39-40 ) a reference to 2 phone calls that Bob Lazar claims Gordon Novel made to

himself, Lazar, on-or-about November 16, 1989. By his own claim, Lazar recorded the second of the 2

phone calls, and played the call back for Vaninetti. In the recording, the voice (supposedly that of

Gordon Noel) claimed that "I diverted 2 birds from S-4 to Douglas for $15 billion."

This statement is supposed to mean that Novel basically stole 2 flying saucers from the U.S.

Government and diverted them to the Douglas aircraft company in return for $15 billion for himself,

Gordon Novel. (This WS is archived by "Kram" [i.e., Mark (aka "Stealthskater") McWilliams ] at

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Lazar_21.doc . )

Now, the name of Gordon Novel bulks large in the history of The Thousand Days of Camelot ---- up

to and including Dallas --- as well as in the history of Watergate itself (an extension of Dallas).

www.anomalies.net/area51/s4/boblazar/joe/39-40.jpg%20

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Lazar_21.doc

758

In addition, Bob Lazar has reported incidents which certainly do represent possible assassination

attempts against himself and which took place at about the same time as these 2 phone calls.

Therefore, your present witness took it upon himself to gather together materials concerning Gordon

Novel from histories of the assassination of President Kennedy, as well as from the Watergate period.

This collection makes no pretence to being complete. It seemed that Bob Lazar has a right to know the

kind of people with whom he has been dealing (albeit more than 15 years ago).

The accumulation of collected material follows. It has been gathered -- and is being presented -- in

no particular order.

Subject: A Novel File # 1

The following material is excerpted from the following sub-domain

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorbitt.htm of the "Spartacus" WS of John Simkin. This

particular sub-domain represents an excerpt from the so-called "Torbitt Memorandum". (The

Memorandum concerns the 1963 murder of President Kenndey in Dallas, Texas. The name "Torbitt" is

a pseudonym . ) The relevant part of Simkin's excerpt, for present purposes, is the following :

"According to the author ... Torbitt, others involved in the assassination included ... .

Gordon Novel ..."


This particular file contains an excerpt from another part of John Simkin's "Spartacus" WS -- this

time at www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnovel.htm , Simkin's document on Gordon Novel -- with

links therein cited.

This entire document is of interest. For example, it shows Novel to have had Nazi sympathies in his

youth. (Did they continue on into adulthood?)

But for present purposes, one particular excerpt (among many) of interest is the "(5) Dave Reitzes,

'Gordon Novel: CIA Agent or Con Artist? ' (2004) " entry, from which concerning Novel : " ... in fact,

Novel's been caught in any number of lies -- ..." And again, at the same entry, with reference to the

famous 1961 heist .. in which Novel was involved ... from a Schlumberger Well Surveying Corporation

(Houma, LA.) storage bunker: "Contrary to later claims by participant Gordon Novel … the heist

appears to have been, in fact, a simple burglary and not the CIA 'weapons transfer ' alleged in many

conspiracy books."


Paris Flammonde -- who wrote a book-length appreciation of the efforts by New Orleans District

Attorney Jim Garrison to solve the murder of President Kennedy -- has an entire chapter on Gordon

Novel. The book is Flammonde's 1969 THE KENNEDY CONSPIRACY: An Uncommissioned Report

on the Jim Garrison Investigation (New York, NY, Meredith Press). The chapter in question is Chapter

5 (" Gordon Novel"), pages 96-109, with notes.


www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorbitt.htm%20

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnovel.htm%20

759

The following material is from McKnight, Gerald D., (2005), BREACH OF TRUST: How the

Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (Lawrence, Kansas, The University Press of Kansas):

Chapter 12, page 313; with note 40 thereto on page 442 with bibliographical data from page 460.

The material from (C. 12, p. 313 ) concerns the meeting in New Orleans of a group of people,

recruited by CIA David Atlee Phillips and is as follows:

"A young and well-connected New Orleans native -- Gordon Novel -- brought to the

group his expert knowledge about sophisticated electronics. Novel knew most of the print

news media; ... Novel later claimed that he was a CIA operative, but the CIA disputed his

claim. Guy ... Bannister also assigned Novel to identify former servicemen -- especially

ex-Marines -- who had special weapons skills and held strong anti-Castro views ...", with

footnote 40.

The material from note 40 to C.12 on p.442) -- with the bibliographical material from page 460 -- is

as follows:

"40. Most of the information about the CIA's New Orleans preparation for the April

1961 invasion of Cuba was taken from the sworn testimony of Gordon Novel. See his

lengthy deposition in * Gordon Novel vs. Jim Garrison and the HMH Publishing Company,

Inc. * , U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, May

1969, especially pages 377 - 599. For Novel's admitted CIA connection, see the * New

Orleans States- Item *, April 25, 1967 ; and ASAC Sylvester to SAC New Orleans,

4/20/1967 , New Orleans JFK Assassionation File , 89 - 69 - 2015 ."


The following material comes from Jim Marrs, (1989), CROSSFIRE: The Plot That Killed Kennedy

(Carroll&Graf), "PART III : Aftermath ", section "The Garrison Investigation". There are 2 sub-

sections of this section involved here: the sub-section "Clay Shaw and Permindex " on page 508 and the

"Summary" sub-section on page 516.

The material from the "Clay Shaw and Permindex" sub-section, on p.508, reads :

"But Garrison's major 'missing witness' was Gordon Novel, a young electronics expert

who eventually became embroiled in some of this Nation's most controversial cases. Novel

first approached Garrison in early 1967 with information about David Ferrie and Cuban

exile activities. But soon Garrison came to believe that Novel was a CIA 'plant'. After

Garrison subpoenaed Novel, he fled to Ohio where Governor James Rhodes -- despite a

personal call from Governor John McKeithen of Louisiana -- refused to allow extradition ...

A note left behind in his New Orleans apartment (which was later authenticated as being

written by Novel) mentioned his work for Double Check Corporation -- a CIA 'front'

located in Miami ... "

The context of the material from the "Summary" sub-section, page 516, is that:

New Orleans DA Jim Garrison has accused New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw of

involvement in the murder of President Kennedy. Of course, the case cannot go to trial

immediately, and here is what happened in the meantime :

760

"However, by the time Shaw's case reached court, Garrison's case was fatally weakened

by the death of key witnesses -- Ferrie, Bannister, Bannister's partner, Hugh ward, and

Cuban exile Eladio del Valle. Other witnesses -- CIA operative Gordon Novel and anti-

Castro Cuban leader Sergio Archaca Smith -- were given sanctuary in other states whose

governors refused Garrison's lawful extradition orders."

Subject: A Novel File # 6 (Novel and : Watergate ; automobile magnate John DeLorean)

The fol;owing material concerning Gordon Novel and Taergate comes from Jim Marrs, (1989),

CROSSFIRE : The Plot that Killed Kennedy (Carroll&Graf), "Part III: Aftermath", section "The

Garrison Investigation", sub-section "Clay Shaw and Permindex", page 508:

" In 1974, Novel -- who claimed to have worked for the CIA -- met with President

Nixon's special counsel Charles Colson and discussed developing a special 'degaussing'

machine that would erase Nixon's incriminating White House tapes from afar.

"Novel also cropped up as an electronics expert in the case of automobile magnate John

DeLorean. "


The material herein comes from 2 locations in Jim Garrison's (1988) ON THE TRAIL OF THE

ASSASSINS :My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy (New yYork, NY,

Sheridan Square Press, 1988):

Chapter 14 ("The Company "), pages 178-181, concerning Novel; and the material quoted below,

from page 301 in the "AFTERWORD : Is the Mafia Theory a Valid Alternative?" by Carl Oglesby :

"It was not because Garrison's charges were unfounded that the Governor of Ohio

refused to extradite an extremely critical witness (Gordon Novel) to Louisiana. It was

because the Government does not want the people to know the truth about the JFK

assassination."

Subject: A Novel File # 8 ( Novel, after Garrison, but before Lazar )

The material herein comes from the (1974) Forgive My Grief IV by Penn Jones, Junior. The

material is on page 84, and bears the "Some Win, Some Don't" title. From the "THE WINNERS

"section on that page:

"Gordon Novel -- the admitted CIA agent who skipped from New Orleans in a hurry to

escape testifying in the Clay Shaw trial -- is now a big-shot business executive in Dallas.

Novel is promoting Expo '76 and -- according to the Dallas News -- Novel has an option on

3,000 acres of land adjoining the Space Center in Houston." [NFI].

Subject: A Novel File # 9 ( Conclusion )

This is the end of my series of sendings concerning Gordon Novel, with whom Bob Lazar had

contact on-or-about Nov. 16, 1989. I sent this material because I think that Lazar has a right to know

the kind of people who interest themselves in him. I will leave it to Bob Lazar to draw his own

conclusions from this material, especially in light of what he seems to have felt were attempts on his life

at about the same time as his contact with Gordon Novel.

761

S-665. from Paul Devine regarding death threats to Bob Lazar




Subject: Lazar via Knapp (?) RE threats to "Lazar" Hugh C. McDonald, and Lazar's troubles

I have followed the adventures of Bob Lazar from a distance since discovering him on Coast-to-

Coast AM. His adventures remind me of certain aspects of the history of "The Thousand Days of

Camelot" (the 1961-1963 Presidency of JFK) and the aftermath.

For example, (1) Lazar's (Nov. 16, 1989) encounter with Gordon Novel, displayed on pages 39-40 of

Joe Vaninetti's diary (archived by "StealthSkater " at www.stealthskater.com.Lazar_21.doc). (Novel

was certainly involved in the Bay of Pigs. And (2) he was alleged by some to have been involved with

Dallas and the murder of Pres. Kennedy there). (3) The bad things that have happened to Lazar in his

career of "blowing the whistle" to the public regarding what he knows about the UFO phenomenon --

with special reference to Area-51.

I have elsewhere put together a list of documents that excerpt what I know about the activities

(actual or alleged ) of Gordon Novel in the period from 1961 (when JFK took office) through 1974

(when Nixon resigned), until at least as late as 1976. [The material from Joe Vaninetti's diary --

archived by "StealthSkater" above -- notices Lazar's contact (16 Nov. 16, 1989 ) with Novel ( on pages

39-40 of the diary ) ... and also brings us up to 1989]. This Novel-related material may help to provide

background and context to the "We're going to kill you " threat made by "Dennis" to Lazar on (August

30, 1989 ), as recorded on pages 27-28 of the Vaninetti diary.

I have also found a chapter from the first (1975) of 2 books by Hugh C. McDonald. The half-title of

the self-published book is APPOINTMENT IN DALLAS: & (Zebra). And the relevant chapter is

Chapter XIX ("Washington, D.C."), pages 105-110. McDonald had been a member of the Los Angeles

Police department (LAPD). After Dallas, McDonald had taken it on himself to ferret out at least one of

the real murderers of President Kennedy. In this particular chapter, McDonald's source -- CIA Herman

Kimsey -- is trying to dissuade McDonald from his self-appointed "whistle-blower" role. What CIA

Kimsey says to McDonald in order to dissuade him is given on pages 108-109 of the chapter.

Is it coincidence -- or is it more than coincidence -- that so much of what CIA Herman Kimsey

predicts for Hugh FC. McDonald has actually befallen Bob Lazar? (BTW, what Kimsey predicted did

not -- so far as I am aware -- ever actually come to pass for McDonald. Unfortunately, as much cannot

be said for Bob Lazar!)

I thought that others might be interested in this material but that -- at the very least -- I should not be

the only person to know it. (If you either already know it -- or do not want to know it -- then no harm is

done ).

I intend to forward the collection of Novel-related documents and "scan" Chapter XIX of the (1975 )

McDonald book to you.

--- Paul Devine ---

www.stealthskater.com.Lazar_21.doc

762

P.S.: Death-threats should be taken seriously. Less than a year ago, Wayne Madsen (notoriously a thorn

in the side of the present regime!) was run out of WDC for a while on account of just such a threat. See

Caylor, John, (Aug. 27, 2005 ), "MADSEN UNDER THREAT OF ASSASSINATION Flees

Washington, DC" , online at

http://www.insider-magazine.com/madsen_under_threat.htm . For the (Aug. 27, 2005) date, see

http://mparent7777.linejournal.com/2005/08/27/ . / PJD /

S-666. from Paul Devine regarding Shag Habor, Canada UFO incident




Subject: Shag Harbor / Shellburn Harbor , Canada -- Fruit of Hellyer?

Mark,

I have learned that 'The History Channel' has a series, the title of which is " UFO FILES ". A recent

telecast involved the flying saucer phenomenon in Canada. My source gave "UFO FILES: UFOs in

Canada" as the title of the episode. It was done from 7-8 pm CT one Monday night a few weeks ago.

He watched it, but couldn't be sure of the copyright date or of the date of first screening. But from

internal evidence, he thought that the episode might have been filmed within the last decade.

It would be nice to think that Paul Hellyer had something to do with this. Either the episode is

recent -- filmed in response to his plea -- or else the show is old and has only just now been released in

response to Paul Hellyer's plea.

What was the episode about? In case you didn't have a chance to watch it, my source tells me that

the episode discussed about half-a-dozen Canadian UFO cases altogether. But most of the attention of

the show was on the (Oct. 04, 1967 ) Shag Harbor, Nova Scotia incident. This incident is said to have

been written up extensively in Halifax newspapers. It was also written up extensively by an American

university (the University of Colorado?) under a U.S. Air Force contract.

As nearly as I could understand from my source --- and as nearly as he could understand the program

--- Shag Harbor was in reality a distraction. The real action was taking place under the water in the

harbor of a place called "Shellburn" (phonetic spelling) -- a large NATO base on Canadian soil. The

producers for this episode were evidently able to identify about a dozen divers who were involved in the

incident (of whom two were willing to talk anonymously).

According to these 2 anonymous men, the divers found 2 "ships" at the bottom of the Shellburn

Harbor. One of them appeared to be trying to render assistance to the other one. (Apparently figures

were seen going from one of the "ships" to the other and then back again.) Then there was an alarm

concerning a submerged Soviet submarine out in the North Atlantic. This distracted the human

personnel on the surface. One of the 2 "ships" was then able to take advantage of the confusion among

the terrestrial forces in order to abscond. The other "ship" apparently was left behind --at the time --30

years ago.

Thus far my source.

--- Paul ---

http://www.insider-magazine.com/madsen_under_threat.htm

http://mparent7777.linejournal.com/2005/08/27/

763

P.S.: My source also tells me that 'The History Channel' has since done in its "UFO FILES" series an

episode on flying saucers in Mexico.

S-667. from Paul Devine regarding lack-of-response from physicists




Subject: Two Brilliant Quotes

Mark,

For the most part, I am limiting my responses to your mailings to me since about last April to that

which has errors or mistakes in it. But 2 brilliant quotes came along that I could not pass over in silence.

You would do well to take them to heart as they may go an awful long way in explaining why experts

don't respond to messages.

(1). The first quote is from Tim Ventura on Bob Lazar in your Lazar_23.doc document. In it,

Ventura (?) says that "... a lot of non-technical people get involved with areas of physics that even PhD

physicists don't understand." This is from paragraph 2 of the section with "---Late 2002 / Early 2003 ---

" heading.

(2). The second quote is from your June 06, 2006 e-mail. "A mainstream physicist's view of

interdimensional UFOs") mailing in which there occurs the statement "That's what happens when non-

physicists attempt to use physics to attempt to describe metaphysical principles."

Who has the honor of having ventilated such insightful wisdom? Was it Ed Halerewicz or was it

Andrew E. Potter? Either way, the statement is very insightful.

Both quotes also explain why a lot of such statements and such questions do not get answered by

physicists. The physicist doesn't know what to do with the statement or question. And not knowing

what to do with it or how to answer it (and perhaps, not even understanding it), he does nothing.

FYI.

--- Paul ---

S-668. from Paul Devine regarding Paul Bennewitz




Subject: Paul Bennewitz in UFO Mag plus in Wikipedia

Mark,


764

Some material on Paul Bennewitz turned up on pages 5-6 at

http://www.ufomag.com/public/21.5.32-37.mckinnon.pdf

with the link there to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz .

The article distinguishes between the (a) material (possibly genuine) acquired by Bennewitz before

he came to the attention of the authorities and (b) the (doubtless fake, dis-) information that came to him

afterwards.

Questions: Is there any way to distinguish between these 2 types of information in the material that

survives down to us from Bennewitz? Does the material exist on some kind of a timeline? Can the

material be placed in some kind of a sequence in time - in some kind of a chronological order?

---Paul---

S-669. from Paul Devine regarding Mind-Control




Subject: Were We Controlled?

Mark,

1. In your March 17, 2006 "What's Up?" e-mail , you began -- without preliminaries -- by talking

about "The Controllers" essay by Martin Cannon. Unfortunately, this was so long ago that I cannot

recall what I might have written to you that would call forth such a response from you. [StealthSkater

note: see http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Cannon ]

2. So, I am going to take advantage of the opportunity provided by your un-situated sending by going

back to the subject of mind-control. This time, I hope to do the job so thoroughly that it will not be

necessary to re-visit this subject in the future.

3. Earlier, your 2 Cannon documents (numbers 1 and 4 , respectively) had come up between us in our

exchanges. In your #4 document, Cannon apparently wanted to see the phenomenon of alien abduction

as an exercise in mind-control. In your #1 document, Cannon brought in the book Were We Controlled?

(with reference to what happened in Dallas) by "Lincoln Lawrence".

This name is a pseudonym. Your section with "Naval Intelligence" heading points out of the

pseudonymous author that "... he was in fact an FBI agent, ..." The pseudonymous author wants to be

able to use Lee Oswald as an example of mind-control. And Cannon -- basing himself on "Lincoln

Lawrence" and on his book -- also apparently wanted to use Lee Harvey Oswald as an example of mind-

control. Of mind-control gone wrong, perhaps, but still mind-control.

4. Now, I happen to know something about the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald and about the role that

some elements of the FBI played in that tragedy in Dallas. I am going to base my own comments on this

knowledge. But I think that this knowledge will prove transferable.

5. In the first place, I might as well begin at the beginning and get some bibliographical data onto the

table. There are 2 books that deal with the assassination of JFK as an exercise in mind-control. And

http://www.ufomag.com/public/21.5.32-37.mckinnon.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Cannon

765

both books blame the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald exclusively and alone. In fact, the 2 books are just

2 different editions of the same book.

The original version is Lawrence, Lincoln, (1967), Were We Controlled? (University Books). The

second version is Lawrence, Lincoln and Thomas, Kenn, (1997), MIND CONTROL, OSWALD & JFK:

Were We Controlled? with "Introduction" by Kenn Thomas (Adventures Unlimited Press).

As you can see, the second version is just an expanded, second edition of Lawrence's original 1967

effort which is re-published without change.

6. Just as an aside, it seems that no one ever got a written communication from this "Lawrence" except

for Damon Runyon Junior. (His father had been the famous NYC writer: The famous " Guys and Dolls"

was based on a short story of his). Now, Junior had been working on a condensation of Were We

Controlled? , the book, for The National Enquirer when on (Sunday, April 14, 1968 ), he went off the 'P'

Street bridge in Rock Creek Park (WDC) to his death. (His condensation for The National Enquirer was

never published ).

