s_600_649.doc - · web views-635 from paul devine regarding what actually caused the shuttle...
TRANSCRIPT
Table of Contents - "S_600_649.doc"_
S-600. from Paul Devine regarding JFK, nukes, and UFOsS-601 . from Paul Devine regarding biographies of some UFO "players"S-602. from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding validity of UFO sightingsS-603. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#2)S-604. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#3)S-605. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#3A)S-606. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#1)S-607. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#2)S-608. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#3)S-609. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#4)S-610. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#5)S-611 from Paul Devine regarding Lie AlgebrasS-612 from Paul Devine regarding Eric WeissteinS-613 from Paul Devine regarding Kaluza-KleinS-614 from Paul Devine regarding Myron Evans' "twist" UFTS-615 from Paul Devine regarding "Major" Tome BeardenS-616 from Paul Devine regarding how NOT to do UFTS-617 from Paul Devine regarding Floyd Sweet's antigravity experimentsS-618 from Paul Devine regarding a "scalarized" version of Maxwell's equationsS-619 from Mike D'Agostino regarding Nature's "randomness"S-620 from Paul Devine regarding pseudo Black Holes and space flight
686
S-621 from Mike D'Agostino regarding hidden secrets of nuke testsS-622 from Paul Devine regarding JFK, nukes, and UFOs (#2)S-623 from ex-NASA engineer Clark McClelland regarding his UFO websiteS-624 from Mike D'Agostino regarding the Dept. of Energy and UFO secrecyS-625 from Paul Devine regarding Newton's interest in alchemyS-626 from Paul Devine regarding possible connections between UFOs and drug-smugglingS-627 from Paul Devine regarding Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's story on UFOsS-628 from Paul Devine regarding Werner von Braun's predictionsS-629 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs' ideas on MJ-12 and JFKS-630 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs/MJ-12/JFK/Roswell,Maury IslandS-631 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs and organization of the Executive BranchS-632 from Ed Halerewicz regarding a scalar weapon downing the ShuttleS-633 from Mike D'Agostino regarding quantum aether dynamicsS-634 from Paul Devine regarding illegal government activitiesS-635 from Paul Devine regarding what actually caused the Shuttle disasterS-636 from Paul Devine regarding Gordon Gray, Val Valerian, Branton, and MJ-12S-637 from Paul Devine regarding the James Clerk Maxwell Theorem and UFOsS-638 from Paul Devine regarding Politicians and UFOsS-639 from Paul Devine regarding NDEs and OBEs, Demon Guides, the Bible, and UFOsS-640 from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding alleged space-time "portals"S-641 from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding Hal Puthoof's alleged dimension portal projectS-642 from Ed Halerewicz regarding plasma physics; more on LazarS-643 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Maxwell's theoremS-644 from Paul Kirsch regarding Pitkanen's Phantom DNAS-645 from Paul Devine regarding Phil Schneider's father OscarS-646 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Jack SarfattiS-647 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob LazarS-648 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar & Joe Vaninetti's DiaryS-649 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Jack Sarfatti
S-600. from Paul Devine regarding JFK, nukes, and UFOs
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, August 28, 2005 3:27 pmSubject: RE It's not the math, it's the model
Mark, (1). RE the readability of the documents on your WS : I've never had any trouble, just speaking for myself personally.
(2). RE your references to your college theology classes -- Which ones, could I ask. Some of my responses to some of your sendings have tended in the direction of the theological. And I have hesitated to send them to you, for that reason. Were you coming from out of any one theological tradition in particular, if I may ask?
(3). Good luck with your "middle-of-the-road" UFO convention! It sounds like a good idea!
687
(4). I have not read Ark's book. Bear that in mind in what follows RE his objections to Bearden's models: Myron Evans (www.aias.us) tried to "model" some of Bearden's math. The Unified Field Theory of Evans uses "torsion" T not equal to zero. Most Field Unification Theory does not. (In other words, torsion T equals zero, T=0 in most books known to me on the mathematics of Field Unification Theory). The idea of non-zero torsion originated with William Kingdon Clifford, a Briton. The "Twistor Theory" of Sir Roger Penrose (another Briton) is said to be a further step in fulfilling Clifford's program. There are "national schools" in science, Mark! (NOTA BENE : Ark may have other objections that I do not know about).
(5). RE the idea of the invention of the UFO phenomenon to hide what damage the nuclear age has done to the environment: Many people vehemently suspect that JFK would have talked about something like that had he lived. And that the threat of such a speech, was a major reason why he was gunned down in Dallas 40 years ago.
(6). But as you say, 1-or-2 real UFO ones may well have gotten through, anyway.
(7). RE your comment about using what is needed to do the job. You have said it ever so well -- Thank you! That is the point I have been trying to get across for quite some time, going all the way back to the material about Barrett (in an article in the Annals of the Louis de Broglie Foundation) about the NECESSITY of using QUATERNIONS if you want to be able to recover some of Tesla's results! Well done!
(8). RE language about choice of terminology: When I said that my terminology might be useful in the future, what I had in mind was a terminology in dealing with TEB&Co. For Bearden to say that his mathematical skills have "eroded" is not to say that there are errors and mistakes in his work (which sounded to me like what was being said). Maybe that's the way that he and "Tony" took it also (?). I saw Bearden's various definitions -- as recorded by Andersen -- as being so many "phases", as being so many partial answers to questions in Bearden's quest.
Cheers!-- Paul --- ( I'm taking after your way of signing off . . . .! )
S-601. from Paul Devine regarding biographies of some UFO "players"
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, August 28, 2005 3:51 pmSubject: Of Paul Bennewitz, Robert ("Condor") Collins, Richard Doty, John Lear, William Moore
Mark,
In an earlier exchange (I can't find it in my "Sent" folder now), we talked about Bennewitz, and about how one of your files had a direct bearing on a C2CAM interview which talked about him and LMH. I have just blundered onto a WS entitled "ufologie-dot-net". It has a biographical entry on just about everybody connected with your own Bennewitz document. In case you don't already know about this WS, the addresses involved are all sub-domains of http://ufologie.net/htm/ ... as follows :
... m.htm#moore (William Moore)
... c.htm#condor (Robert Collins)
... d.htm#doty (Richard Doty)688
... b.htm#bennewitz (Paul Bennewitz)
... l.htm#lear (John Lear)
and finally http://ufologie.net/htm/d.htm#dark-side for John Lear's "Dark Side" hypothesis. I thought that the various biographical entries -- especially when taken in conjunction with each other -- were brilliantly clear as to the background for your own Bennewitz document.
(s) Paul.
S-602. from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding validity of UFO sightings
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Tue, September 6, 2005 11:33 amSubject: Re: just 'connecting the dots' on my part ...
Hmm … I was wondering if there was a more official reasoning given for your speculation regarding NASA's closing of their "Breakthrough Propulsion Project". Guess not. It just peaked my interest as I heard an unofficial rumor similar to that, not that anyone was close but when “test” were tried to pass/fail a theory it would fry equipment. I don’t know about Tom Mahood's innuendo. But I was offered an internship a year before BPP was cut. If I had completed my ungrad work, I would have been there. But that’s history so it's not like BPP was secret or anything. Actually I think it would still be around if the alt people had not been so excited. I think it was just cut because it embarrassed NASA.
To me, there is nothing secretly bad or "above top-secret" about A-bombs. They are pretty nasty and dangerous on their own to justify a test. Even if there were proof to some top-secret anomaly, I wouldn’t buy it unless it came from a witness. But any witness would be miles away from any such explosions. So to imply something more I think is personally nuts.
Do you just reject a lot about UFOs because you have not seen one? [StealthSkater note: I don't "reject" UFOs. I just wonder if there is a tie-in to nuke testing that could explain much of the phenomena. Take away nuke tests, and the UFO sightings decrease dramatically. Plus some sightings seem to be observed by only selected individuals as if such could be done "on purpose". Actually, I would love to have proof in such things. Who wouldn't?!] If so, you should count your self lucky even though I never got a good look at the Flying Triangle. It was still to close for comfort. And I never want get that close to a UFO again. After all this time, I think what I saw was an ET craft. Hell! if the black-ops theories about them were true, one single FT could have emptied the Superdome. So why was it never used? While I’m skeptical about UFOs as you are, I still have an open mind. I’ll give you a taste of other odd things I’ve seen or had told to me:
2yrs ago, a witness and I saw what look like a "star" light moved … hover … moved … hove … <blink> … hover … move …and then <blank out>. Not enough to say what it was, but certainly not a plane or copter.
1yr ago, my boss laughingly tells me that he went to help some woman who seemed lost. Said she seen a UFO and caught it on tape. He assumed she was crazy and it was insanely funny to him. Though from the region he mentioned, I think it was likely a plane that was spotted.
689
3yrs ago, I saw what looked to be plane landing at an airport until the light blinked out. I thought I would see an outline of a Cessna. But there was noting not a thing. Moments later, a plane that I thought was starlight appeared on the same approach as the thing that <blinked> off. It was a commercial airliner, so I doubt it was any kind of hologram for the first object.
5yrs ago, someone in my father’s yard claimed to have seen a zig-zagging orange light in the sky. Everyone but myself laughed at him.
A friend of my brothers who lived near us while growing up said on numerous times (including my brother when visiting him) that they seen odd lights in the back yard. I don’t doubt what they saw we lived by airport, so identifying planes is easy.
6yrs ago, I saw a green meteorite renter the atmosphere because it lit up some trees. Not a UFO, but I assume some nut cases not familiar with astronomy would think that.
Probably a few months after I saw the FT, my brother claims to have saw the bottom of a conventional saucer. But he said it had "arrows" sticking out of it.
Then of course, the FT.
Perhaps a year-or-so before, some neighbor kids said they seen strange lights above or house a night. I’m pretty sure they were joking around. But after what happened later, I now wonder.
So my own experience makes me open to the fact that there are UFOs out there and that they are not all made up. I’ve seen a few weird things, so I’m sure others have seen them too. Sure, I bet there are hoaxes, confusion, disinformation, and truth probably about in that order too. I’m more open about this than it may seem. But I’m a scientist and a skeptic first. I don’t buy into Lazar-isms (though I did before I started learning physics). But I think there are truths to past Keyhoe's stories, for example.
Per the Element-115 matter-antimatter "superbomb", that’s what we call the H-bomb or the fusion bomb. The a-bomb is the fission bomb. I heard something on TLC once about the military wanting to experiment with anti-matter. But from what I know of physics, I could only see that as *maybe* useful for nuclear chain reactions and not a bomb in itself as the material is damn near impossible to produce (thank God!) [StealthSkater: But if Lazar's E-115 stories are true, then you would only have to initiate a transmutation into E-116 under proton bombardment and then presto! instant anti-matter!]
As for the new Mars military satellite probe, I don’t think anything is going to be revealed as magically as you would like. They probably mean something like they could see an ant from space, even if they did find what you would like to be there it wouldn’t be shared. It would be nice if they found some wet water though. But enough of my rant …
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-603. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#2)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>690
To: [email protected]: Fri, September 9, 2005 8:57 pm Subject: FYI # 2 : Penrose2
Mark,
For more on Penrose, see Hogan, Scott, "Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Nature of Reality" [Lecture2] @ http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum/Library/qmlecture2.htm . This document has a long section with "Penrose" as its title. There is also a "References" section.