Dick (The Man Who Knew Too Much) Russell -- usually reliable in such matters -- says that "He

ended up being pushed off a bridge in Washington, DC." (The source here is pages 676-678 of the

original 1992 edition of Russell's book). Another "convenient death" if Russell is right. [StealthSkater

note: reminiscent of former Secretary-of-State James Forrestal of Majestic-12 fame.]

7. Well, to get on with the show …

8. This scenario of Lee Oswald as mind-control victim comes up again in the first of 2 books by Hugh

C. McDonald -- the Los Angeles Police Department officer who set himself the task of identifying and

bringing to justice at least one of the real people who actually fired at the President on the Plaza in

Dallas that day (and who exonerated Lee Oswald in the process, by the way!).

9. The book in question is APPOINTMENT IN DALLAS: & (Zebra , 1975), self-published by

McDonald.

10. The relevant chapter in question is Chapter XIX ("Washington, DC"), pages 105-110 .

11. In this chapter, McDonald is talking to CIA Herman Kimsey. Kimsey is trying to dissuade

McDonald from his self-appointed "whistle-blower" role . Kimsey begins with "There's a perfectly

sound and valid theory about the Kennedy assassination."

What is this " perfectly sound and valid theory"? Kimsey then outlines the mind-control theory of

Oswald as lone-nut gunman!

McDonald's reaction? McDonald's reaction, in part, is this: He asks Kimsey if he -- Kimsey himself

-- believes Kimsey's own story. Kimsey's reaction makes it clear that Kimsey himself does not believe

Kimsey's own story.

The story of Lee Oswald as mind-control victim run amuk is just a false story, designed to conceal

the identities of the real perpetrators. McDonald sees through the sham and determines to go after one

of the real assassins. And this real assassin -- when McDonald catches up to him -- completely

exonerates Oswald.

766

12. The whole story makes for some fascinating reading. So fascinating, in fact, that I am going to scan

this particular chapter to you. My brief summary above cannot begin to do justice to the drama and

tension between the 2 men. (If you want to read the confession of "Carrion " -- the CIA's own code-

name for their paid assassin who shot at the President, and whom McDonald finally runs to earth -- then

you'll have to get your own copy of the book as that confession is way too long to include here ).

13. Well, what do we have here, then?

14. We have an FBI agent deliberately peddling mis-information about what happened in Dallas.

15. Would that not make said FBI agent to be, quite arguably, an accessory after the fact?

16. Indeed, it might well. But -- not to fear -- our anonymous FBI agent has company. In the

immediate aftermath of the assassination, an FBI agent (Regis Kennedy ) -- who had come all the way to

Dallas from New Orleans (the FBI office to which he had been assigned) comes running up to one of the

by-standers -- who had filmed part of the assassination -- demands her film from her. And promising its

return, runs off with it. The man never identified himself at the time. (The victimized woman identified

him, later on, from a set of photographs, shown to her of FBI employees who were known to have been

involved in the assassination -- as it was expressed by the person who narrated the incident).

And needless to say, the woman never saw her film again! In addition, a meeting at Jack Ruby's

place in Dallas -- for the purpose of planning the assassination --- a few weeks before the assassination -

- featured an FBI agent [NFI], in the words of a professional Mafia assassin who attended the early part

of the meeting. And -- last but not least -- DFBI J. Edgar Hoover himself was wire-tapped planning the

assassination with (among others ) George Herbert Walker Bush , Nelson Rockefeller, and Allen Dulles!

17. So, we have elements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation involved -- before, during, and after the

fact -- in the Crime of the Century. Part of their role -- as accessories-after-the-fact -- is obviously to

peddle this bill-of-goods about Oswald as mind-control victim. The purpose of this deception is to

deflect the investigation away from the direction in which it should be going -- in the direction of such

people as DFBI J. Edgar Hoover; Regis Kennedy; the pseudonymous "Lincoln Lawrence"; the

anonymous agent at table in Jack Ruby's place, planning the assassination weeks in advance; Bush;

Rockefeller; Dulles; and "Carrion " , the professional CIA assassin.

18. Mind-control as an element -- at least in the assassination of President Kennedy? Consider the

source!

19. However, Were We controlled? the book is not all bad. There is some useful information in it. For

example, it is the sole source (known to me) for the information that a Nazi-front -- the Bunge Group in

Argentina -- sued a U.S. oil company the day before the assassination, thereby setting the stage for

someone to profit to the tune of $500,000,000 the next day after the market (which had begun to decline

on news of the lawsuit) then collapsed in the aftermath of the receipt of the news of the assassination --

so much so that the authorities had to close the Stock Market 90 minutes early in order to prevent a rout

on Wall Street.

Lawrence and that book of his are our sole source for that information which appears to be accurate

so far as I am aware.

20. I have spent this whole message on one very narrow aspect of mind-control as applied to one very

narrow subject that I know well.

767

21. I would like to suggest that talk of mind-control in other contexts might be just as much misleading

dis-information. I think that the lesson of Lee Harvey Oswald and Dallas is quite arguably transferable,

as I wrote above.

--- Paul ---

Postscript RE 1968, RFK, Sirhan, and Los Angeles: The June, 1968 shooting death of RFK in Los

Angeles is often offered as another example of death-by-mind-control on the grounds of Sirhan's

admittedly bizarre behavior after having been taken after RFK was shot. However, I argue that this

offering is just another example of dis-information, designed to protect and conceal the real murdering

party from consequences.

Why?

Consider the facts: According to the official autopsy report, RFK was killed by a "frangible" bullet

fired into the back of his head behind his right ear, from a distance of not more than an inch-or-two. On

the other hand, Sirhan never got that close to RFK and was always in front of RFK -- never behind him.

And bullets cannot go around corners!

There is said to have been someone with a news camera that close to RFK, and behind him, just

before Sirhan provided his distraction from the front. (The use of such a camera is a standard modus

operandi in assassination work). However, this camera-person is said to have disappeared completely

after the assassination and is never known to have been tracked down -- or identified and interviewed --

by anyone.

--- Paul ---

S-670. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar's claims



Date: Tue, September 12, 2006 5:51 pm

Subject: more on Lazar's claims

A little treat for you -- a summary of what I have to say of Lazar's claims at this point …

As per taking another look at Lazar's claims, most -- if not all -- of the physics he brings up is just

simply wrong, although I suspect he may be quite knowledgeable in the field of electronics.

For starters, the whole concept of bringing a point in space-time far away to a local point is

impossible as per his description a spacecraft would distort more space and time then galactic black

holes and destroy an entire galaxy by jumping from star system to star system.

Now if the so-called "Gravity-A amplifiers" really did, in fact, amplify gravity and moved the way

Lazar described (as you believe), then there may be a simple mechanical process which would reproduce

space-time jumping-like effects without violating Relativity (while an interstellar ship should violate

Relativity at faster-than-light speeds, Relativity should still work up until that point, its common sense,

just as Quantum Mechanics works well for small objects and then classical theory replaces larger ones.

So I just don't put a lot of weight into the claims of Lazar myself).

768

If such a beam focused close to a craft, then the beams would have more energy closer to a disk than

further away from one. So at close distance, the beams would make such a craft seem to travel very fast.

But at far distance, much slower. In other words, what the beams do is make the ship from its point-of-

view seem liking its jumping very fast and returning to normal space with the beams far away. But that

is not in fact what would really happen.

You can picture the way this would work with current science if you surround a ship with exotic

energy (which would seem to create anti-gravity effects). Because then you are essentially have the

Alcubierre warp drive. Putting more exotic energy near the front of the craft would make the gravity

field stronger near the ship, so it would travel faster. Moving the field further away weakens it and thus

slows the apparent velocity of the spacecraft (although in the Alcubierre warp drive, you would just

weaken the field and not send it out further; this makes this method of operation seem very clumsy.)

Thus if you assume the story to be true -- which I do not -- then this represents a limitation in ET

technology, suggesting our theories have better solutions while ETs could have technology that is

beyond ours (it's certainly not beyond anything we couldn't understand). So in principle, you might

make the argument that Lazar could be describing the mechanics of the spacecraft correctly, but his

physics which describes the actual method of propulsion at hand is highly flawed.

Lazar also never gave any details to paint any real picture as to what was going on. Perhaps because

he didn't have a real background in physics and was making the whole story up. As per the reactor

operation that was the only clue to how Element-115 allegedly generated an anti-gravity field (Lazar

says its not "anti-gravity" but "out of phase". But I call it anti-gravity because the field goes in the

opposite direction of "normal" gravity, so I would certainly call it anti-gravity even if he doesn't).

He said he could throw golf balls off the field at a distance of 20 inches. From this, you can back-

calculate the gravity field strength from a golf ball's mass and estimate a throwing speed for the ball.

From that, you can calculate what is a rather large graviton mass. Lazar also says that "gravitons" don't

exist. But their use is the only way you can make sense of the story.

For Lazar to be telling the truth, then what must be happening for 115 to produce the field in

question is that it somehow produces an anit-graviton that is confined to the nucleus of 115. An Earth

graviton then must be absorbed (or rather is superimposed at the same location) by the anti-graviton.

This would then slightly decrease the energy of the Earth graviton and also cause it's phase to reverse

direction. It is only this that could explain the gravity field around the reactor.

Antigravtons are a byproduct of string theory, although in that context they are given different names

so you would expect them to come from a higher dimension (another point Lazar doesn't like).

Gravitons from other dimensions are expected from string theory to rapidly decay in our 4-dimensional

Universe by means of the large extra dimension concept known as "brane worlds".

So let's say the graviton has a certain frequency. The only way say it could end up as a microwave

as claimed by Lazar is for the gravitons mass to decay with distance. The trouble is that is there is no

reason for a graviton to say stop its decay process at a few centimeters. While Lazar hates anti-gravity,

gravitons, and extra dimensions, those theories are the only theories in present Science that exist which

could support the wild claims he has made. If Lazar would have said the gravity amplifiers put out a

power of, say, 400 megaawatts a second (this is just a random out put number I picked), then you could

check the graviton "mass" frequency with the power out put of the field to check for self consistencies in

Lazar's descriptions. But you can not.

769

Using the string theory analogy also suggest that when a graviton decays through space it would also

lose much of its magnitude. Thus you would expect the microwave "graviton" frequency to be

infinitesimal and not useful for anything. Furthermore from Relativity theory, we would also expect

matter to be transparent to gravity waves and so simply should not be cable of following waveguides!

Just think about it. If matter could block or confine gravity, then the mass of the Earth couldn't hold

your feet to the ground. But it does in reality. So you would also expect gravity waves to go straight

through a waveguide and not follow one as claimed by Lazar. In short, the waveguide could be only

using electromagnetic waves, which more-or-less destroy the rest of the claims made be Lazar.

Like I said before, there are a great many things you can tweak to make the story sound slightly

more plausible. But that is not Science. For me to continue, I have to do things like say what his

science means. For example, if gravity waves effect an electron's movement, you could do a test for that

to prove of disprove what Lazar is saying.

Lazar's claims don't allow for that. The only numbers you can derive is what I did with the reactor

wave claimed by Lazar. Even if you assume Lazar was telling the truth, then there were vast areas

where he was plainly ignorant and should not have been in such a program to begin with, not alone

obtained degrees in physics which he claimed (which from the his own use of language suggest he has

no real understanding). Nothing he says is verifiable mathematically. Nor does any of things he says is

self verifiable. There is no solid science to his story PERIOD!

The only reason I did the tweaking that I did was to see if there were any hidden nuggets in the story

[to say he *might* have been an electronic guy that lied on his resume and ended up where he shouldn't

have been], I found nothing. If anything, I found that tweaking the story to make more scientific sense

caused the claims he made to grow further apart rather than come together.

--Edward Halerewicz, Jr.



S-671. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Lazar and Corso



Date: Fri, September 22, 2006 3:33 pm

Subject: SM and gravitons

I somehow lost your response on the Bob saga. All I remember is that you made some connection to

gravitons and the Standard Model. Bob also tried that and that's completely ####### wrong!

Gravitons have nothing to do with the Standard Model at all. Stephen Weinberg -- the particle

physicists who coined the "SM" -- even has a book on gravitation where he is genuinely perplexed by

the fact that the gravitational force seems to have zero effect on particle interactions. So I felt very

strongly motivated to point that misconception out as it's how you can spot charlatans.

You also said that Mr. Lazar may not have gave a damn about real physics if he was a "tech guy" as

you yourself basically had the same kind of feeling with your own graduate modelings in nuclear

engineering. To a point, I can see that in nuclear physics, there are number of "fudge numbers" that


770

have been threw in the equations that were not derived from scientific principles but observed facts that

could not be entirely explained with existing theory. So I can understand that.

However, my real beef is Mr. Lazar has claimed to be a physicist -- not a tech guy. He also claimed

to have a stronger background education than I have at the moment. And yet my little pinky knows

more about physics than Lazar does! Hell, I never even seen a single equation on his sites or videos

which makes me question his claimed background even further. And I was not even looking at things

such as was he at such-and-such place blah-blah... But whether -or-not does the things he says makes

sense with someone who has a background in physics. And he clearly does not. How can you believe

someone that by others' study has lied about his education and who his self-admitted friends identify

him as a bullshitter?

Now on a similar note, while I find it hard to believe Mr. Lazar, I really do believe that Philip Corso

was exactly who he said he was. There were some flaws in The Day After Roswell book, But that may

have had more to do with how the co-author wrote it and how it may have been edited. If for example,

there was a taped interview of Corso, I would probably be inclined to believe that what was said was

true. At least as far as he remembered things.

But Lazar claiming to be a physicist and knowing nothing of the subject, I have a big, Big problem

with. Interestingly enough, the co-author (William Birnes) was recently on C2C, saying he "flawed"

some things. And he was also trying to compare that story with Lazar's. One problem I had with

Corso's claim about ET was "no apparent digestive system + long distance between stars = built robots

to pilot the craft". Well from biology class, I remember my instructor saying that if you could find a

way for humans to use photosynthesis, you would be a billionaire as it is a less wasteful way of

generating energy than ordinary digestion.

Also there is the fact that with Relativity theory, you can go anywhere in the Universe without aging

if you travel at fast enough speeds. I also had problems with his claims of things that we got lasers from

the "crash". One thing is that Einstein along with a guy name Bose (whom bosons are named in honor

of) theorized about in the 1920s-or-so is that such a craft -- if it existed -- would well fit within our

current theories and only be a few decades ahead of present tech. That suggest had the Dark Ages never

happened, we would have visited their civilization first.

Back to the co-author... He then tried to claim Lazar's instantaneous travel UFO (which I suggested

wouldn't be how it would actually travel if it *was* real) was tied to Corso's description. I don't buy that

all as Corso was implying that it would take eons to get here and is why the beings were allegedly

"engineered". Then he went on to say something like there was a connection between the UFO method

of flight and time travel which -- if memory serves -- you have yourself made mention of in the past.

Now Lazar also claimed something like that by claiming a time shift on the "reactor" while in

operation. There could be a tie in principle as anti-gravity by nature would speed time up. This is

because normal gravity tends to slow time down with increasing mass. Corso differs here because from

what I remember of the book, he claimed the propulsion system was tied with magnetism. This is

something that can be easily rejected if you know the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and a number

of other factors. I may look into these things from time-to-time to see if there is any nugget in them.

But I still remain a good skeptic. If I wasn't, then I would buy into everything I don't.

Hell, I'm even skeptical of the proclamations of skeptics when their statements our on supported by

the facts. Now if you look at the Lazar story, there is no way the alleged physics could be so highly

flawed if he had the background he claimed. Corso's story, however, the military in the 1940s probably

771

didn't have the understanding of latest physics that were discussed at the Princeton Institute of Advanced

Study. The only physics they were interested in at the time was nuclear for obvious reasons.

Corso's story -- if flawed -- is understandable and could be true. But its off and as such is hard to

take at face value. Nothing about Lazar's story really makes sense. To be honest, I wonder if he just

claimed all that he did so he could start up the company that he did and some poor fools might have

thought he knew enough about physics for such a company.




S-672. from Paul Devine regarding physics "mainstreamers"



Date: Tue, September 26, 2006 6:27 pm

Subject: Your "mainstreamers" message and what I was going to say about Corso

Mark,

1. Well, your "Mainstreamers" message arrived before I could get down my own thoughts on Corso, etc.

In no particular order …

2. At the end of your missive, you appear to be equating consciousness with the Law of the

Conservation of Energy. I don't follow. [StealthSkater note: if consciousness is a quantum

waveform, then it is energy. And energy can neither be created nor destroyed (merely

transformed). So that might be an avenue to bolster Life-after-Death and eternity forever in the

MultiVerse. Of course, what type(s) of an eternity is part of the puzzle.]

3. RE Jack Sarfatti and Ed Halerewicz on physics versus intrusive biological experimentation: They are

physicists. Therefore they are at their best when they criticize Lazar when he appears to be talking

about physics. But outside of their own areas, they are as fallible as anyone else. This could account for

the radical difference in their common attitude towards claims that are not limited to physics.

4. Now as to Birnes: That part of the C2C interview which I heard had nothing to do with what Birnes

may or may not have done with-or-without Corso's son. The part of the interview that I heard consisted

mostly of Birnes publicizing claims that Birnes says Corso made. The rest was BIrnes saying that the

mistakes in the book were due to the consequences of the poor state of Corso's health -- to wit, that

Corso was dying; that Corso knew he was dying; and that the results showed in the book.

What Birnes meant was the well-known phenomenon that in hindsight, it can be perceived that some

people have been dying for years before they actually pass on. The slow progression of the process of

dying shows up in mistakes people make. Birnes said that Corso -- with the help of Birnes, had Corso

lived long enough -- would have rectified the errors in the book. An ex-Army man -- a Colonel named

John B. Alexander and also a past C2C guest -- has already said pretty much the same thing. Had Corso

lived long enough, then Alexander would have worked with Corso to eradicate the errrors in the book. I

accept both statements.


772

5. But here is how I know that Corso is telling the truth. One of the statements made by Birnes about

Corso has Corso recounting an exchange which came to his knowledge between Hoover and Johnson

over the weekend after the murder of President Kennedy in Dallas. According to Birnes, Corso had

Hoover claiming to Johnson that there had been a second Lee Harvey Oswald. And then Johnson

claiming to Hoover that Yes! he Johnson already knew that.

Now this fact has been vociferously denied by the Government because it would imply conspiracy.

(It would also imply that Hoover and Johnson had covered up said conspiracy!) But the fact is that there

was a second Lee Harvey Oswald. (It is very easy to prove this, by the way, on the basis of what we

know now.) Not only was there at least one other "Lee Harvey Oswald", but there also may have been

several others as well. Yet, very few people seem to know this, at least in part for the reason given

above (people won't believe anything unless the Government says so!)

6. And so, if Corso was telling the truth about something like this -- and it takes courage to stake out a

position like this! -- then I am willing to believe him about the rest of it as long as Corso is speaking or

writing from his own personal experience. (Recall the comment above about a witness speaking on the

basis of second-hand evidence where the witness himself is not "best evidence", as they say in the law.)