-- Paul.
S-604. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#3)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Fri, September 9, 2005 9:23 pmSubject: FYI # 2 : Penrose 3 (Penrose Geometry)
Mark,
A certain "Ananda" [NFI] is guilty of a (May, 1999) paper entitled "THE PENROSE TILINGS & THE GOLDEN MEAN Towards Hyper-Dimensional Intergeometry". It is online at http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/PENROSEtile.html .
In connection with the term "Penrose tile", the website offers the following paragraph: "PENROSE GEOMETRY. Annanda explores the simple steps that comprise the Golden quantum gravity model geometries, of Oxford's professor Roger Penrose. This tiling geometries are imbedded in the Golden Mean. A foundation step to understanding hyperdimensional intergeometry. Vortexijah." [sic].
Note on how to access the URL above: To get the URL above, open to www.akasha.de/ . Scroll down to the "Ananda" entry and then left-click on the icon to the left thereof to get http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/ . On THAT page, then scroll down to the flashing "O.D.I.N." logo to get http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/ODINhome.html .
Thereon read the "PENROSE GEOMETRY" paragraph as above. The URL associated with the "PENROSE GEOMETRY" paragraph is http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/PENROSEtile.html as desired.
--- Paul ---
S-605. from Paul Devine regarding Roger Penrose (#3A)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 5:48 pmSubject: RE Found Penrose URL
691
Mark,
Thanks! Well, it just goes to show I was right. Thanks for finding that website. It WAS "right down your line"!
Sorry about the Archimedes and the "Third Culture". It just goes to show that we are all human! I wrote down these references a long time ago. Usually -- USUALLY! -- I also note the source or the link as well. But not always. I didn't see the reference URL posted at the top of your archived document. And if you already know it … well then, no harm is done (even if I might feel a little bit foolish!)
Thanks for the "ISSO_1" document link. It "segues" very well into some of my projected future mailings to you in the "FYI" series which will indeed, concern: WKC, William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879); his posthumous (1885) The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences edited (1891) by Karl Pearson; Lie algebras (and Clifford algebras as well); the Kaluza-Klein Theory; &.
So stay tuned --- you'll like them!
(s) Paul.
S-606. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#1)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 5:50 pmSubject: FYI # 3 : Twist from Penrose Back to Clifford
Mark,
The point of what follows is to motivate the idea of the "twistor theory" of Sir Roger Penrose. Every subject has a history. And the procedure here is to show the historical development of the idea of the "twist" from its origins with WKC [William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879)] as an aspect of curvature in geometry through Karl Pearson and/or Hans Kleinpeter (for whom "twist" may have geometrically represented magnetic induction in physics) to the "twistor" of Penrose (as a mathematical abstraction -- of a geometrical representation or visual image -- for use in the unification of all of Nature's forces).
There follows a quote from a small part of a really excellent site. The site itself is large. And so I am going to use quotes from this small part of it as a bridge to the larger site, which I will discuss at greater length in the next message (which will give some links for studying WKC himself). The small part I want to use is at
http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist3.htm . It is by James Beichler. It is a discussion of the posthumous (1885) The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences by William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879) as edited by Karl Pearson (1891) and translated into German (1913) by Hans Kleinpeter. Beichler writes of the page containing "... Pearson's original editor's note relating space curvature to physical phenomena and the twist to magnetic induction", in connection with the "... paragraph that ended Clifford's chapter on 'Position', and the very words to which Pearson added the note that twists may well represent magnetic induction". (Note: Now, this is interesting because it seems to impute to Karl Pearson the origination of the idea for an analogy between "twist" in geometry and magnetic induction, in physics. Beichler also attributes this analogy to Hans
692
Kleinpeter in his 1913 translation, writing " ... it is unlikely that Kleinpeter ... was the only person to draw this analogy.")
Beichler acknowledges that "... Clifford had already equated curvature with matter ... equating space curvature to matter". Beichler then goes on to write: "Even the recent theory of 'twistors' in which Roger Penrose attempts a grand unification of the natural forces is based upon Clifford's earlier work. By introducing the concept of a 'twist' as an element of space curvature, Clifford began an intellectual movement ... towards a physics ... which could account for both gravitation and electromagnetism."
(s) Paul.
S-607. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#2)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 11:23 pm
Mark,
I am about to introduce you to 2 enormously complicated WSS.
We are looking for material on WKC (William Kingdon Clifford). We have to establish the entire B.-I.-P. data for the relevant material as the author in question does not do it for us. I am now going to show you how to find your way through some of his stuff in order to get what you need.
It might be test to begin with something called "Yggdrasil: The Journal of Paraphysics". The only issue we need here seems to be copyright 1998 [sic]. It is edited by James E. Beichler.
To access this thing online, it seemed best to me to open the connections (with the journal title at the following sub-domains of one of Beichler's own WSS at http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist.htm and at
http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/wkcnotes.htm ) to the "TOE Bibliography" at another of Beichler's WSS with URL = http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toebib.htm [sic] and which is headed"Publication Copy for YGGDRASIL: The Journal of Paraphysics", copyright 1998 over the title "BIBLIOGRAPHY".
At the end of the screen, there are links to "Part 1" and to "Part 2" of the article by James E. Beichler with "TOEs, Fingers and the Nose on your Face" as series over-title ... on this latter WS at http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe1.htm and at http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe2.htm . There is a reference to an e-mail address for "Jim Beichler, editor, YGGDRASIL, at [email protected] ". There then follows a link to "YGGDRASIL Home Page" on this latter WS at URL http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/issue4.htm [sic] .
Whew! All this just for the name of an editor; a journal title; a copyright date; an e-mail address; and a home page?!
Are we finished? No!
693
We need an author and an over-title for his series of articles.
Here I will spare you as I know no simple way to "segue" to same. So I will just tell you outright that what you are looking for is a 1996 [sic] series of articles by Mr. Beichler (no surprise there!) entitled "Twist 'Til We Tear the House Down!" in 3 ( III ) parts (or is it in 4 (IV) parts ?) with endnotes at
http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist1.htm http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist2.htm http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist3.htm http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/wkcnotes.htm .
For an abstract of the over-series with "Twist 'Til We Tear the House Down!" as title, seehttp://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/issue1.htm with the notice that the whole thing is "111 KB" in length.
Can I go home now? No! (We still have to establish a volume # and an issue # for the journal.).
The URL http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/issue4.htm shows that the entire "Twist 'Til We Tear The House Down!" over-paper -- in its entirety -- is an entry in Issue 1 of Volume 1 (1998) of "YGGDRASIL: The Journal of Paraphysics".
We can stop now! We'll figure out, how to get Clifford & Co. out of all of this in the next message.
(s) Paul.
S-608. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#3)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 11:24 pmSubject: FYI # 4 : Clifford 3 (Finding Clifford "by" Beichler)
Mark,
The question now arises where are there references to WKC in all this material by Beichler? The answer is that there is material on WKC in both of the two articles by Beichler.
The 2 articles in question have "Twist 'Til We Tear the House Down!" and "TOEs, Fingers and the
Nose on your Face" for their titles.
Let's do the latter article (in 2 (II) parts) first. The material on WKC is only in the first part at URL = http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe1.htm . To access it, <scroll> down to the section with "Universality and the single field theory" heading. Then go to the sub-section with "b. The basic assumption and its consequences" heading. Therein, look at paragraphs 4 to 8. But don't forget, either, the bibliography at http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toebib.htm .
In the over-article, there is material not only on WKC but also on W.W. Rouse Ball (who wrote a good book on the mathematics and mathematicians of the past) and on many other people who had some involvement with the development of the "twist" idea of WKC. Beichler sketches out the historical
694
development of the "basic concept" (as Ed Halerewicz, Jr. might call it) of "twist" due to WKC after the latter's untimely death.
WKC appears everywhere in the former "Twist 'Til We Tear the House Down!" article athttp://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist1.htm ;http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist2.htm ;http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/twist3.htm ;http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/wkcnotes.htm .
(The fact that the whole series of parts is about WKC is given away by the "wkc" in the URL for the endnotes, since "wkc" gives Clifford's initials!)
Happy reading!(s) Paul.
S-609. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#4)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 11:24 pmSubject: FYI # 4 : Clifford 4 (Clifford Algebras)
Mark,
Your friend Ed Halerewicz, Jr. mentions Clifford and Clifford algebras from time to time, in that correspondence of his, that you forward on to me. And so, I thought you might like to have a resource for "Clifford algebras" in case you don't already know it.
Tony Smith has an excellent WS with HP/MS at URL = www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/ . There are 2 major sub-domains that have material on Clifford Algebras at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/clfpq.html and at
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/clfpq2.html . Files at these addresses have the form "#" followed by an alpha-numeric something-or-other. And there are quite a number of them!
Another Clifford-related WS by Smith is athttp://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/E8fromClif8.html .
(s) Paul.
S-610. from Paul Devine regarding Clifford (#5)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 11:25 pmSubject: FYI # 4 : Clifford 5 (Conclusion)
Mark,
695
Well, I hope you enjoy learning more than everything you have ever wanted to know (and then some!) about Cliffordiana. I have gone to all this trouble for several reasons:
(a) To organize my own material
(b) To get in archived in a safe place online
(c) Because Ed Halerewicz, Jr. has now several times mentioned Clifford (and/or the "algebras" named after him posthumously in the sendings from Ed that you have forwarded to me) and this gives all of us a chance to enrich any relevant background that we may previously have possessed
(d) Tony Smith's WS is worth knowing about if you don't know about it already.
And last but not least because
(e) I think that it is well worth whatever time and trouble it may require to learn to navigate Jim Beichler's WSS, for all their difficulties.
Here's some more food for thought. Tthe year 1879 -- which saw the death of William Kingdon Clifford -- was also the year in which Albert Einstein was born. Questions? Coincidence? Or more than coincidence?
Enjoy!(s) Paul.
S-611 from Paul Devine regarding Lie Algebras
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, September 10, 2005 11:40 pmSubject: FYI # 5 : Lie Algebras
Mark,
I had not originally intended to send you anything on this subject. But the Sirag article in your most recent e-mail (the ISSO_1 document) mentioned them. And since I have just given you one lead from Tony Smith's site, why not give you another one?! Smith has Lie algebras at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/Lie.html .
(s) Paul.
S-612 from Paul Devine regarding Eric Weisstein
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 12:02 am
696
Subject: FYI # 7 : Eric Weisstein
Mark,
Eric Weisstein has 2 good WSS -- one on Math and the other on Physics. But he has two other "pages", on trouble he had in trying to get his own work published. They are entitled "Educating Authors About Commercial Publishers" and are at
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/authors_note.html and athttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/erics_commentary.html .
While this is not exactly the same thing as the trouble you have had with such people as Tom Bearden; nevertheless I thought you might enjoy Weisstein's account of his own experiences if you don't already know about them.