You have to distinguish between what Corso testified to from his own personal knowledge and the

conclusions he drew -- or the inferences he made -- therefrom.

In the latter, Corso could be wrong. Indeed, he arguably was wrong -- at least from time-to-time!

But in the former, I am willing to believe him (when I cannot check what he is saying) on the basis of

the quote about the weekend after the Kennedy assassination (where I do know enough in order to be

able to "control" what Corso is reported to have said and heard). You also, of course, have to make

allowances for the effect that the ongoing process of dying was having on Corso on his memory, etc.

7. And another point: My civilian acquaintance -- my source for the information to you about the

"Garnet" Berets, and about MAJ-12 -- saw a TV documentary on Corso which basically stated that

Corso was a liar because a mere Lt. Colonel could not possibly have found himself in Corso's position.

My civilian acquaintance -- who has studied the American military for decades -- laughs and snorts and

scoffs at such claims. He says -- and quite rightly so -- that American Lt. Colonels can easily find

themselves in Corso's positrion.

After all, just look at Tom Bearden. Bearden has approximately Corso's rank. And look at what

Bearden has done! And John Alexander (see above) was a Colonel, probably having therefore passed

through the rank of Lt. Colonel. And finally, I know a Marine Corps Lt. Colonel who has undertaken a

mission to Russia on his own!

In addition, Corso -- by his own account -- was working under instructions from a General Trudeau.

And being able to throw around the name of a General can open all kinds of doors!

8. Finally, there is the claim that all the things that Corso claims were the products of back-engineering

alien technology were in reality all terrestrial inventions. Well, it is always possible that human

ingenuity was on the brink of making some of these discoveries, anyway. It is also possible that the

engineers were simply telling Corso what they thought Trudeau wanted to hear!

But here is the main thing. The important thing in work like this is to get the inventor-of-record to

think that the idea was his own. They call this "seduction" in psychology! Corso's job was quite

arguably to find a company -- and scientists -- close enough already that they could be nudged in the

right direction the rest of the way. This provides the "plausible deniability" (as it were) later on in case

things go wrong and word gets out about the real origin of all this.

773

This is clearly what happened. After all, the American Credo during all those years was the

superiority of the American System. We wanted people to believe that all these inventions were the

product of American ingenuity, nourished by First World Capitalism in a Free Market Economy. What

would it do to the image of America abroad if it turned out that these inventions had been handed to us

on a silver platter by aliens and had had nothing to do with the American Way of Life?! (And why did

the aliens choose to give this stuff to us in the second place after having already given some of it to Nazi

Germany in the first place, if the stories are correct? Did they know something about the Future that the

rest of us did not as yet know?)

9. And on the subject of the "leavings" that the aliens have deposited with us, you may rest solemnly

assured that they would never use Earth as a dumping ground for the best of their stuff. Let me give you

examples from recent world history.

The shorter and simpler example is that of the American Government itself. The American

Government sells arms abroad. But the Government always keeps the best stuff at home. The

Government never willingly lets this stuff out of their hands (for reasons which are rather obvious, I

would imagine). (And I expect the aliens are at least as clever as the American Government.)

An example even more to the point is provided by the Third Reich in the Balkans in the Spring of

1941. Hitler had been supplying weaponry to the Balkans for years. But it was always second-best

stuff, of course! He also supplied the Balkan countries with ammunition for the weapons he sold them.

Then when it came time to invade the Balkans, Hitler simply cut off supplies. The Balkan countries

were left with stocks and supplies on hand to fend off the Wehrmacht. When stocks and supplies on

hand ran out for the second-best equipment, it was "kaput" for the Balkans! (But the Balkan countries

got their revenge. The few weeks that Hitler delayed in the Balkans in the Spring of 1941 pushed back

the Nazi invasion of Russia by the same amount of time. As a result, the Nazis were not able to reach

Moscow and occupy it before the onset of "Mother Winter", which came early that year for the Nazis,

stranded out in the middle of nowhere with no winter clothing because they had thought they were going

to be home by Christmas! Hitler lost a million men due to Russia's "Mother Winter" in the first winter

of the War. As a result, he lost the War!)

As applied to the aliens, the stuff they leave here is arguably their own second-best stuff. As such, it

might be closer to the mental level of us terrestrians. And therefore, it might be easier for us to back-

engineer. Enough said? Point made? [StealthSkater note: I had heard rumors that the ET science

and manufacturing is in fact centuries beyond ours. For example, they don't build their machines

-- they "grow" them. The challenge in a reverse-engineering program -- which they reportedly

oversaw -- was to incorporate those segments of their technologies which might be able to fit into

our present-day. It was as much of a challenge for them as it was for us.]

10. Oh, and one other thing regarding the business of never knowing the truth in our lifetimes. I think

that the decision of the Italians and the Brazilians to tell the truth about the UFO phenomenon takes the

pressure off of us, to be exclusively dependent on the American Government for our knowledge. If the

Americans will not tell us the truth, then ignore them and stick with the governments of those countries

that will tell us the truth. It's also what John Kennedy wanted to do before he was killed. He believed

we could handle the truth. I think he was right.

11. Points (4) through (9) constitute what I was going to say to you on my own before your message

about the "mainstreamers" arrived.

--- Paul ---

774

S-673. from Paul Devine regarding Consciousness



Date: Mon, October 16, 2006 4:56 pm

Subject: Consciousness # 1

Mark,

I delayed responding to your "Consciousness" ideas, because I have been away from

philosophy/metaphysics/theology for a long time , and could not really relate your ideas to my own. But

here goes :

1. The souls is supposed to be immaterial, mass-less. [StealthSkater note: Why? What doctor or

physicist said that? If you can't measure something, then it remains an unexplained mystery to

our senses.]

2. Consciousness is supposed to be a faculty of this mass-less, immaterial soul.

3. Therefore the "Law for the Conservation of Energy " should not apply to the human soul.

Question: How, then, does "Kram" relate all this to the Conservation of Energy?

Comment : I finally remembered some work which claimed to show that the soul had weight. This

demonstration resulted from an experiment which allegedly showed the body of a dying human person

losing weight immediately after death. The mass loss was measurable, although not very great.

Unfortunately, this reported measurement turned out not to be repeatable or reproducible. (This may

have been a "Hot Story" on C2C not very long ago.)

Further : Well, then, how does Paul see consciousness?

Answer : Paul sees consciousness in terms of a binary relationship. If you must relate this to any area

of modern knowledge, then you might relate it to logic. Modern mathematical or symbolic logic (if I

recall correctly -- I have been away from these subjects for a long time also!) devote part of themselves

to the study of binary relationships. In a binary relationship, 2 things are inter-related or inter-

connected.

And in an act of consciousness, 2 things are also inter-connected or inter-related. (1) There is the

knower. And (2) there is the object of the knowledge or the thing known, that of which one is

conscious.

I'm afraid that is about all that "Consciousness" means to me for the purposes of the present discussion.

--- Paul ---

[StealthSkater note: I'm trying to relate Consciousness to Life-after-Death and eternal life. If

Consciousness is some form of energy waveform, then it can never be destroyed (only

manipulated, transformed) due to the Law of Energy Conservations. I wonder how this

775

waveform (call it a pure "soul" if you will) gets transplanted into a physiological lifeform (a la

Dan Burisch's "Ganesh particle"). And what about a "Super Consciousness" or collection of

souls such as in Star Trek's "Q-continuum"?]

S-674. from Ed Halerewicz regarding basic Quantum physics



Date: Tue, October 17, 2006 5:24 pm

Subject: Re: questions, questions, ... and more questions

-- [email protected] wrote:

> I recalled an interview with Hugh Downs when he was asked to name his 10 most exciting

interviews. One was with Stephen Hawking. Downs' IQ earned him a membership in

MENSA. But he nevertheless admitted to Hawking that while he understood Special

Relativity, he had difficulty with General Relativity. Hawking said that for him, it was

exactly the opposite. GR was relatively straight-forward but it was the subtle stuff of SR that

he was having difficulty with.

>

> I had some free time at work, so I did a Goggle on "special relativity" "easy" OR "Simple"

<= . (The added terms were to give me a simplified layman's explanation.) What I retrieved

reminded me of that sophomore "modern physics" I took in 1968 from Dr. Treat. There were

all these so-called Lorentz-Einstein transformations in moving reference frames. I was able

to solve the problems okay, but it was the implications of the results that were stumping me.

Perhaps Hawking meant the same thng when talking to Downs.

>

> I have always had trouble with concepts such as in physics. It must be a personal

shortcoming which I just can't overcome. And yet I have no trouble with designing a nuclear

reactor (based on extremely simplified models that lend well to experimental parameter

regressions). I can grasp those concepts well and the math -- while it can be challenging in

places -- is manageable. Why slowing down neutrons (a neutral particle) increases their

likelihood of striking a target nucleus (a positive mass) ... those type of questions bother me

but their answers are not necessary for engineering. So I have to re-emphasize this

shortcoming to beg for the patience of experts (like yourself) in these fields.

>

> It's still hard for me to think of "time" as a dimension. And yet the SR & GR experiments

seem to validate that. I had trouble with the Google explanations when they said part of the

problem was that there never was an "at rest" inertial frame in the Universe. Baloney, says

me. Just define one by definition. What's the big deal? Make negative time if you have to.

They make imaginary numbers and exotic matter to fit their models.

>

> It seems like the gist of it is one observer in a slow-moving frame sees the mass and length

change in another in a very fast moving frame. Now when he slows down, son-of-a-gun! the

mass and length revert back. So was it "real" or just some sort of mathematical illusion? If

the former, it would seem to imply that living processes (cell division, consciousness q-bits)

are independent of size. Which doesn't make sense.

>

776

> But it appears that time really does change (irreversibly) for fast-moving frames. Repeated

mention was made of the experiment with the 2 atomic clocks -- one on ground and the other

in a high-flying airplane. There was a difference in times when the plane landed. Another

example was given of muons entering the Earth's atmosphere. Because of their short life,

they shouldn't exist long enough to hit the surface. But they do. It was the "slowing down"

of their internal clock due to their relativistic speeds that caused this.

>

> So that's no "illusion" like mass or length. Maybe in the case of mass, the decreased

energy is transferred back into the ZPE field or somewhere. Then the mass increase would

be real and last long enough to hit a target in a particle accelerator. Its increased energy

seems to be kinetic in nature and is caused by accelerating charged particles by

electromagnetism. (How they accelerate a neutral neutron, I have no clue.) Apparently

simply causing a particle to move faster increases its mass. I know the equations. But I can't

see the picture of what is going on in a fundamental way. How is energy being converted

into mass? What is the reaction?

>

> I had read where some people were saying that time regression does not happen to

biological processes (meaning that someone would actually biologically age at the normal

rate despite traveling near the SOL). Could an experiment be designed to replace the atomic

clocks with a Petri dish of bacteria? It should be easy to measure the culture growth rates at

rest and at high speed. If it does change, then the hard part comes next which is what baffles

me (and maybe Hawking). What is the reaction? Write it on a blackboard. Not the math,

but the physio-chemical cellular reactions. Something *concrete* has to be happening at the

most basic level.

>

> I did read quotes from Einstein where he regarded "time" as some sort of an illusion. You

and I talked about that before. Of course, there are other "alt" theories concerning the nature

of time including more

> dimensions of time. I'm trying to reconcile these matters with things I can touch, see, feel,

and measure.

>

> All I remember from the introductory "Modern Physics" course were the SR stuff and an

introduction to quantum theory. Things like electrons don't occupy any arbitrary orbit. They

jump around only by absorbing "quanta" of energy. (And yet the Heisenberg Uncertainty

Principle seems to say that one can never know where an electron is. Implying that it can be

in so-called forbidden zones. So I don't know who's right.) It was here that I was introduced

to Planck's constant 'h' and 'h-bar'.

>

> I can't recall hearing of anything called a 'strong nuclear force' or 'weak nuclear force'. Nor

do I recall anything about energy levels inside a nucleus. And I most certaintly never heard

of Planck time (10^-43 sec) or length (10^-33 m). Those rail against my common sense. It

would seem that time and length should be infinitely variable. I'm surprised that there is no

Planck unit of mass. I never heard anything about "statistical mechanics" in that course

either.

>

> One time I asked "Dr. Ark" about the size of a black hole. I had read somewhere that the

event horizon of a supermassive black hole could be so many miles around while it was

really small for normal black holes. But he evaded the question by asking me what did I

mean by "size". Is he drunk? What the hell does he think I mean by "size". It should be a

simple enough question to answer. I think that's why people -- perhaps in a fit of

unreasonable exasperation -- think physicists have no clue as to what they're talking about.

777

Both sides need to learn from experiences like than. The layman has to be constantly

reinforced with the notion that despite his best efforts, some things are just out of his grasp

and will forever be so. It is not so much a personal defect as much as realizing the limits of

one's own thinking processes. The other side needs to be schooled in better "bedside

manners" which would make their jobs of acquring funding from non-military sectors more

easy. … … … …

Hello Mark,

Interesting. I think General Relativity is easier to understand over Special Relativity in general as

well. But the math from SR is much easier to follow than for GR. The reason in my mind is that it is

easy to understand how curved space can curve light. But it is hard to imagine that objects can shrink

just by "accelerating". There is also reason for that as well GR includes SR, but not the other way

around even through SR was discovered first. I also got news that Hawking will be in a new film

shortly. I suspect it is an update to Stephen Hawking's Universe. And for the first time, I think

Hawking will talk about string theory for the first time.

You can just a zero or rest frame with the Big Bang. In theory, the expanding universe is just like

the expanding surface of a balloon when inflated. There is no center, no rest frame. The rest frame

would be what is within the balloon. The problem with the Big Bang is that the only thing that exists is

the surface. As for "negative time", it exists. Hawking calls it "imaginary time". But it is only valid

with mathematics that use complex (a+ib form) equations -->Quantum Mechanics. In real space where

normal calculus lives, there is no imaginary time. The result is thus that things can appear to "quantum

tunnel" and such. And that is why Classical Mechanics can not explain Quantum Mechanics.

As for not understanding all of Physics from your point-of-view, I can understand where you come

from as I have always had problems with General Chemistry (probably because the formulas where not

derived, it's just hey! this is what happens in lab) but no problems with the quantum or nuclear aspects

of Chemistry. As for "Planck mass", there is such a thing. It has a mass of roughly 1x10-8 kg -- pretty

massive when compared to a proton! But as you have noted in general, I have problems with the

concept of Planck time, length, density, mass, and temperature as they are artificial constructs built by

simply throwing physical constants together without hard science to back it up.

Dr. Ark didn't know what the size of a black hole is? He must not really be a doctor then. The

equation is r=2GM/c2. The size of the event horizon has everything to do with the mass of the object.

For the Earth, it would be a few centimeters (something like 2.4 cm, but I don't it exactly off hand). For

the Sun, it would be something like a kilometer. For a super massive black, it could be several, several

miles. The bare minimum requirement for a genuine black hole to form is that it must have 3 times the

massive of the Sun when it implodes. Otherwise you have neutron or dwarf stars. The fact that Ark

could not answer that simple question is alarming, its probably one of the easiest things to calculate in

GR.

As per Brian Greene, I think you already know how I feel about his "theories". You are right that

string dimensions could go to zero. They are just boundaries they put on the equations, which say that

nothing under the Plank length (as defined from our Universe) can exist in 4 dimensions. There are

many problems that I have with string theory. And this is one of them.

As for the North Korea thing, I feel that is overblown as well. You only test bombs that you don't

know will work or how much yield they give. Working designs do not need to be tested. The whole

story about Korea seems fishy to me. But only time will tell on that. Time is short for me now, and I

don't really have much to comment on the other things that you have brought up.

778




S-675. from Ed Halerewicz regarding basic Relativity



Date: Tue, October 17, 2006 5:43 pm

Subject: addendum to "questions, questions, ..."


> Forgot to add these to my previous e-mail ...

>

> Regarding Hawking's misgivings with Special Relativity, maybe he was talking about that

the speed-of-light is a constant in all reference frames (moving or not). I have much trouble

with understanding the "why" of that myself.

>

> I've seemed to come across 2 interpretations of the following example. Only one can be

right, so I must be misreading the other. If a stationary observer watches a man trying to

catch up to a beam of light, supposedly the observer sees the man never quite reaching the

end of the beam no matter how fast he goes. But from the man's point-of-view, the beam

passes him as if he were at rest.

>

> I'm confused. It would make more sense if the observer sees the same thing as the man.

Both can't be right, else the argument could be made that we can't trust what our eyes are

reporting to our brains. And wouldn't that cause turmoil in the court system.

>

> I'm interested in the "why" the speed-of-light is a constant no matter how fast one travels.

It's actually MORE than that, however. That statement is saying that light acts as if it is

impervious to our existence in the same reference frame. Almost as if it is vibrating from a

5th dimension as Kaku suggested in his book Hyperspace. I can accept the SOL as a

universal "speed limit". That suggests that we can slowly catch up to a beam of light. But if

the beam still passes by at "c" no matter how hard we try, that's the part that I'm having

trouble with justifying in a physical sense. The "why", if you will. Is this some fundamental

interaction with the Zero-Point Energy substrate? I can solve the Lorentz equations; but I

don't understand the "why" behind them.

>

> And those equations say it would take an infinite mass to achieve lightspeed "c". And yet

the particles that travel at light-speed -- photons, neutrinos, etc. -- all have some small-but-

measurable mass. Why? I thought you had to have infinite mass to travel at "c".

>

> Of course, there are those who say whenever physicists don't understand something, they

always add another dimension. Kaku himself says that the laws of nature are simpler in

higher dimensions. But just because the mathematical models are simpler doesn't mean that

higher dimensions actually exist. Bearden said that any time higher degrees-of-freedom are

added, math solutions always are simpler. If one is using these models for engineering


779

purposes rather than to search for a philosophical truth, that is fine and dandy. Make a

nuclear reactor model have 100 dimensions if it results in a better design according to our

math models. I don't care about whether they actually exist.

>

> It's ironic that mainstream science seems to tolerate notions of higher dimensions while it

rails against concepts such as Bearden's scalar waves. A more neutral observer might quip

that both concepts are "far out" without a shred of experimental evidence. And yet one is

embraced while the other is is disgraced.

> When I had strange visit with Dr. Treat, I ended up trying to talk about superstrings. As I

told you, apparently he had done some considerable work on the Yang-Mills model. But he

didn't seem at all interested in the subject nor in receiving the excerpts from Kaku's book. I

thought it strange that a particle physicist would not keep on all the latest developments.

Perhaps he was trying to get me out of there (before he would have to report to National

Security as Sarfatti suggested) and it had nothing to do with interest-or-no interest in

superstrings. I made some remark about some of these physicists seem to have big egos. He

was quick to give me a disapproving nod of agreement on that.

>

> There is some mathematical function (Fourier transform?) that says that waveforms are

sums of individual sine waves of different frequencies and amplitudes. And the textbooks

stress that this is not arbitrary but actual because electronic filters can be put in the circuit to

trap these individual sine waves, thus confirming there existence. Well, I can generate an

arbitrary periodic waveform just by "riding the gain" (i.e., manually varying the voltage

potentiometer control). So I know I'm not creating any of these secondary waves whose

summation goes into the overall waveform. But I'll take their word for it that appropriate

filters would show their existence. Since I know I didn't create them, I can't understand how

they exist unless it's by some weird mechanism of Mother Nature. Maybe the same thing

could be said for understanding Relativity and "time" in general. Maybe our math models

are limited by our natural physical senses. Maybe Bearden is on to something when he

speaks of "imperceptibles".

>

> Unlike the U.S., Russia's attitude toward UFO witnesses seems to be saying "we believe

that you are honestly reporting what you feel you saw". This further supports the argument

that governments know what the "UFO" enigma really is. And it doesn't seem to be a

national security problem that would cause buildup in forces, etc. Pilots are told to "just keep

an eye on them". No big deal. But it would seem to have resulted in an abrupt moratorium

on nuke tests. It also appears that the Dept. of Energy (the old Atomic Energy Commission)

is the primary caretaker of all UFO reports.

>

> I am leaning more towards "timeline" perturbations (which is even more radical a concept

that UFOs). Did any more come out of Peter Lynds' remarks about the nature of "time"

(http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Lynds_01.doc ) ? I see a lot of activity in certain

physics camps on researching consciousness and remote-viewing. They aren't wasting their

time with what we call "UFOs". "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire." Tie that in with

the nuke moratorium and maybe it gives more credence to what Montauk's (admittedly

discredited) Preston Nichols says that past tinkering has led to what appears to be an

irreversible time-loop. I wonder if physical death leading to the afterlife can escape that

consequence or not. Just believing it would does not make it happen. Belief just calms our

most fundamental fears.

>

780

> Lots of questions ... but alas not many answers. Maybe it's just as well. There are lots of

critical issues (such as overpopulation and energy) that need our intellectual attention. I

suppose it's just part of Mankind's exploring nature to "climb a mountain just because it is

there".

The Relativity problems …

Well, more-or-less what you described. The 2 frames are indeed valid according to modern

textbooks. When you speed up, time slows down. So even though you are about to catch the beam,

when the light waves enter your frame, they slow down. Thus the light beam "stretches", and so the

speed-of-light seems to be the same for both observers. As for the courts, eyewitness testimony is

usually considered untrustworthy. But juries love it.

Yes, photons do have a small-but-non zero mass and seem to defy Relativity. But that realization

came only after the Theory of Relativity was proposed. It is a problem that particle physicists are aware

of. But in general, most relativists ignore the problem all together. It's just the best idea that they have

that can explain 1-or-2 things seen in lab. It just, however, fails for the third thing. In general,

skepticism in Science is a good thing. But as in many things in life, majority rule often overrules

common sense.




S-676. from Paul Devine regarding writing noted scientists



Date: Sat, November 4, 2006 5:54 pm

Subject: RE Latest from Greer : # 1 --- Witten and Kaku

Mark,

1. I was struck by your mention of Ed Witten and of Kaku in your last e-mail.

2. A question: What did you use for contact information in reaching out to Ed Witten?

3. Some information about Ed Witten. He was one of the last research students of Albert Einstein,=

before the latter's 1955 death. This would make Witten to be pushing on towards being 80 years old. At

that age, he is not going to be answering very many messages. To make matters worse, Witten -- by

default -- has come to be seen in the light of being a kind of "heir apparent" to Einstein. Under the

circumstances, Witten will likely have precious little time for answering messages.

4. An experience with Michio Kaku … A few years ago, Kaku gave a talk here in Madison, Wisconsin.

After the talk, Kaku explicitly invited me to send him a paper I had written. I sent the paper. Kaku

never so little as acknowledged receipt of the thing! An acquaintance of mine suggested that Kaku

simply wanted to get my name in writing so that he could look up my name in Who's Who. If Kaku had


781

found my name in Who's Who, then he might have acknowledged receipt of my sending. But I am not

in Who's Who. Therefore, he did not even do so little as to acknowledge receipt.

5 . A moral: Don't be offended by lack of responsiveness from such people as Kaku, Witten, and others.

Don't take it personally. Don't let your feelings be hurt. If it would not have harmed these people to

answer you and if they could easily have answered you -- but yet they did not answer you -- then that

"monkey" is on their collective "back" as the expression goes. If their real motive for not answering is

the motive attributed to Kaku, then "Consider the source!" as another expression goes.

--- Paul ---

S-677. from Paul Devine regarding the latest from Dr. Steven Greer



Date: Sat, November 4, 2006 5:55 pm

Subject: RE Latest from Greer :# 2 (McClendon& Clinton ,Carter & the mad Pole ,JFK &

UFOs,HCM)

Mark,

The Greer article [http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Disclosure_02.doc ] came as nothing

new to me. A few points …

1. Greer's reference to ending up like Jack Kennedy if the President tried to exert executive authority and

make it all public on his own initiative.

Well, we have seen this before. Such names as those of "Grace" and " Valerian" (for example) come

to mind, do they not? And remember Bill Clinton's refusal to use his own executive authority to make

all this public in his comment to the great Sarah McClendon (that I shared with you earlier) in which

Clinton told her that "There is a hidden government in this Country. And I -- Bill Clinton -- am not in

charge of it" *. And recall Jimmy Carter's refusal to make public the UFO-related information after he

got into the Oval Office even though he had run on the platform of making all this public after he won

(if he won). (The "mad Pole " himself -- said to have been a " UFO insider " -- seems to have gotten to

Carter in the meantime!) **

2.The reference to the involvement of groups that -- while non-govermental -- still have strong

governmental connections is nothing new. Hugh McDonald -- in his 1975 book (APPOINTMENT IN

DALLAS: & ; I sent you an excerpt from it some time ago *** ) reports an interview with "Carrion" --

one of the CIA's hired assassins left over from the (April, 1961) Bay of Pigs operation -- who was one of

the multiple assassins who actually did fire down on the President that day in Dallas.

McDonald, naturally, wants to know who was behind the assassination. Who recruited "Carrion"?

And who paid him? The answer of "Carrion" ( as reported by McDonald ) was that the people behind

the assassination -- who recruited "Carrion " as far as "Carrion" was able to tell -- appeared to him

"Carrion" to be a group which -- while it was a non-governmental group -- was a group which also had

strong governmental connections. And this was in 1962!

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Disclosure_02.doc

782

3. The reference to the fact of "bugs" on Greer's telephone and in his room. Again, this is nothing new.

Back to McDonald's 1975 book! At one point in that book, McDonald wants to talk to CIA Herman

Kimsey about Dallas out loud in Kimsey's own office in CIA headquarters. Kimsey refuses to talk out

loud. McDonald couldn't believe that the Agency would "bug" the office of one of its own agents! This

could have been as early as 1964!

4. So you see, there is really nothing new in anything that Greer says. It was obviously new to Greer at

the time -- and possibly new to yourself as well -- but it's a case of " been there, done that, and of "Deja

vu all over again " (in the words of that immortal philosopher, Mr. Yogi Berra!). I personally believe

Greer. There is every reason to believe him and no reason not to believe him!

-- Paul --

PS: * The exchange between Sarah McClendon and Bill Clinton was in my Jan. 26, 2006 e-mail with "

Sarah McClendon / hidden gov't. / Bill Clinton / UFOs/" for the title.

PPS: ** I cannot find the material on Carter. However, some material relative to "the mad Pole" is at

my "WIFOTH # 6 - Of Politicians and UFOs " Feb. 1, 2006 e-mail.

PPPS: *** The excerpt from McDonald's 1975 book was an attachment to two June 27, 2006 e-mails

that I sent you with "To 'Lazar ' Hugh C. McDonald" and "Hugh C. McDonald rejects the' Were We

Controlled?' Scenario of CIA Herman Kimsey" for titles. I fid not include the above materials in this

earlier sending. If you want it, then let me know and I will see if I can find it.

S-678. from Mike D'Agostino regarding induction fields



Date: Thu, November 16, 2006 11:35 am

Subject: another good source of tech news

Hi Mark and Friend unknown,

Appreciated the wireless power article by BBC. Thanks.

Another source of accurate technical information on the cutting-edge technology is the IQ news net.

The URL is http://www.iqnewsnet.com/.

Regarding the BBC article, the technology described is based on a well-known effect called

"induction". The nice thing about induction fields is energy is not lost or radiated beyond its field.

Which makes it very practical. The physical size of the field I would imagine would depend on the

frequency. Higher frequencies, smaller field; Lower frequencies, larger fields.

Regarding very exotic field propulsion (i.e., UFO). I always assumed a type of induction field

enclosed on itself like a type of standing wave. Virtual enclosure would be very effective. This kind of

field wouldn't radiate either. So nothing would be lost through entropy.

Again, thanks. Best Regards

http://www.iqnewsnet.com/

783

-- Mike

S-679. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Anti-Gravity

To: "Mangomike1" <[email protected]>

From: "Dave" <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, December 5, 2006 9:33 pm

Subject: Anti Gravity

When time permits, click on recent article in the 3rd paragraph.

--Dave.

Anti-Gravity

In March of this year, the European Space Agency announced that Dr. Tajmar (ARC Seibersdorf

Research GmbH, Austria) and colleagues and Dr. Clovis de Matos (ESA-HQ) Paris had succeeded in

creating artificial gravity in their laboratory. This new chapter on gravity could "form the basis for a

new technological domain" according to its discoverers. The discovery was guaranteed to create

controversy in physics circles. And it has not disappointed.

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, a rotating superconductor generates a

gravitomagnetic field as predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR). However, GR

predicts that the gravitomagnetic effect is virtually negligible (less than one part in a trillion).

"Magical" Physics

Physics Magic: Invisibility

Theorized by established scientists since:

1940s - negative refraction material

1960s - metamaterials

2003 - invisibility barrier

Contradicts: Index of Refraction, or right -handedness

Amazes: Our very eyes

Physics Magic: Anti-Gravity (modified gravity)


Late 1800s - co-gravitational force

1989 - Cooper-pair anomaly

Contradicts: Aspects of General Relativity

Amazes: Our sense of what is UP

Physics Magic: Perpetual motion (over-unity)


(Nnone notable)

Contradicts: Conservation of energy

Amazes: Our expectation of entropy

The effects measured by Tajmar were a million trillion trillion times (i.e., 30 orders of magnitude)

stronger than predicted by GR. "We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years,

784

and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are

confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who summarizes and refines their results in a recent

article.

Tajmar and de Matos believe that further experimentation could "produce even larger gravitational

fields in laboratories." If validated, it would provide the first such peer-reviewed confirmation of a

relationship between electromagnetic and gravitational forces 17 orders of magnitude greater than that

produced by normal matter. Their findings would certainly seem on the edge of "crank" science were it

not for the fact that it was funded jointly by ESA and the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

Demonstrating a gravity-modifying generator today would be the equivalent of unveiling an electric

dynamo in the era of steam power. It changes the rules. What will the everyday applications of this

technology be? A cover story in New Scientist magazine (Nov. 11-17, 2006) suggested as outcomes for

this technology, "Levitating cars, zero-g playgrounds, tractor beams to pull objects towards you,

glassless windows that use repulsive fields to prevent things passing through. Let your imagination run

riot..."

At least 2 other (unidentified) physics labs are currently attempting to replicate the work of Tajmar and

de Matos. Results are expected some time in 2007.

S-680. from Ed Halerewicz regarding spinning nuclei and cold fusion



Date: Wed, December 13, 2006 5:25 pm

Subject: Re: spinning nuclei and cold fusion


>

Nuclear reactions (e.g., fusion) must be pretty complex. Somehow the strong force must be

overcome(shattered) and then the neutrons/protons (or is it more like the quarks?) "react".

>

> With that in mind, I found a 1998 summary of cold fusion at

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html . It was interesting in that it

seemed to imply some of the results were greatly influenced by slight impurities in the

palladium. I recall that it was Fermi's aggressiveness in finding ultra-pure graphite that made

the first chain reaction possible after everyone else was ready to give up on it.

>

> I was never sure what physicists meant by "spin" of a particle. To me, it means spinning

around an axis. It shouldn't take a lot to strip electrons off of low-atomic number atom to

produce nucleic ions. What would happen if something could cause half of these ions to

rotate at high rpm in one direction and the other to rotate in the opposite? Could that negate

electrostatic repulsion and allow the ionic nuclei to interact/fuse?

Yup, sure are. But you already knew that. However, the strong force can not be overcome by any

known force.

A particle's "spin" is just a quantum number used to explain the observable wave-like behavior of

most quantum effects. There is not necessarily any actual "rotation" going on in the classical sense.

785

And for stripping ions, it's actually easier to do so with elements of higher atomic numbers because

there is more electrostatic shielding. And thus electrons are less attracted to the nucleus which has a

higher ground energy than do the outer shells. If there was a half/half electron rotation direction, the

only effect that would have is on the behavior of the magnetic field of the system and electrostatic fields

would still be present. So there would be no fusion at all produced by that method.

And for fusion, the charge of electrons are a non-issue. What is important is to overcome the

electrostatic repulsion between positively-charged protons at close distance. The Sun does this by

having an overkill of mass which heats things up, producing a greater kinetic energy than exists due to

electrostatic repulsion alone. So the strong force is not overcome at all but rather an electromagnetic

one. Once that happens, the subnuclear forces can act on one another and begin to fuse.


Independent Researcher


S-681. from Paul Devine regarding reply from George Knapp concerning Bob Lazar



Date: Wed, February 14, 2007 4:29 pm

Subject: Fwd: RE: Lazar via Knapp (?) RE threats to "Lazar" Hugh C. McDonald, and Lazar's troubles

Mark,

Well, the unexpected happened. Such as it was, it is below. Note that is from Knapp alone, at this point.

I "copied" to Lazar, everything that I sent to Knapp. But nothing from Lazar at the moment.

--- Paul ---

-- George Knapp <[email protected]> wrote:

>Subject: RE: Lazar via Knapp (?) RE threats to "Lazar" Hugh C. McDonald and Lazar's troubles

>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:33:29 -0800

>From: "George Knapp" <[email protected]>

>To: "paul devine" <[email protected]>

>

>All very interesting. I remember some of this from years ago. I do not believe Lazar had any

other contacts with Novel.

>

>> From: paul devine [mailto:[email protected]]

>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:30 PM

>> To: George Knapp

>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]


786

>> Subject: Lazar via Knapp (?) RE threats to "Lazar" Hugh C. McDonald, and Lazar's

troubles

>>

>> I have followed the adventures of Bob Lazar from a distance since discovering him on

Coast to Coast. His adventures remind me of certain aspects of the history of "The Thousand

Days of Camelot" (the 1961-1963 Presidency of JFK) and the aftermath. For example : Lazar's

(Nov. 16, 1989 ) encounter with Gordon Novel, displayed on pages 39-40 of Joe Vaninetti's

diary (archived by "StealthSkater" in his

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Lazar_21.doc document. (Novel was certainly

involved in the Bay of Pigs. And he was alleged by some to have been involved with Dallas

and the murder of Pres. Kennedy there). The bad things that have happened to Lazar in his

career of "blowing the whistle" to the public regarding what he knows about the UFO

phenomenon with special reference to Area-51.

>>

>> I have elsewhere put together a list of documents that excerpt what I know about the

activities (actual or alleged) of Gordon Novel in the period from 1961 (when JFK took office )

through 1974 (when Nixon resigned), until at least as late as 1976. [The material from Joe

Vaninetti's diary -- archived by "StealthSkater" in his Lazar_21 document -- notices Lazar's

contact (Nov. 16, 1989 ) with Novel ( on pages 39-40 of the diary ) and also brings us up to

1989]. This Novel-related material may help to provide background and context to the "We're

going to kill you" threat made by "Dennis " to Lazar on (August 30, 1989 ) as recorded on

pages 27-28 of the Vaninetti diary.

>>

>> I have also found a chapter from the first (1975) of 2 books by Hugh C. McDonald. The

half-title of the self-published book is APPOINTMENT IN DALLAS : & * ( Zebra ). And the

relevant chapter is Chapter XIX ("Washington, D.C."), pages 105-110. McDonald had been a

member of the Los Angeles Police department (LAPD). After Dallas, McDonald had taken it

on himself to ferret out at least one of the real murderers of President Kennedy. In this

particular chapter, McDonald's source * CIA Herman Kimsey) is trying to dissuade McDonald

from his self-appointed "whistle-blower" role. What CIA Kimsey says to McDonald -- in order

to dissuade him -- is given on pages 108-109 of the chapter.

>>

>> Is it coincidence -- or is it more than coincidence -- that so much of what CIA Herman

Kimsey predicts for Hugh FC. McDonald has actually befallen Bob Lazar? (BTW, what

Kimsey predicted did not -- so far as I am aware -- ever actually come to pass for McDonald.

Unfortunately, as much cannot be said for Bob Lazar!)

>>

>> I thought that others might be interested in this material but that -- at the very least -- I

should not be the only person to know it. (If you either already know it or do not want to know

it, then no harm is done ).

>>

>> I intend to forward the collection of Novel-related documents and "scan" Chapter XIX of

the (1975) McDonald book to you.

>>

>> --- Paul Devine ---

>>

>> P.S. Death-threats should be taken seriously. Less than a year ago, Wayne Madsen

(notoriously a thorn in the side of the present regime!) was run out of WDC for a while on

account of just such a threat. See Caylor, John,(Aug. 27, 2005 ), "MADSEN UNDER

THREAT OF ASSASSINATION Flees Washington, DC" , online at http://www.insider-



787

magazine.com/madsen_under_threat.htm. For the (Aug.27, '05 ) date, see

http://mparent7777.linejournal.com/2005/08/27/ .

>>

>>/ PJD /

S-682. from Paul Devine regarding Field Unification Theory


To: "Mark McWilliams" <[email protected]>

Date: Sun, April 15, 2007 11:11 pm

Subject: Ed Halerewicz & Field Unification Theory (FUT) & "gravity doing the twist"

Mark,

I just discovered a sequence of email messages from last Nov. 14-15 ('06 ) re. Unified Field Theories

(UFT) which I never answered. They are entitled:

"Re: Gravity adds a new Twist" ; "Gravity adds a new Twist" ; and "Ed's remarks about 'Gravity

adds a new Twist' ".

I don't have access to the whole New Scientist article on which this exchange is based. So I will just

respond to the UFT-related side of it (Ed Halerewicz having disposed of the "frame-dragging" side of

things).

If I understood you correctly, then what was at issue for you was the relation between Magnetism (or

ElectroMagnetism) and Gravity, Albert Einstein, and Field Unification Theory.

Albert Einstein was not the first Field Unification Theorist! (An even earlier one was Johann

Kepler!). The one of interest here, however, was Michael Faraday (THE Michael Faraday).

Unfortunately, I have already given away my material on Faraday. So what I write here, I write from

memory.

You can express Faraday's challenge by saying that he wanted a gravitational field subsequently to

give birth to an ElectroMagnetic inductance. If Gravity could do that, then Faraday would consider the

fields to have been unified. In other words, Gravity and ElectroMagnetism (not only electricity but also

magnetism -- and not just magnetism alone) would be different aspects of each other.