Peace.(s) Paul.
S-613 from Paul Devine regarding Kaluza-Klein
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 5:23 pmSubject: FYI # 8 : Kaluza-Klein, or, Back to Beichler!
Mark,
I send this material (the Kaluza-Klein Unified Field Theory) to you (I had not originally intended to do so) because it comes up in the (May, 2000) "Remarks on Geometry and Physics" article by Saul-Paul Sirag archived in your ISSO_1 document that you mentioned in your (Sat., 10 Sep't.) message to me.
In an earlier e-mail yesterday, I mentioned that the WKC-related material to be sent ("FYI") had some material in it on the Kaluza-Klein U.F.T. That material is also on one of the 2 WSS by Beichler that I sent you yesterday.
The WS in question is his WS based on the name of his journal. It's the shorter WS with only the 3 items on it. The Locators are again :
http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe1.htm ;http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe2.htm ;http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toebib.htm .
This is the WS entitled "TOEs, Fingers, and the Nose on Your Face." I have a note here that in this WS, Beichler offers an idea for the "5th dimension" required by the K-K Theory and that the paper is a very clear tutorial on the subject.
Basically, what he says is that the K-K UFT cannot be real science to the extent that this "5 th
dimension" can neither be weighed, measured, seen, felt, smelled, nor tasted. And he's right. And the same criticism is true of all these latter-day descendants of the original K-K theory with all their surplus space-like dimensions!
697
The Kaluza-Klein Theory ceased to be a serious candidate for a viable UFT only a few years after it was first proposed. And not any later than about the year 1926. That was the year in which it was discovered that the necessary "5th dimension" -- if it even existed -- was so small as to be un-observable, un-detectable. And every similar theory since then has been subject to the same negative criticism.
So when you see a newspaper article touting the virtues of this-or-that UFT, take it all with a grain of salt. It sells the newspaper ... but it's not Science!
(s) Paul.
S-614 from Paul Devine regarding Myron Evans' "twist" UFT
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 5:25 pmSubject: FYI # 9 : Of "twist" and WKC, Cosmic Inflation, Magnetic Monopoles, and Photons
Mark,
On the home screen of the www.aias.us WS of Myron Evans, there is a testimonial signed by one "K. L. Ragpal" stating that "A photon is a magnetic dipole". He means that a photon is a magnetic dipole in the new Unified Field Theory physics of Myron Evans.
Now this is interesting because one of the objections to standard cosmological Inflation Theory is that said theory predicted the existence of magnetic monopoles, but that none were to be found in the observable Universe! If Ragpal turns out to be correct in his assessment of the Myron Evans U.F.T. -- and even more to the point if the Myron Evans UFT should turn out to be correct -- then that would solve an outstanding problem in current cosmology! (And the Myron Evans UF. may depend on the idea of "twist" -- introduced into the study of geometry by William Kingdon Clifford).
--- Paul ---
S-615 from Paul Devine regarding "Major" Tome Bearden
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 5:26 pmSubject: FYI # 10 : As of (June, 2000), was Tom Bearden just a Major in the Army? Did he have a
UFT of his own?
Mark,
Somewhere along the line, I came across the following item:
Major T. E. Bearden, (June, 2000), "UNIFIED FIELD EQUATIONS Appendix II " online athttp://www.akasha.de/~aton/PTAH-UniField.html .
698
The "Major T.E. Bearden" in question appears to be our TEB. But it seems strange. Everywhere else, he identifies himself as a "Colonel' -- long before June of the year 2000. And yet, here he is in the middle of the year 2000 and he's only a Major! Seems strange …
Also, the "Appendix II" in question appears to have disappeared from off the WS. Wonder why?
(s) Paul.
S-616 from Paul Devine regarding how NOT to do UFT
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 5:26 pm Subject: FYI # 11 : How NOT to do Field Unification Theory work?
Mark,
A long time ago, I mentioned having seen at least one WS that presented a Unified Field Theory. And that struck me as being an example of how NOT to do things! I'm not sure, but I may have found at least one such site again at "tshankha-dot-com". But I can't be sure as unfortunately, the WS doesn't seem to exist any longer!
In any event, if I am right, then the specific "pages" in question would be:http://www.tshankha.com/unified_charge_theory.htm andhttp://www.tshankha.com/Hutchison_effect_machanics.htm .
Well, "FYI" like I say.(s) Paul.
S-617 from Paul Devine regarding Floyd Sweet's antigravity experiments
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, September 11, 2005 5:51 pmSubject: RE "moving mass = pseudo-anti-gravity?"
Mark,
(1). You do a lot of TEB on your site. But Bearden worked for a while with a man named Floyd Sweet. Do you have much on him? I ask because Sweet did some anti-gravity experiments that amounted to weight-reduction (the subject-matter of your e-mail). Here's a quote from entry # "84.Gravitational Field" @ http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/glossary/084-edited.htm that I just happen to have by me. It reads :
"The Floyd Sweet vacuum triode amplifier did produce highly successfully antigravity experiments, reducing its weight on the bench by some 90% smoothly and controllably (see paper by Sweet and Bearden in IECEC proceedings)."
699
The IECEC material can be accessed thru http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE11.html . Choose the section with "CONFERENCES" heading ; select "IECEC ..." entries as needed. (Also gives B.-I.-P. data for the published form of the PROCEEDINGS for several past years). There's a lot more about this Sweet-TEB collaboration available elsewhere. But this is all I have by me at the moment.
(2). RE your question "What difference does temperature make for superconductivity in antigravity?", the answer is that the device has to be able to function in the ambient environment since it is slung under the spacecraft on its outside. Something that functions only around absolute zero is useless in the Earth's environment.
(3). And that business of a spinning object as producing anti-gravity (or weight-reduction) is also due to someone (Finnish?, Russian?) named Podkletnov, isn't that right?
(s) Paul.
S-618 from Paul Devine regarding a "scalarized" version of Maxwell's equations
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: "Mark McWilliams" <[email protected]>Date: Sun, September 18, 2005 4:15 pmSubject: FYI # 12 : The 3rd Volume of Maxwell's 2 Volume Work (with PPS re. Kramer).
Mark,
I recently found an interesting footnote in Volume V : Partial Differential Equations in Physics of Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics (Academic Press, 1964). The footnote is footnote 18 to Appendix II on page 223 (transl. Ernst G. Straus). With reference to J. J. Thomson, the footnote writes of " ... the textbook Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism, Oxford 1893, the so-called 'third volume of Maxwell ' ". (THIS is the Thomson who discovered the electron and who proposed the nuclear model for the atom).
The point here, of course, is that Maxwell published only 2 volumes. But much remained undone after Maxwell laid down his pen. Well, FYI like I say. [StealthSkater note: this was in regard to a rumor that a scalarized version of Maxwell's equations has long existed and been repressed for security reasons once technology "caught up".]
--- Paul ---
P.S. I'm getting my "second wind" now. So there should be a few more messages in this series before all is said and done. Sometimes it can be hard to decide what to include in this "FYI" series and what to exclude. You should know some of this material regardless of what I call it in the "Subject" bar. But sometimes it can be hard to decide what to call it.
P.P.S. I got your message about Philip Taylor Kramer and his father's "The Equation" UFT (http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Kramer ). Since the missing work seems to have been dependent on "fractal geometry" and on "chaos theory", my initial reaction to it is that the whole thing is over-blown. There was a time -- some decades ago -- when "fractal geometry" and "chaos theory" together were seen as a kind of "Unified Field Theory". I never worked in those areas myself. But those
700
days (it is my understanding) are long gone. Probably even if we had the missing material, it would not pan out. That is my initial reaction.--Paul.
S-619 from Mike D'Agostino regarding Nature's "randomness"
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sun, October 9, 2005 3:48 pm
Hi Mark,
Sounds like you have been very busy as normal. I did get the neutrino gravity you sent. I saw the example given of a Nextel coding format which -- FYI -- is based in TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access). The coding that I was talking about is probably closer in appearance to CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). As the number of user and bandwidth increases, the randomness also increases as a result to the observer outside the system monitoring it, although in such a system its usually called "pseudo random". So randomness increases and efficiency increases as well.
Just as man has created many different methods of coding formats , I suspect that Nature has some very clever formats as well. It would be an very efficient means of getting multiple spatial frames in the same place (in a manner of speaking).
Well, I'm in the travel mode presently in the Las Vegas area. Then in another month, I'll be airborne for locations abroad. Always a pleasure hearing from you. IMO you do provide a type of data community service. Keep up the good work!
Best RegardsMike
S-620 from Paul Devine regarding pseudo Black Holes and space flight
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Sat, October 15, 2005 12:34 amSubject: More on the Method of Kram's Madness --- Black Holes
Mark, <1a>. This sending will discuss black holes, in relation to your "Method To My Madness" message about generating and projecting pseudo black holes in front of a craft to travel through the atmosphere and space. <1b>. Before I get going on this -- which has turned out to be rather a long letter -- I should in all fairness point out to you that I have no special expertise in the subject of "Black Holes". I have never studied them. In what follows, I am merely culling material from what I know to be standard sources
701
and references in the field. Don't hesitate to get a "second opinion" about anything I send to you. I won't feel hurt or offended in the least. <1c>. Before we get started, I should point out that the term "Black Hole" is a misnomer. A "Black Hole" is neither a "Hole" nor "Black" even (as we shall see below)!
<2>. I don't know how much you know about Black Holes. So I will list a few references as sources for much of what I say below. If what follows insults your basic intelligence, then "Apologies!" -- it was unintended. Otherwise, no harm is done and it might contribute to your education). The references are as follows :
Kaufmann, William J., III, (1979), Black Holes and Warped Spacetime (W.H. Freeman and Co.).
Murdin, Paul, (ed.), Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.I : A-Gel (2001).Within this latter book are 2 articles:
Murdin, Paul, "Black Holes", page 197 ; andCharles, Philip A., "Black Hole Candidates in X-Ray Binaries", pp.197b-202b.
Lang, Kenneth R., (1980), Astrophysical Formulae:& (Springer-Verlag).
<3>. On first reading your "method" message, I got the impression that you wanted to be able to throw a black hole out of the spaceship in the direction of its line-of-travel. A second reading led me to wonder if you didn't want the Zero-Point Energy Field (as you call it) to produce a black hole (somehow, very conveniently) right in front of the spaceship and in the direction of its travel.
<4a>. In both cases as I see things, there is a basic difficulty -- finding the wherewithal to produce the effect you desire. For example,
<4b>. In the second case, there is an enormous disparity in the respective energies. In the Zero-Point Field, you are dealing with Quantum Mechanics. Now it is the mechanics of such things as electrons. An electron has a mass of around 10-27 grams with an energy in ergs/sec. to match at a velocity of 1 cm/second. But the X-ray energy emitted by a black hole can be on the order of magnitude of 10 37-to-1039 ergs per second (p.197b, p.198b, in Charles). The discrepancy (or the ratio) is on the order of about 1070! Where are electrons supposed to get such energy? What mechanism can possibly produce such a disparity in energies?! [StealthSkater note: As I understand it, this was the basis of UNITEL's quantum laser along with some unique magnetic properties of Niobium-Tin.]