Question: Why not turn it around? Why not make an electromagnetic inductance to give birth to a

gravitational field?

Answer: Because of Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation and because of his famous Equivalence

Principle. Because of the equation, every energy has an corresponding amount of inertial mass.

Because of the Equivalence Principle, this inertial mass (that is talked about in Newton's First Law of

Motion equation) is equivalent to an exactly equal gravitational mass -- an equal measure of

gravitationally active mass (which is talked about in Newton's Inverse Square Law of Universal

Gravitation).

Therefore, any electromagnetic inductance already automatically generates (or corresponds to) a

certain subsequent, "equivalent" amount of gravitation.


http://mparent7777.linejournal.com/2005/08/27/

788

But as you can see, there is no law that says that Gravity generates a certain subsequent quantity of

ElectroMagnetism or of electromagnetic induction. Therefore, if you could establish such a subsequent

generation in the laboratory, then you could be considered to have unified the fields -- showing that

there is a certain "equivalence" between them. (Sir Michael Faraday was ahead of his time!).

The New Scientist article did not seem to have anything to do with the subsequent generation of

something new from anything else pre-existing. In particular, the article (as I understood it) did not

have Gravity subsequently generating the Magnetism (that is mentioned in that part of the article which

was accessible to me) and which appears to have been pre-existing in the article (as far as I could

understand the little snippet of the article that was available for consultation). Therefore, it did not have

anything to do with Field Unification Theory (FUT) in the sense of Michael Faraday.

That's the way I see your article.

There is a far more abstract (and perhaps far less relevant and accessible to you) way of explaining

this. I will leave that for the Postscript which follows. (I like Faraday's approach!).

Hope this helps.

-- Paul

PS: Einstein's original idea was to "geometrize" these things by introducing the idea of "curvature" in or

of a surface. His idea was to explain ElectroMagnetism as being associated with curvature in space (the

space itself being thought of as a surface), just as he had previously shown how you could think of

Gravity as being associated with curvature in space. His idea did not work because he over-simplified

it, restricting himself artificially and arbitrarily to quadratic terms (so to speak) in his equations. (They

had worked for Gravity. So why should they not also work for ElectroMagnetism?!).

In the same way, Plato had tried to restrict the means (by which you could double the cube and

trisect the angle) to a straightedge (an un-marked ruler with no unit of length at all on it ) and a compass

(which draws a circle, which corresponds to a quadratic equation in analytic geometry, in other words).

Archimedes showed that you could trisect the angle if you turn your straightedge into a ruler (with units

of length marked on it) -- a development which Platonic mathematicians would not allow. Archimedes'

approach amounts to introducing cubic equations (which are more complicated than quadratic equations)

into the proceedings -- an approach banned by the Platonists among mathematicians and geometers.

What corresponds to "turning a straightedge into a ruler" in terms of modern UFT work is (as I

perceive things) in the work of Ed Witten (possibly Albert Einstein's last research student ) et al.

Field Unification was related in Faraday's mind to his view of Deity. The reference is to Jones, B.,

(1870) , *The Life and Letters of Faraday* (Philadelphia, 1870) , Volume 2, p. 385.

Jones refers to an 1849 paper --" On Magnetic and Diamagnetic Bodies" by Faraday.

You can find all Faraday's papers collected in Faraday, Michael, *EXPERIMENTAL

RESEARCHES*. In three (3) Volumes. (New York, N.Y. Dover, 1965).

BTW, Edgar Allen Poe had similar views as expressed in "Eureka" -- his long prose poem that he

finished not long before his untimely death at age 40 (also in the year 1849).

789

Well, if the preceding paragraph in this postscript does not help you, then I will be neither surprised

nor disappointed.

S-683. from Ed Halerewicz regarding UNITEL's quantum laser model



Date: Thu, May 3, 2007 10:29 pm

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Do you understand this?]


> Subject: Do you understand this?

> From: "Paul Kirsch" <[email protected]>

> Date: Thu, May 3, 2007 6:21 pm

> To: "Mark" <[email protected]>

>

> Mark,

>

> I asked Larry what significance of 356 lumens is for his lens. I didn¹t really understand his

answer see exchange below. Particularly when he says ³extra degree of freedom for EM².

And ³magnetic potential as well² (what magnetic field does a laser have?) Any insights?

>

> Thanks,

> Best, P.

>

>> From: Larry Maurer <[email protected]>

>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT)

>> To: Paul Kirsch <[email protected]>

>> Subject: Re: What is 356 lumens

>>

>> Paul:

>>

>> Hi. I believe it was 365 lumens, wasn't it? Anyway, that is the full-on intensity of

light per pixel or 3 R,G,B sections which means that it would be solid "white" in

color. A good example is your TV set whereby if you wanted to show a snow field,

all the pixels would be 365 lumens thereby creating a true "white" color. Make

sense?

>>

>> Maximum of what? Maximum of color means max of magnetic potential as well.

Remember that the 3 basic colors radiate 90 degrees orthogonal from one another.

You merely have to look at the ceiling of your room where it would be at the corner

where 2 walls come together so you can visualize the 3 R,G,B colors radiating out

from a point in space & time. This gives the viewer an example of an extra degree of

freedom for EM. Make sense?

>>

790

>> L.

Mark,

The answers to Paul's questions are fairly simple. 356 lumens is just an arbitrary number for

brightness as intensity is simply Power (watts) over Area. The number 356 would originate from what

ever assumptions were placed on Larry's model (which I can not really say is accurate or not).

For degrees-of-freedom, you just have to think of Chemistry. The 's orbital' has 2 degrees-of-

freedom (spin up and spin down) while a 'p' has 6 (i.e., 3 sets of up and down). Larry's claim is that his

laser would have so much energy it could actually poke a hole into another "dimension" ala string

theory. So that would be the extra degrees -of-freedom he is talking about.

A bad analogy is that we live in an "s orbital" universe and the laser in question would operate in the

"p orbital" universe. If that can be done or not in practice is another question all together. But it fringes

on the near impossible (like an electron orbiting a hydrogen atom being able to quantum tunnel to the

star Vega). It's highly, highly unlikely … but not all together impossible.

As far as laser magnetic potential, that's a good insightful catch! Ordinarily we do not associate

magnetic potentials with lasers. But if his laser were to act in another physical dimension as claimed,

then it would obtain a magnetic potential. I would say quite a number of claims are based upon shaky

reasoning. But that is the origin behind all of the odd terminology used by Larry.




S-684. from Ed Halerewicz regarding rotating gravitational fields



Date: Mon, May 7, 2007 12:06 pm

Subject: Re: rotating gravitational fields

> Ed --

>

> If extra dimensions (or parallel worlds/universes) exist, there is a good chance that the laws

of Physics there are different from what we see in our 4D spacetime. At least that is what

I've read from Kaku and others.

>

> Therefore, what if ET craft were constructed there using elements and manufacturing

technologies that are just possible in our 4D realm.>

> If so, then the long-rumored ET-human back-engineering co-op program may make more

sense. It would be as much of a challenge to "them" as to us to retrofit what parts of their

science into the restrictive framework of our reality.

>

> Of course, the big question is how do they cross the boundaries to arrive here? It may not

be the Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling that Larry is always talking about. (BTW, New


791

Zealander ex-WWII Bob King told me long ago that he wasn't impressed with UNITEL.

"They merely re-patented it after the old patent expired. When Larry first sent me stuff for

his books, one image was a PowerPoint slide that showed Northrop-Grumman managing an

Army research lab that apparently later became the University of Chicago's MicroPhysics

Lab. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that they had trouble manufacturing these

Type II semiconductors and turned it back over to academics. The newer Type III

ORMEs/ORMUS may have caused them to lose interest in the Type II. That's what

Firmage's GCT group in Hungary is allegedly researching.)

>

> This was addressed by Chuck Clark (I think that's his name) who moved to Rachel, Nevada

after retirement and set up shop at the Little Alien Inn of the Travises. (He replaced Glen

Campbell who fell out of favor with Joe and Pat.) Chuck thought the ET craft were just as

likely (if not moreso) to come from other dimensions as from far off in our normal

spacetime.

>

> To get back to the question of mechanism, string theory seems to suggest that the EM,

Weak, and Strong forces are open-ended strings which are "grounded" in the ZPE field (or

someplace). They vibrate but don't move from place-to-place. Unlike the Gravitational

string which is closed and is pictured as floating between dimensions (thereby suggesting a

possible means of interdimensional communications). Whatever mechanism this uses might

be used also by these hypothetical ET craft (except on a grander scale).

>

> I've seen a lot mentioned about "rotating magnetic fields". What about rotating

gravitational fields. Can such a thing exist? Remember that Einstein thought gravity and

magnetism were related to a more fundamental force. If wierd results can be obtained (e.g.,

Montauk, the P-X) from a RMF, then maybe strange results (if not identical) can be obtained

from a RGF. Has anyone given thought to such a thing?

>

> -- Mark

A lot to comment on here …

1st -- IF there are extra dimensions, the "laws" of Physics are still valid. There just may be a few

additional ones.

2nd -- I will not comment on voodoo conspiracy theories.

3rd -- String theory has a multitude of open and closed and even [mem]brane structures. So a one fit

rule for every particle wouldn't be the wisest course of action to take in understanding the theory.

4th -- Nothing is grounded in the ZPE. For all intents and purposes, it is cosmic static. Nothing more,

nothing less. So don't try attaching magic properties to it when none exist.

5th -- Yes rotating gravity fields exist. They were long ago predicted by General Relativity. It has even

been confirmed that even the Earth does this thanks to Gravity Probe-B. But this has nothing to do with

a "Unified Field Theory" or the possible existence of other dimensions or any other such nonsense. In

short, yes rotating gravitational fields can exist. And I think they've been theorized at least 30 years ago

(if not longer). Instruments have been measuring those effects for at least 10 years if not more. So your

question is really old hat and nothing new to the scientific community at all.


792



S-685. from Paul Devine regarding rotating gravitational fields



Date: Thu, May 10, 2007 12:19 am

Subject: Re: rotating gravitational fields

Mark,

I came in on the middle of this. But perhaps the following might help.

Gravitational fields are generated by what is called "ponderable" matter -- matter with a non-zero

rest mass. For the gravitational field to rotate at the velocity of light, then presumably the mass

generating the gravitational field is also rotating at the velocity-of-light.

But the question arises -- whence the energy to make a non-zero rest mass move (even rotationally )

with the angular velocity of light? It's back to the same old question: Whence the energy? Whence the

source for the energy? And the energy in question, arguably, would have to be unlimited.

Does this help?

-- Paul

S-686. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Anti-Gravity concepts



Date: Tue, July 10, 2007 11:08 am

Subject: Re: found Sarfatti, Puthoff on Wikipedia's antigravity page


> In his book The Cosmic Conspiracy, Stan Deyo reported a 1955 concern (Gravity Rand)

that authored a small paper showing a relationship between "nuclear energy" and gravity. [I

have that book and have seen the rather short (albeit in tensor form) equation.] The equation

used Einstein's tensor and was regarded as insolvable in its present form. Now what was

meant by "nuclear energy", I don't know. I always think of energy in terms of photons.

Apparently it goes a lot deeper. I'm very confused as to what exactly "energy" is at its most

fundamental (i.e., non-reduceable) level.

>

> The point that Deyo (BTW, Tom Mahood says that "Deyo's science sucks!") was trying to

make was that Anti-Gravity was recognized more than 50 years ago. And he implied that the

research was highly suppressed and made some progress. I don't know how this relates to

Wilbert Smith's "Project Magnet" and use of superconducting caduceus coils. Maybe the


793

latter was trying to achieve a pseudo anti-grav effect by exploiting the Unified Field Theory

which was still in vogue at the time.

>

> When I Googled on "Gravity Rand", I got the following Wikipedia link on anti-gravity

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity ). Note that our boy "Dr. Jack" is widely quoted

here (did one of Jack's supporters contribute the article?). The article also acknowledged

that many points were disputed and provided a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-

gravity ) to a "discussion" page.

>

> Kaku wrote that if room-temperature superconductivity could ever be achieved, "anti-

gravity" would also. I'm still trying to visual AG from a GR diagram. Would it curve space-

time outwards and thereby nullify the "inwards" GR depression (looking at the typical 3D

"rubber sheet" rendering of space-time)? Or does AG use a quantum form of gravity instead

of GR?

If Mahood says that it's junk science, it probably is. A 1955 concern … ha! I doubt it. That was the

year that Einstein passed though. And at that time, nuclear and quantum mechanics became the thing

and gravity was largely ignored. The Einstein Tensor is all the nasty math in GR combined together

which gives space-time its geometry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds by your description that the guy was claiming GR did more than it actually does. As far as

solving Einstein tensors, at first even Einstein did no think it possible. But a case was solved for

spherically symmetric space-times before Einstein passed. And many more have been solved since. So

sounds like the guy is missing a few critical pieces in the history of Gravity.

Now as far as "energy" goes, the easiest translation is motion. Molecular motion is temperature.

Electron motion is more-or-less electricity (electric energy). Nuclear energy is simply the motion of

nucleons, etc. Associating energy with photons would only be true for electromagnetic energy. But

there are a lot of energy forms and -- for the most part -- is just what the average person just terms

motion (for kinetic energy / potential energy of course is a little different).

I also suspect Kaku's remark might well have been sarcasm. He might regard room temperature

superconductivity as an impossibility. S it would be like saying anti-gravity (AG) will become possible

when pigs fly. That's my gut feeling. I could be wrong, but unless I see a transcript in source I would

tend to take the view that he was stating how impossible he thought the idea might be.

As for the Unified Field Theory, it never existed. It's a myth in the same vain as "Theories of

Everything". Sure the idea is out there. But there is no real theory out there.

As for AG, it's not a real science per say. So there is no real GR picture for it. By definition, AG

would violate GR. A form of it does, however, exist and is known as the "cosmological constant" (and

some attribute the buzz word "dark energy" to AG today). But the cosmological constant was invented

as a dodge by Einstein. So its physical nature may be somewhat in question.

But in a sense, it would act like a scalar field which would have an affect on all other gravitational

fields. In that sense, it would just slightly weaken gravitational fields to a small possibly undetectable

level for bodies that have any appreciable amount of mass, but probably would act like a large force

field pushing things at a large cosmological scale. More-or-less, it would like little big bangs taking

place but without the explosion throughout the Universe -- pushing matter source away from each other

by essentially creating new space. And that's what -- in theory -- would produce the accelerated

expansion of the Universe that astronomers have been talking about in the past couple of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-gravity

794

So for the rubber sheet analogy, it would be like two planets 'x' distance apart create two dents in the

grid. Then the dents get slightly smaller and are pushed away at 'x+a' distance. But the effect wouldn't

become noticeable until the masses are so far apart that the scalar field becomes larger than the

gravitational influence. So more or less, you are talking about a force which is much weaker than

normal gravity but which becomes fairly strong when next to no mass is found and that outside

gravitational influences are almost impossible to feel. That description probably will make your head

spin. But that is as about as simply as it can be put without going into the math.







Cc: [email protected] (more)

Date: Thu, July 19, 2007 1:17 pm

Subject: Re: photocopies of 1956 Gravity Rand tensor equation relating nuclear energy to gravitation


> Ed --

>

> This is from Deyo's book The Cosmic Conspiracy (first ed. 1978, rev. ed. 1994). He

republished a 1956 report by Gravity Rand Ltd., London. It seemed more of a briefing than a

report. There are many pages to it. I only attached 2 with 2 others that summarized the

highlights. (If you think it worthwhile, I can convert the whole thing to a Word .doc. That

will take a little time as some of the photocopies are hard to read.)

>

> There was a section (which I did not scan here) titled "A Quantum Mechanical Approach

to the Existence of Negative Mass and Its Utilization in the Construction of Gravitationally

Neutralized Bodies" by a Prof. f. Mozer (whoever he is). Gives a bunch of Shroedinger stuff

along with "negamass" and "posimass quanta".

>

> What I did scan (as GR_3 and GR_4) was a proposed link between "nuclear energy"

(whatever that is supposed to be) and gravitation which uses EInstein's tensor and a

generalized Dirac matrix. Again, this was written (allegedly) in 1956. And that is the point

that Deyo is trying to make (I think) --i.e., that governments have long been involved in anti-

gravity research.

>

> Deyo said that he attended the Air Force Academy until he and other classmates were

thrown out on a trumped-up cheating charge. Or maybe he quit because of what he thought

was brainwashing. (I have to re-read that section.) He said that none other than Edward

Teller was instrumental in getting him a job at an Australian institute after Deyo decided to

apply for citizenship in that country. More of Deyo's story is in the WorldReports_1.doc

(although I need to rewrite it as my editing years ago was simply horrible!).

>


795

> I only wish that Montauk's Nichols would have gotten a copy of the fabled Levinson's time

equations which reportedly were the basis for understanding reality upon which the Montauk

Project was based. (Perhaps "Project Looking Glass" is a scaled-down version of Montauk.)

When you take that into account along with Oberth's statement that UFOs appeared more like

"time machines" than flying craft … tie it in with Sherman's "Project Preserve Destiny" …

add Ray Kramer's "The Equation" (quantum teleportation) [to be released in a book AFTER

his death which interested Tom Bearden no less] … and perhaps sprinkle on some of the

Incunabula folklore ...

>

> ... and now I could see why such things would baffle the best mainstream (and even

alternative) scientists and engineers of the decades. If it was that "easy", we would have had

it (or at least parts) figured out by now.

>

> It has to be something completely foreign. Not necessarily new laws of Physics. Perhaps

undiscovered laws of consciousness and another "Time" (not space-time "time").

>

> Food for thought --

> -- Mark

What a whole lot of nonsense! "The Cosmic Kooks" would be a much better title.

The alleged Relativity equation mixed with Quantum Mechanics is nonsensical. While at first sight

it looks like the Einstein Field Equation, it is written in a way which makes no sense. You can not write

T=G=0 … Well, you could but that would imply that there is no gravitational field at all. Which would

be bizarre in itself.

Then there was the feeble attempt to associate a 4-dimensional gravitational field with a 2-

dimensional quantum well equation. Show that equation to any real physicists and they'll laugh their

heads off. I also found the second equation truly humorous (the one with Einstein written in the

parenthesis). Sorry but Einstein did not event the equation for Kinetic energy 1/2 mv2. That's just good

old Classical Mechanics. It just looks like these people were simply grasping at straws and had no

inkling of the underlying science.







Date: Thu, July 19, 2007 1:29 pm

Subject: Re: the 1956 Gravity Rand report as a Word .doc


> Ed --

>


796

> I tried to read the photocopied sheets of 1956 Gravity Rand in Deyo's book the best I could

and retyped them as a Word document (Deyo_01.doc). Some of the math symbols I couldn't

that well. If you see any obvious errors, let me know.

>

> It would be interesting to see how the theories of that year (1956) compare with today's.

Maybe what they were calling "negamass" is what we call "dark matter" today. The

unfinished Unified Field Theory seemed to be used in attempt to lump gravity and

magnetism into a more fundamental force. I remember 2 comments on an old Shelly Palmer

Montauk board. Just out of the blue. One was that there was a highly suppressed and

incomplete scalarized version of Maxwell's equations that were initially being used in

electronic warfare. And the other was when someone mentioned "psycho-reactive" materials

with regard to UFO hulls. An anonymous responder said "well, they finally got something

right".

>

> It seems to me that "foo fighters" disappeared with the jet age. I wonder if they could have

been some anomaly caused by massive electrical fields set up by the huge turboprops of that

era.

>

> There have been reports that strange atmospheric happenings have been observed

following a nuke test -- sometimes thousands of miles away. And sometimes not at the

approximate same times. (Bearden has said the same thing regarding what he calls "scalar"

phenomena. (Perhaps a bad choice of words.) I heard similar tales regarding the Montauk

Project. That when the remote-viewers tried to "influence" some event, that (or a similar)

event occurred but not at the same time and perhaps as much as a day later. Strange

coincidence ...

>

> If "UFOs" are more of a nuke-related phenomena, it would make sense that the DOE (old

AEC) would manage the project (and not the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.). Blame happenings on

alien craft to minimize public outcry rather than causing disastrous atmospheric effects

(perhaps even time/reality-related). I know the official reason why the Internet was created

(to facilitate the sharing of data from particle accelerators, etc.)

>

> My imagination would let me think of something a lot more, however. Re-booting reality

if the planet was wiped out. Of course, you would have to know how to "seed"

consciousness (think Burisch's "ganesh particle" here). And you would have to have

preserved the most trial of details (wait a minute! that's the bulging Internet!!). Gives a new

meaning to Sherman's "Project Preserve Destiny".

>

> Maybe Ray Kramer's "The Equation" (TOE) and instantaneous quantum teleportation is the

answer. It doesn't need superstrings' extra dimensions. The Universe may be simpler albeit

much more strange. (Don't know how it would tie in with Tegmark/Hawing and

Everett/Wheeler's "Many Worlds", though.)

>

> -- Mark

The errors seem to be the claimed "science" and the idea that there's a conspiracy on the subject to begin

with.

This may clear up one equation:

http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-3-a4.html

http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-3-a4.html

797

Also, the name "Arnowitt" looked familiar so I looked it up in a physics textbook of mine. Sure

enough, Desner and Arnowitt are real physicists and are most famous for their equations studying

gravitational fields at a distance known as ADM theory. Nonetheless, the equations are nonsense by

today's standards and explains why there has been no follow up much as the so-called "Unified Field

Theory" (not to mention that now hyperons have moved on to become baryons, etc.).

It still is a bit strange that the journal of that publication (if any) was not mentioned. Nor the year,

page, etc. In a month-or-so, I can look up that info at a large library to see if that work was cited

correctly.

But the general idea that electric fields can create gravity fields via Brown is even more absurd.

That's the same principles those "lifters" work on. And there's a reason why those toys can only lift

tinfoil.

Above all, the documents show one thing -- how Science changes over time. Often the World does

not operate like we think it should, so we have to change our outlook on Science and move on. It's

really not much more different than Alchemy becoming Chemistry. But there are a number of diehards

out there who will never believe it. They are probably also the same folk who believe the Earth is still

flat!




S-689. from Mike D'Agostino regarding the Biefeld-Brown effect



Date: Sun, July 29, 2007 7:08 pm

Subject: Biefeld-Brown effect

Hi Mark,

Although there appears to be many critics of the Biefeld-Brown effect, there are also many within

the scientific community who have written many papers describing various forms of coupling between

electro-magnetic and gravitational forces as well. Although my background and formal education is not

in the science disciplines, it appears obvious some scientists are quick to dismiss an effect if it can not be

explained by various forms of the Standard Model, Quantum Physics, or string theory.

Where would we be if inventors of the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s dismissed combustion engines as

being not worthy of experimentation?

A reprint from http://media.ford.com/print_doc.cfm?article_id=13925 :

On Dec. 10, 1915, Ford Motor Company marked a major milestone of the Industrial Age. Rolling

off the Ford assembly line, the one-millionth Model-T’s engine was identical to the first one

manufactured Oct. 1, 1908. The engine design -- a single block with a removable cylinder head --


http://media.ford.com/print_doc.cfm?article_id=13925

798

became the industry standard. The 4-cylinder, 20 hp Engine had a top speed of about 45 miles per hour

and fuel consumption between 13 and 21 miles per gallon.

A reprint from http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024642 :

Vehicle City/Hwy CARB/EPA Emissions Base MSRP

Toyota Corolla 32 / 41 ULEV/7 $14,305

Toyota Yaris 34 / 40 ULEV/7 $11,150

Honda Fit 33 / 38 LEV/6 $13,850

Ford Focus 27 / 37 PZEV/9.5 $14,130

Hyundai Elantra 28 / 36 PZEV/9.5 $13,395

Mazda Mazda3 28 / 35 PZEV/9.5 $13,795

The above simply illustrates from the Model-T Ford to the present motor vehicles available,

gasoline-fuel efficiency has been improved upon. The above reflects the efficiency ratings of gasoline

combustion engines invented in the early 1900s which many people today would, of course, call

primitive in comparison.

In comparison, if we dismiss the Biefeld-Brown effect as being entirely an Ion-wind effect in light of

the many demonstrations of this effect in vacuum and oil environments, we are being narrow minded in

my opinion. Instead if we look at the basic principle of this effect, the Biefeld-brown effect as a very

primitive representation like the primitive gasoline combustion engines of the 1700s, 1800s, and early

1900s once were it would open mental corridors to many possibilities. I personally applaud those small

under-funded laboratories; backyard and basement experimenters who are trying to increase the

efficiency of the Biefeld-Brown effect through a variety of methods.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste when it is either closed or narrowly focused.

A friend and myself built 3 of the basic starter models of the lifter's about 6 years ago. It was a

learning process. The first one we built was hooked-up incorrectly. Polarity was reversed and the lifter

actually became heavier. We corrected the problem and built 2 more for the fun of it. My friend also

modified and connected in-line a circuit which gave us the ability to pulsate the voltage at different

variable rates.

What we did notice is the energy-voltage to weight co-efficiency could be increased or decreased in

small amounts. Unfortunately we didn't have a full-blown lab at our disposal, so our tests were very

limited. We couldn't help but wonder if we had the ability to have absolute and full control of the

dielectric field itself -- such as virtually rotating, pulsating, and in essence modulating the dielectric field

in a variety of different ways -- if the voltage-to-weight co-efficiency could be increased.

Mark, It is true I am a dreamer. In addition, I'm a pragmatist also. So I will sometimes find myself

at odds between my emotional feelings and my intellect. I have found through experience that people

can and have jumped to conclusions regarding an experiment or event. Our ability to extrapolate

information becomes the center point of which many will draw a conclusion. In my opinion when a

person finds themselves jumping from one extreme to another, what often remains undiscovered are the

variables and possibilities in between. Life would certainly appear much easier to contend with if it was

just black or white. But Nature has demonstrated there are variables in between -- fractal components

and holographic principals at work.

Keeping an open mind instead of jumping to one conclusion or extreme to another I believe is the

best approach. It doesn't mean or imply that we must throw ourselves without examination to an illusion

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024642

799

or flights of fancy. But it does mean possibilities beyond what one can normally imagine do exist and

remain plausible until proven otherwise.

Well, keep up the good work and again thanks for keeping me in the loop the expanding loop.

Life is an Attitude. Have a very good one.

Best regards,

-- Mike

S-690. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Unidentified Submerged Objects



Date: Fri, August 3, 2007 1:51 pm

Subject: Interesting TV show re USOs

Hi Mark,

A couple of nights ago (Wednesday night on the History channel), there was an interesting

documentary on USOs (Unidentified Submerged Objects).

What made the show of particular interest to me was that many of the sightings occurred during

Naval exercises around the aircraft carrier F.D. Roosevelt. The seamen on watch on all U.S. naval

vessels are trained to identify aircraft (commercial and military) as part of their MOS. In essence, they

are trained observers.

The USS Roosevelt at that time did carry nuclear weapons on board. This would lend some credence

to your previous statements about close proximity sightings of UFOs to Nuclear weapons. My guess is

that you probably already know of the program I mentioned above. But for me, it was a first-time event.

I just had to mention the program just in case you are not aware of it.

Best Regards,

Mike

S-691. from Mike D'Agostino regarding Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich



Date: Fri, August 3, 2007 2:57 pm

Subject: Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich


> Some of the comments made in the

http://www.stpns.net/view_article.html?articleId=54243229781005390 article (e.g.,

“These beings pick up on negative energy and fear,” he added, and both will keep the ships at

http://www.stpns.net/view_article.html?articleId=54243229781005390

800

bay.") remind me of the research done by Dr. Wilhelm Reich (whose books on "orgone

energy" were ordered burned by the U.S. FDA) =>

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Reich .

> Having said that, I'm always leery about those who blame others' emotional states for not

being able to witness a paranormal event. However, I personally know a couple of people

whom I regard as not "whacked out" and they see stuff (and they don't want to! it has caused

them great anxiety and they've lost friends when they sought help) all the time.

> Gilliland's background sort of put me off, too. Sounded like a yoga/zen guy. And asking

for donations reminded me of the "Moonies" soliciting for money at airports by handing out

flowers. But maybe I have been too conditioned (pre-programmed) by my scientific

education/training and I don't have enough of an "open mind" to be able "to see the forest in

spite of all the trees".

> Could the body generate some sort of hallucinatory chemicals under some physiological

circumstances? Or could these people have expanded neural networks along the lines of

remote-viewers?

> If an event cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, it is frequently branded un-

scientific and (at least publicly) labeled "not a threat". I wonder if some of these anomalies

are more than Nature -- i.e., interacting with a greater "intelligence" (for lack of a better

word) that has the ability to control/produce certain effects in the physical world. (Even if so

-- and that's a big IF -- we are raised to live our daily lives by adhering to things we can count

on. If we do such-and-such, we can be sure that this-and-that will occur. From car repairs to

whatever. For those other things, they are like a coin toss. Why worry about something that

you have no control over?)

> Maybe Reich was on to something. Maybe there is something to Tom Bearden's

"unobservables". Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be a present overt "threat" or we would

see more evidence in "black budget" appropriations. Right now it seems to be more of a low-

priority monitoring effort.

Hi Mark,

Correct me if you feel I'm incorrect on this. But I've read some of the papers and books regarding

Victor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla, George Lakhovsky, and Wilhelm Reich. And it seems to me that

they were all experimenting and speaking of different variations of the same type of energy.

I also understand the concept of "Aether" has fallen into disfavor by many in the mainstream

scientific community. I believe the reason for this is actually a very simple one -- mental conditioning.

We as children are taught from a very young age about labeling, identifying, and describing based upon

our form of reason, rational, and logic. The basic concept of an "Aether" doesn't lend itself to definition.

Quantum physics and now superstring theory is an attempt to define and label based upon our ability to

rationalize through reason and logic. The same can be said of higher dimensions which has been proven

on paper through abstract physics and mathematics beyond what most people would consider rational.

We as children are also mentally conditioned to understand if something (anything) can not be

rationalized through a process of reason and logic, then it didn't happen or -- at worst -- was grossly

misinterpreted. It has been said by neurologists that if a person has never been exposed to a certain

thing or event, we cannot perceive it. There is a term called "Inattentional blindness" and another called

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Reich

801

"educational blindness". In essence, the brain is a type of pattern recognition filter. And we typically

can not see or perceive what we can't imagine.

Regarding unexplained aerial or submerged phenomena, it is common to discredit the observers of

such events what is not as easy to disclaim as those trained observers in the Military who have been

exposed to and trained to recognize natural and manmade objects. This is not to discount all civilian-

observed aerial phenomena. But it is important to place these unexplained events in their proper

context. If we take only those unexplained aerial phenomena observed by trained Military observers,

there is still enough recorded and reported sightings for concern that these events are more than a mass

illusion (in my opinion).

Best Regards,

Mike

S-692. from Ed Halerewicz regarding Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich



Date: Mon, August 6, 2007 5:15 pm

Subject: Re: Schauberger, Tesla, Lakhovsky, and Reich

So much wrong with that. The "aether" has never really fallen out of favor. Only its name has

changed. So I take issue with that. What once was called the "aether" is now just called the "quantum

vacuum" or "quantum foam" nowadays and for the simple reason to separate real science from pseudo

science.

Take time-travel … It is still talked about heavily. But the real scientists call it things like "closed

time-like curves", "quantum fluctuations", and the like. There is no electromagnetic aether. But there is

a quantum one without doubt. But only the failed mad scientists actually think the aether concept was

valid to begin with and has been since covered up. I say that's a lot of crap!

Now the neurologist thing is half valid. The same reasoning is even applied in psychology (or at

least the lectures I've had in that subject). A person who does not know 'hot' or 'cold' probably couldn't

conceive of such a thing. You could even go to Helen Keller who didn't come to understand the world

around her until she learned language.

But mathematics is another thing all together. We don't see X-rays but understand them well

enough. Sidewalk patrons can be fooled by a magician whose only real trick is that he understands math

unlike the layman. And it take people like Penn and Teller to show you that there is nothing to these

tricks at all.

As far as the "aether", the only conditioning is the idea that there must be always a physical medium

to pass through. That's why it was so easy to postulate and so hard to give up. In recent years, what has

been defined as "physical" has been ever changing and is the reason that there is a belief in a kind of

quantum aether. Needless to say, I feel that opinion of ether brought up earlier is looking at the thing

from exactly the wrong end of the tube.

802

As for USOs, if their accounts can be verified, those cases are certainly interesting if not all together

disturbing. But when the myth axes swings by with such force, no one dare raise their head above the

crowd.




S-693. from Paul Define regarding Tensor calculus concepts


To: "Mark McWilliams" <[email protected]>

Date: Sun, September 2, 2007 9:23 pm

Subject: Ed H / define tensors/ What's up?

… … … …

PS # 4. As concerns the definition of "tensor" from an earlier message: The reference to Wolfram that

Ed Halerewicz gave you in that exchange is the same reference that I would have given you for a

technical definition of a mathematical tensor.

> A technical definition of a tensor is here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html

>

> So in general, Beverly's definition of a tensor being a scalar with n>1 dimensions is

OK in the general. In my mind, I usually equate tensors with matrices as General

Relativity makes use largely of rank two tensors (matrices) although there are tensors of

differing rank where tensor analysis would come in handy.

>

> Now to be dealing with tensors is no biggy to me because I play with vectors and such

in physics courses and in my spare time. But what I know of the subject is all self-

taught. So if I don't need to know about a certain problem, I don't bother to teach it to

myself. I haven't had a course in differential geometry as of yet and will not be able to

until next spring. But if Bev is interested, MIT offers a number online instruction that

can be freely viewed: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/index.htm

>

> As for Ark's comments about tensors being "fields", I can buy that. All a field really

is a mathematical definition of all points in space. In General Relativity, tensors spits

off info about scalar and vectors and that's about it. From that info, we learn about the

geometry of space-time and the dynamics of matter within. Going through the math

may be a bit tedious. But there is nothing "magical" about a tensor.

However, there is another way of looking at the things -- somewhat similar to Ed's remark (made in

reference to GRC) -- that GRC tells you what you cannot do. This other way of looking at tensors is to

see them as a mathematical process for deciding whether-or-not a given mathematical formula you have

--that quantifies experimental results or that formulates a hypothesis mathematically -- can be a Law of

Nature expressed in mathematical form.


http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/index.htm

803

The general idea is that a Law of Nature (expressed in mathematical form) will not change its

mathematical form no matter where in the Universe you are. For example, suppose you did an

experiment at a particular point here on Earth of dropping a body from a given height and letting it fall

(under the influence of gravity alone) towards the surface of the Earth. Suppose you found that at any

given location here on Earth, the distance through which a body falls (under the influence of gravity

alone) is given by a numerical constant multiplied by the square of the elapsed time, during which the

body has been falling.

Suppose you found that the numerical value of the constant equals one-half of the numerical value of

the acceleration of gravity at that given location. Suppose you wonder if this mathematical formula that

you have developed is a Law of Nature. Well, how would you recognize a Law of Nature?

One possible (partial) answer to this question might be as follows. If this mathematical formula be a

Law of Nature, then you would expect the components of the equation to remain unchanged no matter

where else in the Universe you were. Thus, suppose you went to the surface of the Moon. Suppose you

repeated the experiment there. If what you found on Earth be a Law of Nature, then you should get a

Lunar formula which has the same components as the Terrestial formula found here on Earth.

In other words, the distance fallen through -- above any particular point on the surface of the Moon -

- should be equal to a constant times the square of the elapsed time during which the body has been

falling. Ad the numerical value of the constant should be numerically equal to one-half the numerical

value of the acceleration of gravity, at that point on the surface of the Moon.

If the formula you get does not have that structure (i.e., a constant times the square of the elapsed

time), then the original equation can not be a Law of Nature. But even if the formulas agree in their

structure, the common structure might still not represent a Law of Nature. The constant may not be

equal to one-half of the local acceleration of gravity, for example. And a "tensor" is a procedure which

allows you to tell in advance whether-or-not any given structural form for an equation will or will not

change its form. (Nothing is necessarily said about the numerical values of coefficients or of multipliers

or of factors, however).

S-694. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding UNITEL's proposals

From: [email protected]


Date: Mon, November 5, 2007 1:33 am

Subject: Re: would TGD offer hope to UNITEL's proposals?

… I have made a little comment on Reich's orgone concept. The problem with Reich, Ormus, UFOs

etc. is that it is not possible to build any concrete model since quantitative data are lacking.

My models relay on the notion of (a) manysheeted space-time; (b) the notion of field body; (c) the

new notion of energy; and (d) the hierarchy of dark matter identified as Macroscopically quantum

coherent phases with large value of Planck constant certainly explains living matter as ordinary matter

quantum controlled by dark matter. Dark matter could explain most of these kind of claims. The

problem is that one can imagine too many alternatives since quantitative data is lacking.

To me, the behavior of Living matter as such is a gigantic anomaly which we do not realize to be an

anomaly because we see it in everyday life. In the TGD Universe, remote mental interactions (e.g.,

804

remote-viewing and ESP), free energy phenomena, etc. would be only particular cases of phenomena

which are the basis of functioning of Living matter.

● There are some precise data on "anomalous luminous phenomena" (I visited a little conference in

Hessdalen in August and learned some new things). The simplest model identifies them as

plasmoids which can be regarded as primitive lifeforms having basic functions of Living

matter. Plasmoids possess "magnetic body" which contains dark matter quantum controlling

the ordinary matter which we see.

● One can imagine many scenarios for explaining experiences about meeting ETs without assuming

UFOs to be space-ships. Plasmoids could serve as messengers allowing quantum entanglement

between their perceiver and extraterrestrials in some remote galaxy. This would make it

possible to telepathically share mental images and genuinely experience the presence of ET

without any physical presence.

Dark matter hierarchy also allows us to consider the possibility that higher lifeforms

communicate directly mental images to us to help our civilization to develop. Our relation to

them could also be like the relationship of the neuron to the brain. They would be in well-

defined sense creatures with magnetic body having size of say Galaxy size and would be in

well-defined sense present everywhere. Thus no need for UFOs! This would also resolve the

Fermi paradox.