<4c>. In the first case, you should know that a black hole is always associated with a pre-existing mass. The Hole is way down deep inside the pre-existing ponderable matter itself. The black gole cannot exist in isolation. For example, the black hole associated with the Earth is about the size of a marble at the center of the Earth (p. 197 of Murdin). Let's say that a marble is about 1 cm. across and has a volume of about 1 cubic centimeter, just to fix ideas. This matter must be pre-existent in our ordinary, 3-dimensional space. (It must be like the Sun or the Earth, in other words).
<5a>. You cannot bring on board your spaceship just that marble-sized black hole at the center of the Earth without bringing on board the whole Earth itself. Many people write as if they seem to think that you can detach and separate a "Black Hole" from that object, at the center of which the "Black Hole" is. Many people talk as if they seem to think that you can treat a "Black Hole" in isolation from that object, out of whose center you have extracted the Hole.
702
<5b>. Maybe someday, it may be possible to do that. But as far as I am aware now, at the present time it is not possible to keep the Black Hole and to just throw away everything else.
<6a>. Why?
<6b>. Because, in order to isolate a "Black Hole" from its circum-ambient object -- in order to create a Black Hole without that object around that Hole, at whose center the Black Hole formed -- it would be necessary to keep the Hole constrained by invisible forces pressing down and in on the Hole, equal to pressures generated by the entire mass of the original body, at whose center the Black Hole originally formed. Take away the enveloping pressure and the Hole would evaporate -- more or less literally!
<6c>. You have to be able -- continuously -- to "CONTAIN" the thing, in other words. It has to be "wrapped around" by something else -- like unto a "husk", that is to say. <6d>. In other words, a Black Hole can PERSIST and ENDURE only inside an envelope or at the center of a pressure cooker. Take away the pressure cooker and there is no more Black Hole. Try to take the Hole out of the envelope and there is no more Hole!
<7>. And still, nothing explains where the power comes from -- to keep your Black Hole, in isolation, down inside a marble; to contain it, to keep the "husk" wrapped around it, to keep it inside its envelope but WITHOUT the husk, the envelope, etc. [StealthSkater note: This is the one common denominator among all the hundreds of antigravity schemes. They all need an enormous on-board power source. But where does it come from? If one believes the stories, that's why Bob Lazar was hired to replace one of the men who were killed when they tried to cut open a working alien reactor in an underground test site. The reactor -- not so much the fabled Element-115 -- is the KEY to everything.]
<8>. And if you somehow did have the power to isolate your Black hole and to confine your black hole inside its marble, then why not just directly apply that power straightaway to the ship itself? Why not use the power -- behind the pressure -- to power the ship instead of resorting to this more indirect and circuitous approach of using your power to generate a pressure to keep the Black Hole confined inside a volume the size of a marble?
<9>. It seems to me that -- these proposed -- Black Hole methods of propulsion face some questions that are rather difficult to answer.
<10a>. And then there is the matter of the temperature of these black holes. The literature gives temperatures equivalent to energies of from 1 kilo-electron volt (keV) to about 511 keV. (For the 1keV figure, see p.199b of Charles; for the 511 keV figure, see the caption to Figure 9-14 in Kaufmann). Now the electron-volt energy E is related to temperature T through the formula E = kT where "k" is a constant due to Boltzmann.
<10b>. The constant "k" has the value 1.38x10-16) ergs/degree Kelvin (Lang, "Preface", p. XI). <10c>. Now, one electron volt (1 eV) has the temperature equivalent of 11,605.9 degrees Kelvin (Lang, "Preface", p. XII). Thus 1,000 electron volts (1 keV) corresponds to about a temperature of 11,000,000 degrees. And 511 keV is on the order of about 5 thousand million (5,000,000,000) degrees! Objects of a convenient and comfortable body-temperature, these black holes are not!
<10d>. You don't exactly store one of these "Black Holes" in a locker onboard your spaceship, ready to throw one out an airlock every time you need a little forward motion! [StealthSkater note: I would
703
think that you would manipulate the ZPE field in front of your craft to produce a black hole type anomaly that would exist only for the briefest of moments to draw your craft towards it. Your navigational computer would continually readjust the temporal locations of these pseudo holes every micro-second as in UNITEL's "reverse tractor beam proposal.]
<10e>. It seems to me that one of these things (the size of a marble in your onboard storage-locker) could -- in its attractive power -- be as if you had parked the whole Earth right in the middle of your spaceship! It could tear the ship apart! The ship could be ripped asunder by the Black hole before you had even had a chance to catapult it out of the ship, in order to get a little forward motion, it seems to me! [StealthSkater: Exactly (see preceding paragraph)!]
<11>. Can you see why some people (such as your friend Ed Halerewicz, Jr.) might be skeptical of the claims implied by the allegations associated with the names of people like Bob Lazar&Co.? And could you blame such a person as Ed for such skepticism?
<12>. There is a saving grace here, however. Clerk Maxwell proved somewhere that there is an "infinite" amount of energy associated with each and every point of space. If some way could be found to access that energy and to exploit it, then perhaps your scenario could some day come true in the future.
<13>. In the meantime, doing what you propose depends on a physics which -- so far as I am aware -- is unknown to us mere mortal terrestrians. [StealthSkater note: Right again! It depends on getting something like the UNITEL laser built and see if it lives up to the promises of its proponents and can be "engineered around" the shortcomings pointed out by its detractors.]
<14>. Again, it's possible that I may have insulted your basic intelligence here. If so, then it was inadvertent. But better safe than sorry. If you already know it, then no harm is done. And otherwise, you might learn something. ---Paul---
S-621 from Mike D'Agostino regarding hidden secrets of nuke tests
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Sat, October 15, 2005 3:38 pm
--- [email protected] wrote:
> Mike --> > During all your future travels, keep your antenna up for the secret behind the UFO-nuke connection. Apparently it is a small but very closely-guarded portion of the standard "Q" clearance. When a documentary came out in 1994 entitled "Where Are All The UFOs" (hosted by Lenoard Nimoy/"Mr. Spock"), it was about the same time as the worldwide moratorium on all nuke weapons testing. Looking back on it now, that should have been a "red flag" to me.>
704
> I'm not saying that Roswell and Delnagorsk didn't happen. But I'm guessing that the nuke detonations cause UFO-like phenomena or make conditions conducive enough for things like Bearden's "thought materialization". It seems strange to me also that they had "foo fighters" back in WWII and "green fireballs" shortly afterwards, but you never hear of these things in modern times.> > Maybe in some of your "off-the-record" conversations with important people in other countries, you can catch some hint at this mystery. Of course, don't send me anything that could get you or your friends into trouble.> > Keep in touch!> -- Mark
Hi Mark,
The Q clearance you mentioned is one of the lowest clearance's for contractors as needed. Re; the appearance of flying objects unknown.
An analogy. You live in a house. Outside in one of the adjoining fields you keep the goats. The goats provide a ready source of milk. Occasionally you have to go out and milk a few goats. Do the goats remember? For the most part, no. The goats you see are in there own little world and rarely do they escape and jump the fence.
One day while out and around your fields, you observe some goats which jumped the fence and are drinking from a pond that you know is polluted. Upon seeing this, you immediately spring into action to prevent the goats from drinking any more. In addition, you may even isolate them and observe and test them on occasion to prevent pass-through to the milk that they generate.
Do you follow, Mark?
S-622 from Paul Devine regarding JFK, nukes, and UFOs (#2)
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Wed, October 19, 2005 1:24 amSubject: RE Solving a mystery in life of JFK and some of your other recent mailings.
Mark,
Just to take a break from Black Holes, Curvature, ZPE, etc.
<1>. RE "Magnetic Fields . . . " (X/18) :
<1a>. The phenomenon reported more likely is relevant to the work of Priore & Co. Bearden merely reported on their work; he never did any of it himself.
<1b>. Apropos of purely magnetic fields: Primordial magnetic fields alone -- with or without an electrical component -- may solve some problems in present-day cosmology.
705
<1c>. That article reminds me of my Ph.D. thesis. I had wanted to apply that research to the brain. The idea behind it was to treat brain cells as electrical networks. I never got so far as to apply my ideas to the brain. That may be something for a future generation to do.
<2>. RE "The Beauty of Branes" (X/13): All this stuff is basically just another version of Kaluza-Klein Theory. My objection to them all is that …
<2a>. They are not "science" in the sense of Albert Einstein. They do not show why you need these extra dimensions. They do not show why it is that you get what you need (the Laws of Nature, etc.) only by invoking these extra dimensions. They do not show why -- without these extra dimensions -- you do not get what you need.<2b>. They are not "testable" in the sense that they never give you a physical "objective correlative" to or for the supposedly needed extra dimensions. They do not show you anything that you can weigh or measure, etc., and that corresponds to some needed new dimension.
<2c>. For some very good material on this, see :
<2c.i>. http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe1.htm by Beichler (I have mentioned this to you before in my [Sun., 11Sept., ' 05] "Kaluza-Klein, or Back to Beichler" message to you );
<2c.ii>. http:///www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html -- a page in the "Hyperdimensional Test of Hubble's New 'Runaway Planet' " series on Hoagland's WS. (The Kaluza-Klein-related material on the page is from the photo of Albert Einstein on down.) To access this page from www.enterprisemission.com , choose the "Physics Lab" link atop the site to get www.enterprisemission.com/physics.html . Thereon, choose the link quoted above, which will open to www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html . The page desired is "Page 2 of Part I"so to speak. The series appears to be signed for by "Mike Bara" at the bottom of "Page 3" in the document.
<2d>. This is why I prefer trying to use quaternions at first, in order to see how much can be done within the limits of 4 space-like dimensions and one time-like dimension (truly the real "5th dimension" here!) before invoking "un-physical" extra dimensions.
<3>. RE "Some upcoming PBS/NOVA science specials" (X/13) :
<3a>. As concerns the Deuterium, there is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the Nazis were working with the substance. Norway had a heavy water plant. The British made a special point of trying to bomb the thing out of existence at their earliest convenience in the war as possible. A movie was made about this a long time ago, the details of which I no longer remember.
<3b. I saw the Lisa Meitner part of the film on Albert Einstein. Interesting.
<3c>. I shall essay to watch the offering on Newton.
<3d>. While we are on the subject of PBS specials, BTW, they are going to broadcast a new Sherlock Holmes story (not a pastiche, because it is not mentioned in the Canon) this-coming Sunday night (also repeated Monday night). Sherlock, anyone?
<4a>. the X/15 "MangoMike" message does remind me of something, however, in your own NEXUS_4 document about JFK and the flying saucers. (I have the following material from a local source who claimed to know.) It has widely been speculated that he was murdered, at least in part because of a
706
perception that he would expose the way in which the Government had been using "flying saucers" in order to cover up the Government's own operations gone wrong.
An example of this allegedly took place on the Pacific Coast of Washington State by Hanford, right after WWII. Of course, Hanford had been a Plutonium-processing facility. Detritus from it had been damaging and degrading and polluting the coast. The Government had tried to cover it up by blaming "flying saucers" for it. A man (who had allegedly been involved in this cover-up) supposedly surfaced in 1963, associated with Lee Oswald in the run-up to Dallas.
It is thought that Kennedy might have simply told the American people about alleged examples of this sort. (Thus far my source; I have no further details). Your own NEXUS_4 document has JFK asking for information (on November 12, 1963 ) about the issue of flying saucers in relation to national security. Now on that same day, Kennedy is reported to have twice told a class of students at Columbia University that "there is a plot against the American people, and I must inform them of their plight before leaving office". 10 days later, he was dead. And no one seems to know, for sure, just exactly what was the nature of this plot. Perhaps your NEXUS_4 document gives that information.
<4b>. Both the goat example from "Mango Mike" and the post-WWII environmental example deal with pollution of natural resources. (After all, his goat would pollute its own environment, regardless of whether the environment was already polluted before the goat arrived). But that is probably just the sheerest coincidence. In any event, I pass it on to you for what it may be worth. And this example does have the advantage of linking flying saucers to the A-Bomb which was the original focus of your message to him.
Peace.-- Paul -- P.S. : This <4a> is the reference I made in an earlier message that your NEXUS_4 document may solve a mystery in the life of JFK. At the time, I deferred an explanation. This is it. --P.
S-623 from ex-NASA engineer Clark McClelland regarding his UFO website
From: "Clark McClelland" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Fri, September 16, 2005 3:19 pm Subject: Re: my websie -- Hi Clark!
Hi Mark:
Yes, my site has new disclosures on it. Astronaut experiences with ETs. My sighting of 2 hyperdrive UFOs over Belize, Central America, etc. I am planning on a disclosure of what will be a BLOCKBUSTER, Mark. Keep watch on it.
My address is P.O. Box 233 Tavares, FL 32778
Thanks.Clarkwww.stargate-chronicles.com
707
> Please update my website at www.stargate-chronicles.com on your website. Your website is well done.> Thank you.> Clark McClelland, ScO
S-624 from Mike D'Agostino regarding the Dept. of Energy and UFO secrecy
S-625 from Paul Devine regarding Newton's interest in alchemy
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Wed, November 9, 2005 11:02 pmSubject: Newton & The Great Escape
Mark,
In an earlier message, you noticed an up-coming NOVA program on the "Dark Secrets" of Isaac Newton. Most of that has been "well-known" for some time. About 20 years ago marked the tri-centenary of the publication of the Principia. A vast amount of material was released in connection therewith. Here are some examples that may (or may not) make it onto the small screen:
(1). Newton never married. And he never left any known progeny behind. But he had a female housekeeper. And it has been suggested that the two of them would take an occasional tumble in between the red-hot bed sheets. Well, who knows. There's no documentation of this, known to myself. Sometimes, you find yourself wondering whether people who talk like that are telling you about Isaac Newton … or are they telling you more about themselves?!
(2). Newton was driven out of Cambridge by the hatred, envy, resentment, jealousy, etc. of the faculty,
in the aftermath of the publication of the Principia. Newton migrated over to the Mint. There, he and John Locke (the famous British philosopher) linked up. Together, they ran the Mint. At that time, counterfeiting of money and "clipping" of metal coinage were not only rampant but also capital crimes. Newton and Locke originated the idea of "milling" the rim of metal coins. That way, any "clipping" would be instantly evident -- thus preventing the practice. And an awful lot of counterfeiters are said to have come to a bad end at the hands of those two.
(3). Newton built on the work of Johann Kepler and the latter's 3 laws of planetary motion. Yet, Newton only found out about Kepler through the work of a young Briton named Horrack. Horrack died young. But not before he had "done" Kepler into Great Britain. Without Horrack, there would have been no Principia!
(4). Newton was also an alchemist. He lived at the beginning of the 18 th Century. The atomic theory of matter did not come to the fore until about the turn of the following century. Well, Newton undertook a series of experiments. He had a dog named "Spot". The dog knocked over a lighted candle onto the finished manuscript of Isaac Newton's researches. Years of work went up in smoke and flames! Newton to his dog? "Spot, thou knowest not the mischief thou hast wrought!" The subject matter of the manuscript? Alchemy -- the transmutation of base metals into gold.
708
That dog "Spot" saved Sir Isaac's reputation! If that manuscript had survived, it would have labeled Newton as an "alchemist" until the end of time! As it is, Newton has a reputation of being the first great scientist.
(5). Both Isaac Newton and Leibnitz developed the Calculus. And yet, the subject appears to have sprung full blown from the brain of each. (Usually, there is a "gestation" period. you can see the idea coming to fruition in the writings of the great man). Now as it happens, Newton and Leibniz had one thing in common. Each had come under the influence of a Briton named Wallis, a noted mathematical researcher of that day and age. It is vehemently suspected (in some quarters) that it was Wallis who had really invented the Calculus -- that Newton and Leibniz basically both plagiarized their teacher, and that neither man gave credit where credit was due!
I'm not going to recommend any specific reading by author or title. Anything published on Newton within the last generation of years -- and that purports to be reasonably comprehensive -- will probably be adequate in case you should want to pursue this.
---Paul---
P.S.: PBS/NOVA is also doing "The Great Escape" tonight. That movie was based on a book about a true event. The film fictionalizes the end of the book, however, by having Steve McQueen ride around on that motorcycle. That never happened. Three-quarters of the escaped prisoners were back-shot upon being re-captured -- "shot while trying to escape", naturally! ('Tho' they were shot in isolation, individually, and in pairs -- not up on top of a hill in plain view as is portrayed in the movie.) The allies subjected the perpetrators to War Crimes trials after the War!
S-626 from Paul Devine regarding possible connections between UFOs and drug-smuggling
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]>Date: Wed, November 9, 2005 11:31 pmTo: [email protected]: Black Budget $$$ and drug-running $$$
Mark,
In your "alternative scenarios for the UFO Puzzle" e-mail, you mentioned the use of Black Budget money to support drug smuggling. Actually, money derived from drug smuggling goes to support the aliens (think "Phil Schneider" here!). The 2 budgets supplement each other. The monies collected would all go into a common pool, most likely. (s) Paul.
S-627 from Paul Devine regarding Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's story on UFOs
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] (more)Date: Sun, December 4, 2005 12:41 pm Subject: Astronaut: We've had visitors
Mark,709
These 2 news-items from 2004 are very apropos now in the wake of Paul Hellyer's call to action. Just in case you don't already have them or know about them. (s)Paul.
Astronaut: We've had visitorsBy WAVENEY ANN MOOREPublished February 18, 2004
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/Neighborhoodtimes/Astronaut__We_ve_had_.shtml
ST. PETERSBURG - The aliens have landed.
Thus declared Apollo-14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell on Saturday to more than 200 admirers.
"A few insiders know the truth ... and are studying the bodies that have been discovered," said Mitchell, who was the 6th man to walk on the Moon.
Mitchell -- who landed on the Moon with Alan B. Shepard -- said a "cabal" of insiders stopped briefing presidents about extraterrestrials after President Kennedy.
For those who might consider his statements farfetched, Mitchell -- who has a doctorate in science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- noted that 30 years ago, it was accepted that man was alone in the Universe. Few people believe that now, he said.
Besides aliens, Mitchell talked about being freed of prostate cancer during a healing ceremony and his epiphany while returning from the Moon.
"I had an opportunity to be a tourist," he said, going on to speak about the sensation he felt as he watched the Earth, Moon, and Sun.
Raised as a Southern Baptist, Mitchell said his feeling of interconnectedness could not be explained by traditional religion alone. He later founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
On its website, the California organization says it conducts and sponsors "leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness", and that it explores "phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor."
The site also states that IONS (as it is known by members) is not a spiritual sect, political action group, or single-cause institute.
Saturday afternoon, dozens of people made their way through rain to hear Mitchell and IONS president James O'Dea speak at the Heritage Holiday Inn in downtown St. Petersburg.
Lisa Raphael -- a member of IONS who describes herself as a transformational holistic healer -- said she was pleased to hear Mitchell's comments.
"Personally, what was most delightful to me was that he was more open than he has ever been, very direct about knowing that there are other forms of intelligent life in the Universe and most probably that they have been here," said Ms. Raphael.
710
Copyright 2002-2004, St. Petersburg Times
S-628 from Paul Devine regarding Werner von Braun's predictions
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: "Mark McWilliams" <[email protected]>Date: Tue, December 13, 2005 9:50 pm Subject: Werner von Braun's predictions, in light of recent developments
Mark,
<1>. In connection with this recent wave of reports about the truth in the existence of UFOs, I want to remind you of something Werner von Braun is reported to have said before his 1977 death. (I may have mentioned this to you before, but it is important and bears repetition).
<2>. It concerns an interview with Carol Rosin, von Braun's spokesperson. Linda Moulton Howe mounted this interview on her own WS. It has the title "German Scientist Werner von Braun Anticipated Terrorists, Asteroids, and ETs on American 'Enemy's List' ". It is dated 18 June, 2004). It exists at 2 locations: http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=734&category=Science , and at http://www.earthfiles.com/news/printerfriendly.cfm?ID=734 .
This document prints out in IX pages (Portrait). On page 4/IX, there is a short list of 4 buttons with "American 'Enemy's List' to Sustain War Mode and Pentagon Budgets" as title. The 4 items in the list, in order, are "Soviet Union"; "Terrorists"; "Asteroids"; "Extraterrestrials".
<3>. You can get a much-abbreviated summary (i.e., the "gist" of it) athttp://www.disclosureproject.org/artbelljune172002.htm .
This latter document is entitled "Cosmic Deception" and is in XII pages (Portrait). The relevant material is on pages 2-3 out of the XII pages. Greer's version of Rosin's version of von Braun's list is[1] "the cold war" ;2] "a period of rogue states" ;[3] "global terrorism" ;[4] "there would be an attempt to hoax and to frame a presence in outer space that would be a threat ...
that would be completely rused, of course".
<4>. I bring this up in the aftermath of the "Serpo revelations" combined with what Paul Hellyer said about the Americans militarizing the dark side of the Moon. If that is to be used to scare people into shredding what is left of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then these things quite arguably come under the heading of point [4] as presented by Greer.
<5>. What I am saying is in this matter, make haste slowly … very slowly!
Comment?
(s) Paul.
711
P.S.: I have a printout of the LMH interview. Let me know and I can scan it and forward the scan to you, if you wish. Linda's stuff is only available for money now (if at all).
S-629 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs' ideas on MJ-12 and JFK
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Fri, December 16, 2005 6:48 pm Subject: Marrs on what MJ-12 thinks it knows about JFK and flying saucers
Mark,
<1>. You remember, Peter Levenda mentioned (on the annual Art Bell C2C assassination program) that in 1947, JFK had been on a House committee or subcommittee which might have had some oversight or supervision over the Maury Island UFO incident. Levenda does not say what this assignment was. And I -- at present -- do not know what it was.