● I do not have any strong opinions about UFOs as space vehicles or about these crashes. I just do

not know. However, TGD suggests new energy technologies solving the basic problem related

to the enormous amount of fuel needed by space-ships (remote metabolism) and Living matter

would utilize these mechanisms.

● I have not been in contact with Tom Bearden. I learned from Bearden's articles about anomalies

like Priore's machine and proposed my own model. My opinion is that Bearden has good

physics intuition and eye for real anomalies but lacks a good mathematical background. For

instance, his mathematical model related to phase conjugate light did not make sense to me.

I must stress that I have nothing against existence of UFOs in principle. Given the fact that Life is

probably almost everywhere in the Universe, it would not be surprising if some lifeform had constructed

such gadgets and decided to visit also here;-). My attitude is purely methological: There is no

documentation of them useful for building TOE!

I have been in email exchange with Larry Maurer. The problem is that he formulates his claims

using language which does not have much content for a physicist. If there is something there, it is

impossible to formulate any models. The basic problem is that various stories (true or not) tell that

something might be there. But this does not give much! This is why I prefer living matter. All these

exotic phenomena are visible all the time and enormous amount of precise data exists!

In principle, Macroscopic quantum tunneling is possible in a TGD Universe at the level of dark

matter since the Planck constant can be arbitrarily large and therefore characteristic quantum length/time

scales are scaled up. In particular, the Planck constant assignable to gravitational interactions is gigantic

and Schwartschild radius takes the place of Compton length as the length scale related to possible

quantum tunneling. In science-fiction mood, one could consider quantum tunneling of dark matter

objects from solar interior to solar exterior. Or in bio-length scales from cell nucleus to its exterior.

805

Quantum criticality would be behavior just between Classical and Quantum. Bohr orbits for planets

and chaotic orbits for comets could correspond quantum criticality. Inner and outer planetary orbits

indeed correspond to Bohr orbits with different Planck constants (in good approximation). This was the

starting point of TGD.

Also quantum diffraction effects in Macroscopic length scales are possible. A couple months ago, I

considered in my blog the possibility that the colored spots resulting when you direct camera (or eye) to

a bright light source could reflect diffraction of photons with large Planck constant (diffraction effects

occur in wavelength scale but now wavelength of order micron would be scaled up by hbar scaling for

given photon energy).

Quantum phase transitions as analogs of atomic transitions would be a further prediction. In

particular, cosmic expansion would occur as this kind of transitions -- rather than continuously and

during these periods expansion -- would be accelerating. No need to introduce a "cosmological

constant".

A couple of days ago, my son Paavo told me that he had found in tube a video about claim that

during last 100 million years or so, Earth's radius has scaled up by a factor about 2 and before that

period Pangaya covered entire Earth! The URLE is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI. The video demonstrated how beautifully the

continents fit together. A second argument supporting this claim is that the age of the bottom of the sea

is only about 100 million years (a claim to be checked, too). The Cambrian revolution took place for

530 million years ago so that these creatures should have lived in shallow sea or lake rather than sea.

I have to check whether it really makes sense. If this is not just a joke, then quantum phase

transition increasing the Planck constant associated with Earth would be in question. The Planck

constants assignable to continents as space-time sheets would not have changed. And this is the reason

why Pangaya would have split in pieces!

-- Matti

Quoting [email protected]:

> Dear Dr. Pitkanen --

>

> Although I admit a lifelong interest in UFOs (what "normal" boy doesn't!), it was coming

across (quite by accident ... or was it??) a book on the "Montauk Project" that really sparked

my interest in all of this. (Almost to the point where I was no longer interested in UFOs.

They might be a "by-product" of some higher phenomena.)

>

> The original proponents (Nichols, "Moon", Bielek) have all been discredited so much that

the story has no merit even to UFO researchers. British remote-viewer/inventor Tom Skeggs

(http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#StarChamber ) actually journeyed to Long Island

to see how well his rv-scans corroborated with what was there physically. Tom was of the

opinion that Montauk was used for mind-control experiments while the "real" project was

carried out in an abandoned Atlas missile silo at Plattsburgh AFB under the auspices of

Rome Air Technology Center. (It seems hauntingly familiar to rumors of a "Project Looking

Glass" http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#LookingGlass . Sort of a new meaning to

"time travel".)

>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#StarChamber

http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#LookingGlass

806

> Anyway, it was while reading posts at various Montauk message boards that I came across

famed "civilian investigator" Marshall Barnes talking about a private company who was

exploring Macroscopic quantum tunneling. It was UNITEL, NW in Portland, Oregon. I

became friends with its president (Larry Maurer) who insisted his proposals were based on 2

sightings in the Oregon Cascade mountains which he said were also purposeful (and personal

-- i.e., intended for their eyes only) "demonstrations".

>

> Larry has been trying to obtain funding ever since. I had heard that the initial major

obstacle to building his laser lens was to create the special machinery needed for working

with these materials. There seems to be 2 parts. One is to grow the actual laser lens with an

MBE process that will take (1.7 years). (Why he is insistent on growing a 5-ft lens off-the-

bat and not something smaller as "proof of concept" is beyond me!) The other is to

manufacture his "smartskin" and Niobium-layered hull material.

>

> Ed Halerewicz was earning a living as a mechanical truss designer. So he was well

familiar with tensor calculus when the Physics "bug" bit him. Apparently he has a native

aptitude for it and began self-learning advanced material. He had impressed such people as

Hal Puthoff and even NASA who offered him an internship if he would return to college to

get an additional degree in Physics. So that is where Ed is now (some university in his home

state of Illinois). He doesn't email me as often now as he used to due to school work.

>

> Ed did all of the math analysis on UNITEL's claims. While he found some results that

were surprising, most of it he considered "junk science" unless the laws of Physics changed.

(note: on the http://www.stealthskater.com/UNITEL.htm page, see

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/UNITEL_6.doc , ...UNITEL_7.doc ,

...UNITEL_9.doc ). I couldn't help but wonder if your TGD model could offer the "change"

that Ed said was needed for UNITEL's proposals to be taken seriously.

>

> (As an aside -- and you remarked on this yourself -- no matter how they stack it/rack

it/pack it/or sack it, any of these propulsion-less schemes are going to require a huge amount

of power. To me, that was the key thing always overlooked. Where does the power come

from? Indeed, Lazar (his notoriety notwithstanding) said that it was the reactor on the alien

S4 craft that was the key to the whole thing. They had figured out most everything else. But

they had to cut open the reactor while it was running to learn some more. And when they

did, it blew up. I had seen similar accounts elsewhere. The power reactor always seemed to

be the top-most security item in the eyes of the ETs [if you believe the tales]. A mysterious

contact [Jonathon Bluestone} emailed me to request Skeggs' remote-viewing help on a

transfer that the military was sending him to. He claimed that a powerful "energy source"

was being temporarily housed at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma. At the time, I was asking him

about the Baghdad "stargate" rumors. [He said that the only "stargate" he knew of was

somewhere in the Tibetian mountains.])

>

> Maurer's bio concerning the "sighting/demonstration" was in his "Flying Colors" book that

I archived on the UNITEL page. Although there are those (Tom Mahood was one) that he is

either a well-meaning "mad scientist" or a clever con artist, I still can't help but wonder (from

a purely human and non-technical side) why someone would risk continuing ridicule and job

loss for 25+ years unless they were surely convinced.

>

> As he scrambled to put together his "Quantum Laser Propulsion" book (which I did the

initial desk-top publishing for him at my own expense), he sent me a PowerPoint slide that

showed that the Army (under Northrop-Grumman) was actually experimenting with Type II

http://www.stealthskater.com/UNITEL.htm

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/UNITEL_6.doc



807

semiconductors at the facility which later became the MicroPhysics Lab at the University of

Chicago after the Army pulled out. There have been those (such as Philadelphia Experiment

proponent and ex-WWII Bob King

[http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/BobKing_1.doc ] who claimed that UNITEL

just picked up on the patent after the original one timed-out.

>

> Maurer's emails (along with others) are archived at

http://www.stealthskater.com/Email_Diary.htm . I need to edit those somewhat to make

them more readable (i.e., shorten sentences, correct spelling and grammer, etc.).

>

> I have archived all 181 of the original "Doc Savage" episodes at

http://www.stealthskater.com/DocSavage.htm . I have seen sites dedicated to this fictional

character in England, Italy, and France so the stories must have some worldwide appeal. An

insight into the mind of the creator -- Lester Dent (who in many ways was a real-life "Doc

Savage") -- is archived at http://www.stealthskater.com/DocSavage/DS000.doc . Unless

I'm way off-the-mark, it appeared to me that Dent and his fellow "ghostwriters" (using the

penname "Kenneth Robeson) were influenced by the Tesla's scalar theories and Keely's

vibrational stuff (in particular, strange happenings with quartz) when devising these devious

weapons which were pitted against Doc and his men.

>

> And Dent mixed in other stuff (mostly about his own trouble with women) to add humor

and personality to the otherwise dangerously adventuresome tales. He even wrote one of

UFOs (#027). If you need a break from the "real" world, you might want to look at some of

these. I zipped them up to preserve my limited bandwidth. I can send you a back-up CD (in

Word format) containing all the stuff at my site ("Doc Savage" included) if you give me a

postal address.

>

> Have a great weekend, Matti! And thanks for the reply ...

>

> -- Mark

S-695. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding remote-viewing "engineering"



Date: Tue, November 6, 2007 1:07 am

Subject: Re: remote-viewing engineering -- and not flying craft -- is the way to go, IMO!

>> I must stress that I have nothing against existence of UFOs in principle given the

fact that Life is probably almost everywhere in the Universe. It would not be

surprising if some lifeform had constructed such gadgets and decided to visit also

here;-).

>

> I think that most scientists would agree upon the probability of Life throughout the

Universe. But because of the SOL limitation, they would argue against it ever coming to our

planet. (A) Not just because of the time required for travel. (B) But how would they ever

know we existed and where we physically located.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/BobKing_1.doc

http://www.stealthskater.com/Email_Diary.htm

http://www.stealthskater.com/DocSavage.htm

http://www.stealthskater.com/DocSavage/DS000.doc

808

>

> Regarding (B), I would think that is where remote-viewing would be of benefit. Even if

you had some way of cheating the (A) SOL limit [e.g., using UNITEL's "Macroscopic

quantum tunneling"], you would still need to know where to "aim" your craft. And even if

you could go that fast, how would you navigate through the uncertain geometrics of

hyperspace.

>

> But those concerns may be academic. Why would you ever want to go to another planet

and risk exposure to alien viruses/bacteria/etc.? The safest way to go would be via remote-

viewing -- possibly using Skeggs' "Star Chamber"

(http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#StarChamber ).

>

> When Tom first discussed that with me, it had to do with using "exotic matter" to select

one of the possible destinations allowed in the Evert/Wheeler Many Worlds Interpretation.

(Sort of like what the "Dune" spice navigators were doing with "folding" space to achieve

physical travel.) Then Tom threw in that it would permit real-time interaction between rv-er

and "view-ee" through holographic projection of the rv-er. I got confused at that point.

>

> The point is that it seems to be that would be the ideal way to "make contact". And in that

respect, there would be NO LIMITS as to space or time. I don't know if any of this was what

Ray Kramer (father of famed missing person Philip Taylor Kramer) had in mind about his

quantum teleportation => http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Kramer .

>

> When Alexandra "Chica" Bruce wrote The Philadelphia Experiment Murder, it started off

as a look into the incredible allegations of Phil Schneider. In it, she interviewed naval

electronics expert Bob Beckwith who said the P-X involved not teleportation but reversing

along a prior established history path (something that you mentioned in Tesla's "Arrow of

Time"). It might have some stealth applications also.

[http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Chica ]. In an email to me, Chica said that writing

the book almost got her killed. But she didn't say what she stumbled upon.

>

> Mike D'Agostino (aka "mangomike" -- see below /...#Chica above) said that he met

Beckwith at a UFO conference once. But the latter was strangely unwilling to answer Mike's

questions. I see where Bearden also is a regular attendee at these things. I emailed

BEckwith requesting one of his books but never received a reply. Makes you wonder if (1)

these guys are disinfo agents or (2) "touched"(inspired/driven) by some experience (like

Maurer) and can't help themselves but are "forced" to attend.

>

> There must be something to remote-viewing after all because none other than Tom Mahood

(the civil engineer turned physicist who exposed flaws in Lazar's stories) is quick to discount

the fantastic-sounding (rule of thumb: the wilder it sounds, the less likely it has of occurring).

But he knows everything about the prominent rv-ers. He doesn't like Dames, Morefield, or

Brown but puts a lot of faith in McMoneagle and Bucanon.

>

> Again, I'm guessing that at our current state of technology, rv-ing along the lines of the

"Star Chamber" would produce the quickest results. I'm also leaning toward the idea that the

"Montauk Project" was really what is known today as "Project Looking Glass". It seems that

they are trying to access MWI to the point (and this is really wild and frightening) of

decohering a possible timeline into existence (and winning a war without ever firing a

bullet). If you believe Nichols' account, they messed up things in the process to where we're

stuck in what would seem to be an irreversible time-loop. (BTW, Nichols had an interesting

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#StarChamber

http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Kramer

http://www.stealthskater.com/PX.htm#Chica

809

piece on artificial realities and Hilbert spaces which I archived at

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Nichols_1.doc .)

>

> The great questions that have confronted Mankind are (1) are we alone in the Universe; (2)

is there Life after Death; and (3) what is the purpose/meaning of it all. [Regarding the latter,

an associate minister at my very liberal church had a short prayer where he said "God, if you

forgive all of the little sins that we commit each day, we'll forgive You for the great joke you

played on us all." Aside from the shock effect, there is some profound meaning in that.]

>

> Also related to the above is the hope that we could communicate with loved ones who have

gone on to the "other side". This gets into reincarnation stuff.

>

> Matti, it was 2 very unlikely occurrences that led me to establish my site. One was the

purely accidental discovery of a paperback called The Montauk Project: Experiments in Time

at a local mall bookstore. I never heard of it before. (Strangely, you can't find those type of

books any more. Not even in the giant bookstores. Just those dealing with ghosts and UFOs.

But not with the Philadelphia Experiment or Montauk.)

>

> The second was when I was out-of-work (downsized) and was at the public library

searching out-of-state want ads. I used to subscribe to "Aviation Week & Space Technology".

I needed a break and went over to the reference section to search for the most recent copy.

Instead my eye caught a strange-looking title on an issue of "Astronomy" magazine. "What

Happened Before the Big Bang?" by Michio Kaku. At that time, I thought such questions

were almost sacrilegious. But it got me started along the physics side of things (although I'm

more of a journalist -- not a scientist).

>

> I never read "Astronomy" before-or-since. But if it wasn't for those 2 events, I would not

be writing to you today. I don't want to think I was "predestined" or "moved" by forces

unknown. I guess there are worse things that could happen to me, however.

>

> But I am CONVINCED of a link between "UFOs" and nuclear events. And not just

detonations. You've heard of "Mothman" and the Pt. Pleasants, West Virginia "Silver

Bridge" disaster. Well, I live about 1-hour from there. On the Ohio side of the river was

some sort of atomic energy material processing plant (now closed down). There apparently

were always strange lights and such associated with that over the years. No one ever paid

much attention to them as I found out.

> I came across the persistent rumor that an above-top-secret "UFO"-related fact is buried in

the standard DOE (former AEC) "Q"-clearance in Carey Sublette's massive nuclear weapons

essays (http://www.stealthskater.com/Nuke.htm ). It apparently has nothing to do with the

physics, engineering, thermodynamic or biological effects of a nuclear detonation. One can

only wonder. Since it seems that they are trying to muffle the P-X and "Montauk", I'm

leaning toward unwanted manipulation of MWI timelines.

>

> Dr. "Ark" (of cassiopaea.org) is of the "mind-control" theory as to what "Grays" and UFO

experiences are. He has been one of Bearden's chief critics. While I believe that there are

such minds (either through Nature of chemically-induced) that can be so manipulated, I think

that it is too general an explanation to cover all reports. While eyewitness reports can be

dismissed using such arguments, how can photographs, radar tracking tapes, and video

recordings be dismissed? How can you "quantum-influence" a MACHINE (at least in the

"Macroscopic" sense -- not in the microscopic "tunnel diode" world)?

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Nichols_1.doc

http://www.stealthskater.com/Nuke.htm

http://cassiopaea.org/

810

>

> Just some food for thought ...

>

> -- Mark

The sharing of mental images by quantum entanglement is one of the basic notions of the TGD-

inspired theory of Consciousness. It makes possible to share mental images over arbitary long spatial

and temporal distances. If I were an advanced civilization, I would probably use this mechanism. And

how do we know whether our mental images are actually shared mental images;-).

Targeting sharing of mental images is of course a problem. But here the notion of magnetic body

comes in rescue. Even our magnetic bodies having onion-like structure have a size at least of order

light-life of order 100 light-years if one assumes that memories corresponding to period of lifecyle relate

to signaling from magnetic body to the brain of geometric Past and back. This picture is support

quantitatively by a successful model of EEG as communications between brain and magnetic body. For

instance, 10 Hz alpha frequency corresponds to Earth-size scale for the layer of magnetic body. The

model explains also the strange findings of Libet.

The higher the evolutionary level of system the larger the magnetic body. We would be literally

inside the habitants of higher civilizations like our cells inside us! Transpersonal consciousness without

bodily content would have natural information as consciousness associated with even larger layers of

magnetic body. If one accepts the notion of magnetic body, biological death means only directing

attention to a new more interesting target. The new view about time also means that our bodies are 4-D

and the biological body in geometric past still exists and is conscious. There is really no death in this

conceptual framework: it is just an illusion.

The space-time correlate for space-like entanglement would be what I call join along boundaries

bond. Sharing of mental images would not be signaling but fusing to a larger conscious entity as 3-

sheets of two very distance systems fuse together.

Best,

Matti

S-696. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding plasma lifeforms



Date: Thu, November 15, 2007 3:58 pm

Subject: Re: 'plasma lifeforms' (Jay Alfred)

> Matti --

>

> I came across some metaphysical stuff on "plasma lifeforms" by a 'Jay Alfred'. Some of it

sounds similar to what you hypothesized as well as some of Bearden's musings. A lot of it

was kind of "far out" in Qigong, acupuncture, meridians, "healing energies", etc. As with

Physics, I'm out of my league with these things. I don't know if any of it overlaps any of

your postulates.

>

811

> It seems to be striving toward a link between dark matter/energy" and higher lifeforms (and

possibly Consciousness). Maybe these are what Bearden often refers to as the

"unobservables". Or maybe it's just a coincidence and they have nothing to do with what you

are proposing.

>

> I archived his set of 8 short essays at http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Alfred.

>

>

> Regarding Wilhelm Reich, I received the following email from someone:

>> Subject:Wilhelm Reich

>> From: Jonathan Beggs ([email protected])

>> Sent: Tue 11/13/07 12:30 PM

>> To: [email protected]

>>

>> Hello. I just encountered your very interesting website and the informative and

fair-minded article on Wilhelm Reich. Some minor corrections… In Europe, Reich

was expelled from the Psychoanalytical Association -- not the Psychiatric

Association.