<2>. However, Jim Marrs (06/08/2000, "President Kennedy and the UFOs: was JFK silenced for knowing too much?") quotes from a "Majestic 12" document (not-further-specified) concerning Kennedy's knowledge of Roswell (not Maury Island). According to this "document", Kennedy may have been close to the Secretary of the Air Force (whose name I do not know). And it was through JFK's close relationship with the Secretary of the Air Force that Kennedy was able to find out about Roswell (not Maury Island).
<3>. According to the "document" from Majestic-12, Kennedy was on something called "Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government". COMMENT : This language is strange for a Congressional assignment: Almost everything in Congress has a "committee" or a "subcommittee" designation. The label "Commission" is not normally used. Is the word "commission" (from the Majestic-12 "document") a mistake for either "committee" or "subcommittee", I wonder? (And, if so, then does that say anything about the credibility of the "document"?)
<4>. But even if "Commission" be a misnomer, it is still not entirely plain-and-clear and obvious just exactly how -- and why -- being a member of that group would qualify JFK to know about either Roswell or Maury Island. The Majestic-12 "document" makes it clear (to my own satisfaction, at least) that JFK found out what -- if anything -- he REALLY knew through "connections" through personal contacts, and not as a consequence of any assignment the House may have given him.
<5>. Well, that's the state-of-the-art as of today. Any comments? For example, what do your sources and your own documents tell you about the credibility of such a Majestic-12 "document" as the above, from which Marrs quotes in his article? Any positive, constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.
(s) Paul.
P.S.: The Marrs article has two website-addresses as follows: http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/resourceredirect.asp?id=1860 ; and http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1860.htm.
712
His stuff, at least, appears to be authentic as far as it goes. Marrs also makes reference to the content of the article from the Canadian newspaper without mentioning the article itself. He simply says that the content of any such speech had not as yet -- and to the knowledge of Marrs himself -- been published. (You wonder if he had heard about the alleged speech, and this was his way of saying that he didn't believe ALL of it, in toto? The problem with dis-information, of course, is that at least PART of the alleged speech could have been accurate and authentic! And how do you go about picking and choosing?)Comments? Paul.
S-630 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs/MJ-12/JFK/Roswell,Maury Island
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Sat, December 17, 2005 5:41 pm Subject: Marrs/ MJ-12/ Roswell-Maury Island/ JFK and Stu Symington, (first) Sec. of Air Force.
Mark,
The article from Marrs (which I sent you yesterday) implied that Jack Kennedy acquired a knowledge of Roswell (nothing said about the Maury Island incident) from the Secretary of the Air Force, whom the sources did not name.
The Secretary of the Air Force (1947-1949) was Stuart Symington. In fact, he was the first Secretary of the Air Force (that service was previously the Army Air Corps)
Marrs' source is probably correct about Kennedy-family associations with Stu Symington as having been the real source of whatever reliable knowledge JFK may actually have possessed about "flying saucers" in general. In 1960, Bobby Kennedy wanted Jack to pick Symington as the Vice-Presidential running-mate over Lyndon Johnson.
I realize that Marrs attributes this information to a "Majestic-12 document" as source. This just shows that not everything in all of them is necessarily wrong. And it also re-emphasises the difficulties involved in separating out the "wheat from the chaff" in all matters of this sort.
--- Paul ---
P.S.: Marrs quotes this "Majestic-12 document " approvingly. And yet, not everyone accepts these documents at face value. Do you know what attitude -- if any -- Jim Marrs has on the subject of "Majestic-12"? Do you have a P.O.V. yourself? P.
S-631 from Paul Devine regarding Jim Marrs and organization of the Executive Branch
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: "Mark McWilliams" <[email protected]> Date: Sat, December 17, 2005 5:42 pm Subject: Marrs/Levenda/(Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government )
713
Mark,
<1>. Yesterday I sent you the first of this series of messages about Jim Marrs on JFK and the aliens. Marrs quotes (seemingly approvingly) from a " Majestic-12 document " that puts JFK in 1947 on the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Yesterday, I -- not having had a chance to pursue the reference -- questioned the document's choice of words for a House assignment.
<2>. Today, I have had a chance to pursue the reference (although not very far). It turns out that there was such a Commission. It seems to have been authorized by Public Law 162. It met during the years 1947-1949 for the duration of the 80th Congress. It sent out requests for reports from various parts of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
<3>. There is, as yet, no indication as to whether or not Jack Kennedy was a member of that Commission. I personally do not think it to be very important whether-or-not he was on the Commission.
<4>. It is obvious to me that Marrs, and/or his source, is correct in saying that JFK all-but-certainly got any information about flying saucers from Stuart Symington, then the first Secretary of the Air Force (in view of the fact that Bobby Kennedy wanted Symington as JFK's running mate in the 1960 presidential election).
<5>. I checked a recent biography of Kennedy (published just this year). It gave the House Committee on Education and Labor as having been Kennedy's "primary committee assignment" during his years in the House. No other assignments were mentioned.
<6>. But it is obvious that Education -- in and of itself alone -- has nothing to do with flying saucers.
<7>. And yet, Peter Levenda said that Jack was on a committee, which could not unreasonably be expected to receive reports concerning a Maury Island or a Roswell incident.
<8>. Neither the Commission nor an assignment to a committee on Education and Labor could reasonably be expected to receive such reports.
<9>. I have not read Levenda's book. I wonder what he meant by his statement.
<10>. On the other hand, the Marrs' allegation (albeit from a " Majestic-12 document" as a source) that JFK got what he knew from -- or at least through Stu Symington -- makes perfect sense.
<11>. Well, there the matter stands, lad. I may not be able to do much further research upon this point. At least, not anytime in the near future. Any input from you would be appreciated. It might be the only way that there is going to be any further progress in the near future.
---Paul ---
S-632 from Ed Halerewicz regarding a scalar weapon downing the Shuttle
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
714
Date: Tue, January 3, 2006 2:51 pm Subject: Re: speaking of 'Wild Bill' Cooper ...
I'm not reading your attached documents. But a few quick comments.
> Off-topic, but Tom Bearden initially said a scalar type of weapon "zapped" the late Shuttle. NASA grabbed a camera and the negatives of someone who said he captured a purplish-like streak that momentarily hit or emanated from the Shuttle. Never heard anything more about that. And Bearden never mentioned anything more. I thought it was awful coincidental that the Shuttle was carrying the first Jewish astronaut (an ex-military pilot).
Laughable theories. I heard a similar theory except with the scalar wave replace with shuttle being damaged by a red sprite. I've seen that photo. Probably a sprite did hit it, but it didn't cause it to fail. Actually once I heard how fast the foam hit the Shuttle, I was like "no wonder it did so much damage!". When most people hear foam, they think "nerf". However, the speed of the foam impact was more of an rpg type force. Somewhat weaker, but the principle still holds.
> Bearden's ex-buddy Myron Evans had a paper on torsion physics featured on TIm Venturaa's AAG site => http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/330/1/The-ECE-Unified-Field-Theory . Sarfatti had said some time ago that "the Russians are coming" => meaning that Einstein allowed for the bending but not the twisting of space-time, and some Soviet scientists were investigating that part. Don't know if Evans' paper relates or not. 10 zillion theories out there ... you'd think experiments could be designed to whittle them down. But unlike Tegmark who maintains that "we have to be right for right's sake", I'm not a philosopher as much as an engineer. And whatever theory, model, or curve-fit works -- that's the RIGHT one!
It depends on how you define things. Technically, what General Relativity says is that the light does bend and not space-time. The only time you have space-time bends is when you deal with, say, binary neutron star system. Only when you generalize to non-specialist do these debates seem to occur.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-633 from Mike D'Agostino regarding quantum aether dynamics
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Sat, January 7, 2006 1:27 am Subject: Interesting, very interesting site
Hi Mark,
Hope everything on your end is going fine. I normally review different theories and concepts while surfing the web. I ran into the site below. And it "knocked my socks off" in a manner of speaking. I'm still crunching the numbers. But so far everything is checking out. Thought I would share it with you as
715
you may find it interesting too. When I return to the States, I will surely place an order for their book, no doubt.
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/quantumleap.html
Best RegardsMike
S-634 from Paul Devine regarding illegal government activities
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Thu, January 26, 2006 10:32 pm Subject: Pegasus
Mark,
You mentioned the so-called "Pegasus" Project in two of your e-mails: (i) "More ORMEs" (Fr., 4 Nov., '05) and (ii) "Alternative Sources for the UFO Puzzle" (08 Nov., '05).
Tatum -- a man having 4 various first names --. was involved with "Pegasus". The 4 first names are Dois Gene, Gene D., D.G. "Chip", and just Chip alone. If you want to know more about him, then here are several sources:
I. Webb, Gary, (1998), DARK ALLIANCE: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion. (New York, NY. Seven Stories Press), ISBN 1888363681.
This book -- and did Gene "Chip" Tatum contribute to it? -- is reviewed in Dowbenko, Uri, (n.d.), "CIA Cocaine Smuggling Crack Epidemic" online athttp://www.stewwebb.com/CIA Gene Chip Tatum Dark Alliance.html .
II. As of ca. 1996, Tatum and his wife Nancy could be reached as follows:USPS. mailing address = P.O. Box 895082, Leesburg, FL, 34789 ;e-mail = [email protected] ; phone = (352) 787-0867 / 9846 .
III. About this time, Tatum published a 2-part book, variously titled The Chip Tatum Chronicles: Testimony of Government Drug-Running and PEGASUS : An American Spy Story.
My source for this information is another Stew webb document athttp://www.stewwebb.com/CIA%20Gene%20Chip%20Tatum%20Chronicles.html .
IV. More on Tatum on "A CIA Funding Operation" is online with Stew Webb athttp://www.stewwebb.com/CIA%20Gene%20Chip%20Tatum%20Funding%20Operation.html
V. Tatum also has an (August, 1996) affidavit online with Stew Webb at http://www.stewwebb.com/CIA%20Gene%20Chip%20Tatum%20Affidavit.html .
This affidavit concerns his involvement in cocaine-smuggling and his witness -- to involvement in same -- on the part to Bill Clinton , Oliver North , and George H. W. Bush.
716
VI. Tatum has his defenders. Rodney Stich filed (1996) an amicus curiae ("Friend of the Court") brief on behalf of Tatum. It is archived online with Stew Webb athttp://www.stewwebb.com/CIA%20Gene%20Chip%20Tatum%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief.html .
VII. See also http://www.druggingamerica.com/Tatum_pegasus.html\1Top [sic]. This illustrates the use of "Burundanga" -- a chemical that acts to hypnotize you so that you will do ANYTHING that it is suggested you do and have no memory of it afterwards! (This "Burundanga" drug is supposed to be the same thing as "Scopolamine" [sp?]). You can link to this site fromhttp://www.stewwebb.com/ArchivesA-K.htmlthe " Bush Contra Coke Train, Millman's Richmond Homes, & Operation Red Rock " entry with a URL too long to write out.
VIII. In case you don't believe the above, let me remind you that Barry Seal and Tatum,ran together for a while. Nobody believed the murdered Barry Seal either. But Tatum can confirm Seal when the two of them were working together on the same project.
This supplements your own Pegasus_1 document. FYI.
(s) Paul.
S-635 from Paul Devine regarding what actually caused the Shuttle disaster
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Fri, January 27, 2006 10:08 pm Subject: of Myron Evans on torsion and on the Shuttle
Mark,
Your Dec. 27, 2005 " Speaking of ' Wild Bill ' Cooper " e-mail mentioned Myron Evans on torsion in Field Unification Theory (FUT) and the Columbia disaster over-and-above Bill Cooper himself.
I. You can get information on Evans's ideas on torsion in FUT from the man's own www.aias.us website.
II. As concerns the Shuttle tragedy, I have (or had) at home some material thereon. According to the results of my own searching of the Web:
(i) The Israeli person on the flight had been involved in blowing up the Iraqi nuclear reactor back ca. 1981 or so.
(ii) The foam that (falling off the body of the rocket and hitting the Shuttle ) is supposed to have caused the crash in fact never hit the Shuttle at all. (There is at least one good in-flight photograph of the underbelly of the Shuttle which while far from perfect, is nevertheless good enough to show no damage to the underbelly of the Shuttle --- a result which is confirmed by a reconstruction of the launch).
717
(iii) The people who installed the foam-paneling on the Shuttles are (or were) very much an underpaid, over-worked, fly-by-night crowd. No screening was done of them. It was "easy-come, easy-go" with those employees. Apparently, it was not necessary for them to have been American nationals.
(iv). The break-up of the Shuttle appears to have begun in its left wheel-well. The most vulnerable part of a Shuttle is well-known to be its 2 wheel-wells. These wheel-wells are accessible to human hands, which install the paneling. But the wheel-wells should not have been accessible to foam falling under the influence of gravity off the main body of the rocket.
(v). Therefore, it is quite arguable that that particular crash was sabotage, done in order to avenge the 1981 destruction of Iraq's reactor and nuclear program.
As I say, I used to have this material around the place. I don't know if I could find it again now if my life depended on it, 'tho'!
/P/.
S-636 from Paul Devine regarding Gordon Gray, Val Valerian, Branton, and MJ-12
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]: Sat, January 28, 2006 10:28 pm Subject: WIFOTH # 5 - Of "Gordon Gray", "Val Valerian", "Branton", and of "MJ-12 (MAJI-or the
BLACK MONKS)"
Mark,
Well old bean, the title just about says it all.
A. The source for that which follows is http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile03.htm . Go to
the section with "3. NAZI HISTORY" as title and with "Following is a chronology based on research by Val Valerian of Leading Edge Research ... " as caption. The document is undated and unsigned except for the name "Branton" [NFI] in parenthesis here-and-there within the body of the text.
The chronology proceeds by a system which gives the date in Year-Month-Day order. Thus "631122" means "November 22, 1963". But the notation "630000" simply means that the event being recorded took place sometime in the year 1963.
(B). There are 3 dates of interest in this chronology:
(1). "630000" with entry "Kennedy issues ultimatum to MJ-12 member Gordon Gray, says he's going to spill the beans on the whole mess (CIA disk projects, international drug trafficking, mind-control, collusion with Grey aliens, etc.) and inform the public. Kennedy -- having had to learn these facts from the Russians -- discovers that the scenario is true and threatens to 'dismember' the CIA if they don't come clean and surrender to Congressional supervision."
718
(2). "631122" with entry "President Kennedy murdered in a fascist coup d'etat attempt carried out by CIA agents, Mafia hitmen, and the overseers of MJ-12 (MAJI or the BLACK MONKS) …"
(3). "470624" with entry "The Maurey Island/Tacoma investigation (6 UFOs, Men-in-Black, sighted) ... Some of the same names connected to Maurey Island -- Fred L. Crisman in particular -- mysteriously turn up years later in connection with the J.F. Kennedy assassination. Maurey Island later considered possible experimental test of Nazi-Project Paperclip-CIA antigravity craft and the JFK assassination an apparent attempt to implement a fascist coup d'etat within the Executive branch of the U.S. Government."
C. The entries quoted above leave nothing else to be desired other than to ask and get answers to the questions:
(1). What do we know about:(a) "Gordon Gray"(b) "Val Valerian" (and "Leading Edge Research", for that matter);(c) "Branton"(d) the "Black Monks" (and is "MAJI" just another term for "MJ-12"?)
(2). Do you yourself know anything or have any opinion as to whether-or-not the alleged craft of the 1947 Maurey Island Incident was in fact a "possible experimental ... CIA anti-gravity craft ..."? If so, then what are the facts?
D. Personal Comment : I am inclined to take seriously what this man "Valerian"/"Branton" has to say about there being a group of people called "the Black Monks". Why? Because his description of the classes of people involved in the JFK assassination is otherwise so accurate. As we now know, the CIA was mixed up in it. As we now know, Mafia hitmen actually pulled the trigger that day in Dallas. Therefore, it makes sense to believe "Valerian"/"Branton" when he says that "there are people called 'Black Monks', and they were involved in Dallas." And if they were involved in Dallas, then they quite arguably have been involved in this whole UFO business as well. (The rest of what "Valerian"/"Branton" says about them is true as well, in other words).
E. And so, some questions concerning these "Black Monks" are:● Who are these so-called "Black Monks"?● And who are "Valerian" and "Branton" for that matter?!)● And in what capacity were they involved in Dallas?● What role did they play?● Where were they when the shooting started that day?● What did they know? And when did they know it, etc.?● And what do they know about flying saucers?● How do they come to have that knowledge?● And when did they acquire that knowledge?
… and so forth.
F. And so we now come full circle and back to the list of names and titles given in the "Subject" bar. Any comments? Any personal opinions, etc.?
/P/ .
719
S-637 from Paul Devine regarding the James Clerk Maxwell Theorem and UFOs
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] (more) Date: Wed, February 1, 2006 6:05 pm Subject: The Clerk Maxwell Theorem uno
Mark,
I. A long time ago, I mentioned to you a theorem due to James Clerk Maxwell that I thought might have some bearing on how "flying saucers" fly.
II. The theorem has since turned up. It is possibly so important that I will scan the relevant pages and forward the scan to you.
III. The source for the Theorem is section "(82)" ("Note on the Attraction of Gravitation") in Part IV ("Mechanical Actions in the Field") of Clerk Maxwell's (Dec., 1864) "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". The section "(82)" in question is on pages 570-571 of Volume 1 of the (un-dated) Dover (New York, N.Y.) reprint -- in 2 volumes bound as one -- of The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell as edited by W.D. Niven.
IV. The center-of-gravity of Maxwell's Theorem is the penultimate paragraph of section "(82)" on page 571:"The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses -- when undisturbed -- an enormous intrinsic energy. And that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction."
V. Of course, Maxwell does not define here what "intrinsic" energy means to him. In the ante-penultimate paragraph, the lead sentence reads: "As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy." Depending on what Maxwell means by "intrinsic" energy, it is entirely possible that this statement is false. (Think "Zero-Point potential energy" here).
VI. Nevertheless, I think that Maxwell's Theorem is worth consideration. It may provide a source for the "pull-from-in-front method" of locomotion that so many people are getting at when they talk about "black holes" ahead of the flying object as pulling the flying object towards themselves from ahead.
VII. The physical situation that Maxwell appears to be imagining is one in which there are 2 magnetically-charged massive objects some distance apart from each other in space. You put a point-mass magnetically-charged, on the line joining the line-of-centers between the 2 massive, magnetically charged objects. You then want to know under what circumstances will there be an "equilibrium" point at which the magnetic actions will cancel each other, and the gravitational attractions will cancel themselves as well, both simultaneously. (Maxwell does not express himself in these words. This is my attempt to reconstruct what his argument might be).
He then concludes that you can have such an equilibrium point only at the cost of there being an "enormous intrinsic energy" being attached to that point in space. (Well, this is how I read him at any rate). But all points in space are "equivalent" in this respect. Therefore, every point in space has attached to itself" an intrinsic energy per unit volume" greater than the "the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the Universe." (page 571, ex ante-penultimate paragraph).
720
VIII. Such equilibrium-points exist. There is one in between the Earth and the Moon. The Apollo astronauts found it. It is not, however, where it is supposed to be according to something that I read recently [NFI]. After all, the Earth, the Moon, and the space capsule are all massive, gravitationally-active, magnetically-charged particles. And so Maxwell's Theorem should apply to them.
IX. Of course, even if Maxwell's Theorem is relevant here to what makes "flying saucers" fly, that still does not tell you (i) What is the nature of this "intrinsic" energy?, or (ii) How to access it? But, it's nice to know that the stuff may exist out there, anyway.
X. It might be interesting to know what a professional physicist (think "Ed Halerewicz" here) might think of all this.
/P/
S-638 from Paul Devine regarding Politicians and UFOs
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Wed, February 1, 2006 10:01 pm Subject: WIFOTH # 6 --- Of politicians and UFOs
Mark,
I found 2 over the holidays that link recent politicians to UFOs:
(1) Z. Brzezinski (or "The Mad Pole", as I call him) was allegedly involved with MJ-12 and with the alien presence from the beginning at
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fake_invasion.htm .
(2) Cheney -- and the Neo-cons in general -- are linked to "UFO-Religions" by Lyndon LaRouche athttp://larouchein2004.net/pages/writings/2003/030423cheney.htm .
P/ .
P.S.: I call Z.B. "the Mad Pole" because it was he who first got us involved with Afghanistan. And it was totally needless! It's true that the actor had us involved there also. But he didn't begin it. He merely continued a policy that he had inherited. Most of the problems we have now go back in their roots to those days.
S-639 from Paul Devine regarding NDEs and OBEs, Demon Guides, the Bible, and UFOs
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Wed, February 1, 2006 10:04 pm Subject: WIFOTH # 7 -- the NDE, the OBE, Demon Guides, UFOs & the Bible
Mark,721
A. I liked the following quote. I thought I would pass it on. It reads:
"This page contains links to sites whose sole aim is to oppress the legitimate views of open-minded searchers for the Truth. It should be noted that most are based solely on one premise. All experience and evidence associated with UFOs and paranormal phenomena is the work of Satan and the Fallen Angels. No proof or logic is presented to back up these assertions. Only scare tactics, out-of-context use of biblical text, and unwarranted condemnation is used ... There is no 'freedom of religion' without freedom FROM religion." (Good point!) The website is http://www.bibleufo.com/links_90.htm . (See also www.bibleufo.com/satan.htm.)
B. The following WS seems to try to link together all of the NDEs, OBEs, UFOs & the Bible, and "Demon Guides" :
www.solomonstemple.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=785 .This article apparently is linked to from http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles011.html .
(s) Paul
S-640 from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding alleged space-time "portals"
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Tue, February 7, 2006 11:01 am Subject: Re: forgot 2 other items to include in the last email ...