>>

>> In the bion experiments, I think it's incorrect to say he worked on "radioactive

bion cultures." The unexpected and unknown radiation from the bion cultures was

not radioactivity and led Reich to the discovery of orgone energy.

>>

>> The name of his estate in Maine is Orgonon-- not Organon.

>>

>> All the best,

>> Jonathan Beggs

>

> If there is a relationship with radioactivity with Reich's "orgone" (perhaps his way of

describing dark matter/energy??), then it might give evidence for a link between nuke

"events" and what we perceive as "UFOs". Maybe Reich and Jung were on to something …

>

> -- Mark

Yes, plasmoids are the predecessors of ordinary lifeforms in the TGD-inspired model of prebiotic

evolution. With "plasmoids", I mean a system with magnetic body at which dark variants of ions and

electrons with large Planck constant reside and quantum control the visible part of the system.

The recent findings about dust as able to generate DNA double strands conform with this idea. See

my blog "From Dust to Dust" to get links.

-- Matti

S-697. from Jonathan Beggs regarding Reich and Tesla

From: "Jonathan Beggs" <[email protected]>


http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Alfred

812

Date: Sat, November 17, 2007 12:48 am

Subject: Re: Wilhelm Reich, Nikola Tesla, Matti Pitkanen

Hi Mark,

The corrections are due to a long biographical article by a Dr. Cantwell (or something close to that).

On the book burning, Reich had the unenviable distinction of having his books burned by the

governments of the USSR, Germany, and U.S. Each time ostensibly for different reasons. "Counter-

revolutionary propaganda" in USSR; "Jewish filth" in Nazi Germany; "Labeling for an unapproved

medical device" in the U.S.

In this country, the rationale developed as follows. Sellers of "snake oil" used to label their

merchandise with spurious or unsubstantiated medical claims and were prosecuted on the basis of "false

labeling". They learned to omit the claims on the bottle's label and print them on a brochure supplied

separately. So the FDA had the laws changed so that any printed material (e.g., ad, brochure, journal

article, book) issued by the seller which alludes to an unapproved drug or medical device can be

considered labeling for that drug or device.

When the FDA won an injunction against Reich and Silvert defining the orgone accumulator as an

unapproved medical device, then all of Reich's work that contained a reference to "orgone

accumulators" or even orgone energy could be considered 'labeling' and could be destroyed. If Reich

had chosen to edit out all such references (i.e., censor himself), the books could have remained in print.

Reich understandably refused to do that and even declined to identify the several books written before

the discovery of orgone energy and containing no references to it. The FDA had no interest in doing so.

Thus everything was burned.

What needs to be emphasized is that the injunction was against Reich, Silvert, and an organization (I

forget the name) and only against them. It is concerned with their labeling of an unapproved medical

device that they introduced into interstate commerce. It does not enjoin you or me or anyone else from

any behavior regarding orgone accumulators or writing about them. Current manufacturers of orgone

accumulators are safe as long as they don't make medical claims about them. All of Reich's books are

currently in print without any omissions because the publisher is not manufacturing a medical device.

> " …the same authorities confiscated much of Tesla's private works…"

I don't know anything about the confiscation of Tesla's work. But are you sure it was the same authority

(the FDA)? Seems unlikely.

3. That's interesting-- I didn't know that. By "mass sighting" do you mean a large number of viewers at

the same time or a large number of UFOs at the same time?

On Nov 16, 2007 4:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan --

>

> Thanks for your input on Reich. I will make those corrections once I find what archived

documents they were in.

>

813

> "Where there's smoke, there is usually fire." I find it most interesting that (1) the U.S.

Government ordered all of Reich's books burned; (2) the same authorities confiscated much

of Tesla's private works after his death; and (3) when the worldwide moratorium on above-

and below-ground nuclear testing was declared in the late 80s, there were no more mass UFO

sightings.

>

> On my own, I found rumors of a small-but-secret part of the standard DOE "Q" clearance

that relates to "UFOs". And some effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts remain top-

secret to this day despite having nothing to do with the physics, engineering,

thermodynamics blast effects, or biological effects of nuclear detonations.

>

> Tom Bearden has postulated that radioactivity can be "neutralized" in 13 minutes (thereby

eliminating the need for long-term nuclear waste storage). I don't know if Reich's work

touched upon these top-secret "conventional" nuclear effects or if some unknown energy can

interact with the them. Whatever it is, it was declared "taboo" by the authorities along with

Tesla's "scalar" stuff.

*Reich's Oranur experiment deals with the interaction of orgone and nuclear material. Very big and

scary results reported but never replicated.

Somewhere around here I have an article on neutron bombardment of radioactive wastes. The

process is postulated to be self sustaining and transmutes the material into a non-radioactive isotope or

element. It appeared in "Infinite Energy" a few years ago.

I don't have the math or physics background to follow Bearden and I am convinced by John Bedini's

work that Bearden knows much that's important. I do remember however in the '80s he was quite

insistent on the existence of menacing Tesla scalar weapons in the USSR. With the upheavals of

perestroika and the break up of the USSR which resulted in a large number of unemployed physicists

we'd have heard more about it if it were true.*

> Dr. Matti Pitkanen (http://www.stealthskater.com/Pitkanen.htm ) has proposed a 8-D

TopologicalGeometroDynamics theory that unites GR with WM and reduces to

superstrings/M-branes under "normal" conditions. Matti has kept the door open on Reich,

Tesla, and Royal Rife (virus microscope). Misc. remarks posted at >

http://wyzwyrlde.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=1650.html (and more generally at

http://wyzwyrlde.com/Forums.html ).

>

> Best Regards --

> -- Mark

All the Best,

Jonathan

S-698. from Dr. Matti Pitkanen regarding a Collective Conciousness



Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 11:24 pm

http://www.stealthskater.com/Pitkanen.htm

http://wyzwyrlde.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=1650.html

http://wyzwyrlde.com/Forums.html

814

Subject: Re: where there's a will, there's a way

> > Thanks. I respect Everett's imagination although I am not believer on Everett

because I cannot make any mathematical sense of his interpretation. I think the basic

mistake is to attempt get over it just by interpreting. Much more is required. In any

case, it is interesting to learn about private life of people like Everett. I wonder what

my children will say when I am dead and buried;-).

> Tegmark seems to envision multiple worlds and parallel worlds from his Scientific

American article (see .../Tegmark_1.doc). He mentioned the Everett MWI as one of 4

possible scenarios.

>

> It boggles one's mind to think of all that quantum splitting and the Macroscpic results.

Like you, I think that Occam's Razor would envelope Everett's theory in a more simplistic

form.

>

> The only explanation that I've heard for the different "views" that remote-viewers report is

that they are viewing other quantumly-possible worlds/timelines. Now regarding that magic

ca. 2012 date, they supposedly can see before and after it but not during. Dan Sherman's

"Project Preserve Destiny" seems to bolster that.

>

> I know the history of the Internet and the sharing of particle accelerator data. If I let my

imagination go a la Everett, I would find it amazing that the Internet has exploded and

contains the most insignificant stuff about so many, many people. Almost if it were being

used as a giant databank of all Humanity's consciousness to re-seed the human race after

some great cataclysm (ergo "Project Preserve Destiny"). But it would take something like

Dan Burisch's "ganesh particle" to do that.

>

> I always felt that one of the great injustices of someone's lifetime was that they could not

be adequately honored (or in some cases, appropriately punished) while they were still alive.

Take Tesla for example. It has taken decades for him to start receiving his just due.

>

> Kaku hypothesized that George Gamow -- the Russian cosmologist who discovered the

quantum tunneling principle -- never was nominated for a Nobel Prize because he had a

hobby of writing children's books and for that reason his peers may not have respected him

as much as they should have.

>

> On a sober note, Corso prefaced his book with a quote from the American frontiersman

Davy Crockett: "Be sure you're right ... then go ahead."

>

> On a more humorous side (but perhaps philosophically correct), an associate pastor at my

church would end his prayers (to a small circle of his closer friends) with something like "if

You forgive us for all of the little sins we commit each day, God, then we will forgive You for

the big joke You played on all of us."

>

> I was kind of a loner all my life, Matti. My parents used to worry about it and tried to force

me to get involved with more people. That just wasn't my nature, however. There's

advantages and disadvantages, of course. I never had that many friends (my choosing, not

theirs). And what few I had seem to have withdrawn due to what they thought was a

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Tegmark_1.doc

815

fanatical pursuit of "taboo" subjects. I too have often wondered how I will be remembered or

whether my life was worth anything. At least you had children.

>

> Perhaps the "Doc Savage" adventures will inspire some idea. The "DS000.doc" is a

fascinating insight into the life of Lester Dent -- the series creator. Perhaps you could take a

cue from him (in many cases, he was a real-life "Doc Savage") and intertwine your physics

theories into such adventures. Just a thought ...

>

> Later --

> -- Mark

Quantum parallelism is of course okay. But instead of the splitting of universe to infinite number of

parallel variants continually (which I simply cannot define in any mathematically sensible manner), I

believe in selection of one branch in each quantum jump. If new view about relation of subjective and

geometric Time is accepted, this allows to resolve the basic paradox of quantum measurement theory.

This is for me the basic constraint on theory.

Someone has said that thinkers are lonely. I would perhaps say that young thinkers tend to be

lonely. After my divorce, I felt desperate loneliness. Divorce was the most painful experience of my

life and it took decade to get over it. I must say, however, that the more close my theory has come to the

reality, the more people have become my friends. Suddenly I find myself talking with many people

during the day, exchanging emails, influencing people, etc. I have also got rid most of my neurosis,

fears, and phobias.

Dreams are for me much more than fiction. I see them as reality experienced in a different mode of

consciousness. In dreams, I am not lonely. I receive continually acceptance and encouragement from

my friends and also people that I have not seen for decades or even people that I have never met. Even

my daytime enemies in the academic world are my friends during dreams!

During the last years, I have rather concretely experienced during dreams how dramatic

transformation is gradually taking place in collective consciousness. TGD is much more than a theory

assignable to the name of some person. It is not only a new world view but a Living Being. I feel

myself to be one of those who have first become conscious about the birth and growth of this

magnificent meme. And my role has been to provide metabolic and cognitive resources for it to build

itself. I am absolutely sure that more and more people are receiving the message communicated

through me also in wake-time consciousness.

It is not pleasant to be completely aware of doing something very important and being brutally

silenced. We need the support and respect of community for devoting lifetime to something which

brings no personal rewards. I think that intentional silencing is most often in question. Kind of a

revenge of those who did not make anything to be remembered. But this represents only the surface

showing itself to us in daytime consciousness. In dream reality, things are different. And I am sure that

this dream reality is much more than representation of our desires.

S-699. from Paul Devine regarding E-115, Robert Collins, Walter Rodd Zechel



Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:29:19 -0800 (PST)

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/DS000.doc

816

Subject: re: E-115, Collins, w/ PS RE Walter Todd Zechel

>>Mark,

>>

>>I was just looking at the entry for " Robert Collins " as guest on C2C. ( He's going

to be guest on the program Sunday. nite/Monday morning again). In the guest entry,

he refers to an element "H5" as follows:

>>

>>"He also spoke about "H5," an unstable element used in alien propulsion that can

purportedly extract energy out of a vacuum. Scientists were not successful in trying to

stabilize it at tests conducted at Los Alamos, he added. "

>>

>>A carelessly-written "H" could look like a " 1 1 ", so that "H5" could become

"115". Thus Lazar's "element 115" could be at least partially explained. What do

you think?

>>

>Paul,

> I'm actually "down" on Collins, Dratch, and "semi-down" on Knapp, Bearden, and

Hamilton.

>

>Collins once told me to remove what I had previously archived from his site but that I could

archive anything that was currently on his site. Then he shortly reneged on that. His actions

(not just the ones directed my way) back up what he says that he was -- an AIr Force

Intelligence officer. IMO, he is a disinfo agent. He complained that he thought I had too

much stuff on my site. I interpreted that to mean that I was on the right track.

>

>Recently I've had to add code to block certain IP addresses that were consuming precious

bandwidth at my site. Just came out of the blue. Seem to be interesting in the Burisch and

Lazar stuff.

>

>I had read that E-115 might actually be a "super atom" of sorts composed of Hydrogen-5 or

even Bismuth. Lazar said that conventional tests to determine the number of protons in E-

115 failed and it was his unorthodox solution that was his primary contribution to Project

Galileo. (He didn't give the specifics, though.) But this alternative approach leaves the door

open for other interpretations. For instance, what if E-115 were some highly-packed matrix

composed of smaller atoms. Maybe in some sort of unique configuration that the matrix

acted and appeared as a single (i.e., "super") atom? Such a unique matrix might change the

properties of the weak nuclear force (i.e., radioactive decay) and make for an "atom" with a

long half-life.

>

>For my money, Lazar did something that pissed off the government. The jury is still out as

to whether this had anything to with UFOs. Of course, it could be argued that the post-Lazar

stuff was an elaborate disinfo scheme to make others think that Lazar was really being

persecuted. Mahood already mentioned that possibility.

>

>And I'm not so sure about Tom Mahood. At first, I thought he was the like the rest of us.

But he humbly admitted to me as having "some experience in propulsion technology". Since

he contradicted some of his earlier public statements, I wonder if he is now part of the disinfo

effort. All of this occured during the late-80s when NASA announced its "Breaktrhough

817

Propulsion Projection" (that was later "watered down" to something more conventional);

insider notes on Dean Kaman's "Ginger" (or simply "It") invention that appeared to be what I

saw in a TV documentary (almost magical!) that would later be "watered down" to his

Segway; the worldwide moratorium on nuke tests (and the subsequent drastic decline in UFO

sightings); Bob Lazar; Dean Kaman's and public revelation of the so-called "Montauk

Project".

>

>It was the last that eventually consumed most of my interest and put UFOs on the back

burner. You can't find any Montauk-related books in mall bookstores anymore like in the

mid-90s. Nichols and "Moon" did enough on off-topics and personal issues to help sway the

"benefit-of-the-doubt" against them. Even Marshall Barnes and Alexandra Bruce have

bolted from the Sky Books/Incunabula (Joe Matheny) camp. And Bielek's contributions are

just too way, way out.

>

>But Wilhelm Reich's private stuff is now open to scientists 50 years after his death per his

request. And Dr. Matti Pitkanen was one who was interested. (I haven't heard from him for

a while, come to think of it.) I wish they would do that for Tesla's and RIfe's material. What

Reich called "orgone" may turn out to be Pitkanen's "plasmoids". And I never heard of Reich

until I read the Montauk books -- i.e., that it was the Philadelphia Experiment's "Project

Rainbow" coupled with weather-controlling radiosondes (based on Reichian "orgone"

technology) that eventually led to Project Phoenix I, II, and III (to be collectively called the

Montauk Project -- a new look into the true nature of "time" -- both Einsteinian (geometric)

and what Pitkanen calls "experienced").

>

>Did you get my previous email concerning the Russian "woodpecker" signal? I sent it from

my other account. But Yahoo! may have stuck it in your 'Bulk' folder (you should check

there). I'll attach that extract from Deyo's book to this email.

>

>-- Mark

Mark,

In no particular order:

(1) I got your "woodpecker" sending. It showed up where it should have -- in my "Inbox"! In the past,

my own particular Yahoo! account has had a number in parentheses after the "Bulk" label whenever

there is something there. I have you marked as a "safe" correspondent. But thank you for the warning,

anyway. It never hurts to keep one's eyes open and to check.

(2) RE whether-or-not the mystery propulsion ingredient of space flight is a pure element or a mixture: I

thought that "H5" was a safer designation than "Element-115". Why? Because of issues of purity

whenever you use the word "element". In reality, in Nature there is no such thing as an absolutely clean

and immaculately pure element. You can come close to 100% purity. But you can never attain it

completely. There's always going to be something else mixed in.

Therefore stories of "Element-115" cannot be exactly true as stated. All you can try to do is to try to

identify the active ingredient in a mix and then try to maximize the amount of that. A famous literary

example of the fact -- and the significance -- of impurities is in the famous story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.

Hyde. In the story, it was some impurity -- in what was supposed to be a Merck-pure product -- that

allowed the reversion back to "Doctor" from "Mister". When the doctor's original supply of his product

ran out, he had to replace it. Unfortunately, the replacement was missing the original impurity which is

818

not supposed to have been there in the first place! Therefore the "Mister" could no longer revert to the

"Doctor". And he got caught and killed. So I prefer some kind of "H5" terminology. This latter

terminology has the advantage of allowing a compound, with all the impurities that in fact can never

actually ever be gotten rid of completely.

(3) RE the "too much stuff" of Collins and how that might mean you are doing a good job: You could

well be right!

(4) Pitkanen: I have put those sendings in a separate folder as I have not yet had time to read them. I

remember having told you about Pitkanen -- as something new to you -- only to have you turn around

and point out to me that you already had him mounted on your site!

(5) RE Collins again: I hope you did for Collins as you did for Bearden! When Bearden got in touch

with you about his stuff on your site, you simply put it into some kind of restricted access park

someplace. I hope you did as much for Collins! If Collins is "government intelligence", then the

chances are that he knows something. The fact that as "intelligence" he may well have an extreme

world-view -- a very extreme world-view, in fact -- does not change the fact that there might well be

something worthwhile that he inadvertently let slip and that should not be lost to posterity! This is true

even though he -- being "intelligence" -- may also be "cointelpro" as well. There may well be some

useful "info" buried in all the "disinfo"!

- Paul

PS. Do you recognize the name "Walter Todd Zechel"? Are you "down" on him as well? It turns out

that he lived and just recently (Nov. , 2006) died only a few dozen miles from Madison, Wisconsin

where I live. I had not know this. Just recently, I encountered a confidante of Zechel's. It seems that

Zechel had loaned some of his material to this confidante. Of course, it cannot now be "returned to

sender" any longer. And there are some next-of-kin in the picture.

But do you think that, in principle, you might have any interest in Zechel's material in case that it might

become available for consultation at some later date? It has been described to me (I have not seen it) as

something that you could get into a single manila folder in the palm of your hand. Under what

circumstances -- if any -- might you be interested in such material? We can worry later on about access

(in case the stuff should become accessible at all) on any terms. (For example, I MAY be making a trip

out to the WDC area for a few days ca. the end of May / the beginning of June.). Zechel's principal

website appears to have been www.eyepod.org/Invstgtr-Zechel.htm with "W. Todd Zechel - Bio" as

title. I used Yahoo! to search his name. It seems that his main claim to fame was an article that Bruce

Maccabee wrote in refutation of what Maccabee evidently believed to be an attack on himself by Zechel.

Where do we stand on the subject of one Bruce Maccabee?

~ P .

<= previous E-mails 600-649 next E-mails 700-749 =>

www.eyepod.org/Invstgtr-Zechel.htm%20

../../Stealthskater/Emails/S_650_699.doc

../../Stealthskater/Emails/S_700_749.doc

819

if on the Internet, press <BACK> on your browser to return to

the previous page (or go to www.stealthskater.com)

else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply <CLOSE> this

file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'