-- [email protected] wrote:
> Forgot to add 2 things to my last e-mail.> > (1) Don't forget that "Bolt" document about the Bosoks Project in the early 90s. Fred Alan Wolf allegedly told Marshall Barnes what appeared to be a "bleedthrough" from another dimension. Select persons in the entertainment industry were somehow in on a makeshift project so explore it further.> > I actually have some a lot of for Barnes, although I think he has some personal emotional problems that has interfered with finding a steady job. (At least that's what Alexandra "Chica" Bruce inferred in one of her few e-mails to me. Although she and the rest of Montauk's Sky Books are now on the "outs" with him, they were at once friends. Chica said that in spite of her grudge, she did feel truly sorry for him. I'm only guessing at what she meant.) Barnes was the one who said that the Montauk Project as told by Nichols & Moon was a hoax. He hinted that it might be based on some facts that occurred elsewhere. He and a Canadian and a German wrote some scathing exposes on debunking Al Bielek.> > So when he mentioned the Wolf conversation, I gave it some credibility. I think I have Wolf's email addy from one of Larry's forward e-mails ("snowball2" or something). I could write him. But I've done the same with Knapp, Lazar, Sherman, Burisch, Puthoff, Witten, ... and no one ever responds.>
722
> So there may be something to this dimensional stuff after all. I realize that Boylan is not a real good source. But I never could find anything more about the LANL holographic portals. Nor could I ever track down anything more on Wolf's Bosoks Project.> > (2) When I was archiving all of Carey Sublette's lectures on nuclear weapons, I was navigating through a lot of his additional links. I came across something that said there was a small part of the standard DOE 'Q' clearance which was top-secret and which had nothing to do with the physics or engineering/manufacture of nuclear weapons. The author would not speculate in print except to say that these rumors existed since the Hiroshima days. I got the feeling that it has to do with some other effect from a nuclear event. Not fallout, biological effects, or blast damage. Something that only peple "in the loop" are aware of. I didn't know what it could be until I started seeing the UFO-nuke relationship and then read about these holographic portals. Then add Wolf's Bosoks. And for good measure, include some of Bearden's weird scalar phenomena and you might be on to something.> > For the life of me, Ed, I can't find that damn link! I forget where I was when I came across it. I can't find it with Google either (although I could be using the wrong search phrases).
I don't buy into the whole portal thing. It's like you're Agent Mulder with a picture of the wormhole from the tv show "Sliders" on the wall saying "I want to believe".
Something that you might find of interest, though, was a paper published in 2001 entitled "Spacetime Curvature Around Nucleons". I'm sure this would raise some alarms to you as it sounds familiar to an urban folklore story [SS: Philadelphia Experiment? Montauk Project?] which you are very accustomed. The paper basically suggests that there may be an anitgravitational field which deflects electrons from the Bohr radius and can affect the energy conditions of nuclear shell structures -- all allegedly from a super-strong gravity field at the atomic level. Macroscopically, it would only affect the energy arrangements of nuclear fields.
To me, it suggests nothing more than a nuclear energy theory which can approximate gravitation at a certain level (sort of how the ZPF can very weakly approximate General Relativity). But I still find the portal theory absurd. Far more energy is released from cosmic rays crashing into the atmosphere than from an atomic blast (just on a much smaller scale). If the portals were more than a hoax, then string theory would not be a "theory" today … it would be a proven model of Physics. [SS: Maybe I didn't make my point clear to Ed. I'm not talking about energy being released from a nuke detonation. All that physics is known. I'm wondering if something more along the lines of what Tesla was talking about (e.g., scalar waves) or even causing mini-tears in spacetime via some unknown mechanism.]
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-641 from Ed Halerewicz, Jr. regarding Hal Puthoof's alleged dimension portal project
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] (more) Date: Mon, February 13, 2006 8:42 pm Subject: Re: more on Puthoff's 'Q-Project'
723
> Ed --> > I went to that EaglesDisobey thread on Puthoff's "Q Project". I crudely copied and pasted it into the attached document. I didn't have time to manually edit it and make it easier to read like I did for the Burisch posts. … …
Hmm … I would say they are a bit jumpy over nothing. I saw no real description of a science of any kind. Overall, I would surmise what they have come across is nothing more than the far end of inside a joke. The "Q-Room" -- if it exists at all -- probably stands for Quantum for quantum research. I perhaps have some insight into what is really being described from my own research into related topics. As for what little science in that document entailed, I will now address.
I don’t think you need to look for conspiracy theories for why large expensive research projects get cut. You just have to realize that people don’t want to spend money on things they don’t understand or could directly benefit from. I personally have forgotten about the Texas Collider project, although I remember hearing it about it when I was a kid and that it is was going to be cancelled. I was even a science junkie then. However, I read in a recent Scientific American publication about new s- called "plasma colliders" where one can obtain supercollider-like accelerations for light subatomic particles using plasma fields.
But such plasma accelerations would not be useful for probing sub nucleonic structure to reveal new properties of the strong nuclear force. So I do not at all buy into that proposed theory.
As for the Air Force Teleportation research, all general scientists (in fact, they were rather upset why such good money was spent on “bad science”) and general cooks should have heard about this by now. This of course refers to Eric Davis' pet research project. If they mentioned that before the paper was publicly released, then perhaps some inside knowledge of something was known.
As for the multidimensional devise thing, I do not know how much it to be true (if true at all). I would speculate that there is really nothing multidimensional at all, and it would likely be Hal’s sense-of-humor coming through. Although some energy testing of some kind may be going on and has likely all ready taken place, I would imagine that the upcoming test (if true) is just another trial test after others have failed.
For perspective, it was widely known a few years back that Ning Li was working on a superconducting “gravity shielding” experiment for NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Project. But then word on that went cold, and the project was officially shelved. I would imagine that Hal would be working on a related project if it could be somehow tied to the ZPF.
I imagine that if the anti-gravity/UFO cooks didn’t make NASA’s BPP sound so crazy to the average Joe, then such research would have continued. If Hal was working on something like that, it is likely that would be kept quiet about it so that there would be research funds around to test out such ideas. Eric Davis' released research would certainly serve to underscore this reality without the need for artificial and unnecessary conspiracy theories.
If Hal found something of scientific interest, I’m sure he would report it like any good scientist. But if anything at this point, it would seem that there just is no hard science for this topic to comment on. It's just premature speculation at this point and probably over nothing.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. 724
Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-642 from Ed Halerewicz regarding plasma physics; more on Lazar
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Tue, February 21, 2006 1:58 pm Subject: Fwd: Re: PBS-NOVA neutrino show
--- [email protected] wrote:
>I'm sure you remember the story of how those CalTech guys (i.e., Kip Thorne & co.) came up with the idea of traversable wormholes when responding to Sagan's question. Their "trick" was to start at the end and work backwards. They came up with a solution that was mathematically plausible although it required violating the AWEC and the existence (even if only temporary) of exotic matter.> > Every time I look at that "Tornado in Space" graphic, I can't help but think of UNITEL's "tractor beam in reverse (as you put it)" (only at a much shorter range). Larry was always talking about plasmas but I never understood it. You said that his proposal would require a change in the laws of physics.> > Ergo, the new plasma stuff of Alfven and Goodfellow.> > I don't know where UNITEL's accessing of the strong nuclear force comes in. That's what Lazar claimed that E-115 was able to provide. I wonder if his 3 Gravity 'a" (i.e., strong force) amplifiers generate some sort of plasma "tractor beam" mini-blackhole like UNITEL's?> > Anyway, would it be a worthwhile exercise to -- much like the CalTech/Sagan exercise -- to start at the end of UNITEL's scheme (and perhaps Lazar's also if it shares some commonality with UNITEL) and work backwards to see what exactly has to be changed in Physics to make it happen? In the above, it was exotic matter and AWEC violation. (A) What would it take here? And with defining that, (B) would it become possible with new discoveries in plasma physics? (A) is the important first step, some of which I think you already did in your past reviews and analyses of UNITEL.
Alfven has good science. But his claims are nothing like UNITEL's. As far as I'm concerned, Goodfellow's writings are Junk Science. Even more so than Bearden in my opinion.
You must be the only person to buy into Lazar's story. For me, his story is dead because he's not a real scientist. You would imagine with all the graphics put out by his "buddies" that there would be some math somewhere. But no, because its all crap!
Furthermore, making something sound plausible is not science. I could do something like that if I wanted to sell a book. But I'm not in that market I'm in the market of fact.
725
As per UNITEL in strong force, it only came up in terms of fractional charges to support the beam. If ordinary EM fields had such fractional charge, they would work as well. It was not so much an energy requirement as a geometry one. But getting to the geometry, however, is what required the new physics.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-643 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Maxwell's theorem
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Tue, February 7, 2006 11:15 am Re: [Fwd: The Clerk Maxwell theorem dos - Part 2 of 2]
Nothing surprising here. That's one of the great things about reading papers of the original authors of principles in physics. They show great insights that are lacking in dried commercialized textbook explanations. It is clear what Maxwell means about intrinsic energy as it’s the described with very equation in the middle of that paragraph. Maxwell's discussion on gravitation actually make it way into classical textbooks on general physics, so his words are not new great insights to gravitation but widely known fact.
Why energy would be great in gravity field theories, he reasons is rather simple. EM is governed by tiny charged particles. We know these to be electrons; Maxwell did not. Heck, Edison was the first to deal with the effects of electrons and they still not had been discovered at that time. In that light, you can truly understand the genius of Maxwell during his time. In essence, what Maxwell was trying to suggest is now what we would call "gravitons" to balance out the "magnetic"-like attraction of the planets. We know this to be unnecessary today thanks to Einstein as he established a field theory of gravitation without gravitons, which in many respects resembled what Maxwell did with electricity and magnetism.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-644 from Paul Kirsch regarding Pitkanen's Phantom DNA
From: "Paul Kirsch" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Wed, February 22, 2006 12:45 pm Subject: art and articles may interest you
Hi,
Saw some stuff that may interest you click links:Best, Paul
726
Rowena - Sci-fi artist : http://www.rowenaart.com/index.html
FYI - Saw an article on self-healing materials. Had some nice graphics (attached ppt.). Article at http://space.com/businesstechnology/060201_techwed_selfhealing_sats.html
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/wormas.html
One of the basic problems of Biology is how the genetic code is transformed into spatial structures during ontogeny. And an attractive idea is that each DNA sequence corresponds to a characteristic wormhole magnetic field configuration serving as a template for the topological condensation of the ordinary matter. The fact that wormhole flux tubes are hollow cylinders is in nice accordance with this idea (microtubules, axonal membranes, etc. are hollow cylinders).
Possible effects related to the wormholes
2.1. Phantom DNA
Phantom DNA effect [worm] -- if it turns out to be real -- provides evidence for the concept of wormhole magnetic field. What happens is that biomatter is irradiated with a visible laser light. One removes the biomatter from the chamber, and what is observed is that the irradiation with laser light still leads to nontrivial correlation functions: as if the chamber still would contain something, the phantom DNA, scattering the laser light. The proposed identification of the phantom DNA effect is in terms of the wormhole magnetic fields left in the chamber, when DNA is removed. The explanation of both effects involves a detailed mechanism for the interaction of the coherent light with the wormhole BE condensate leading to a generation of wormhole supra currents. This interaction could be fundamental in the biological information processing.
-- Paul KirschExecutive Assistant to Dr. Erkki Ruoslahti1105 Life Sciences BuildingDepartment of Molecular, Cellula,r and Developmental BiologyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara, CA 93106
S-645 from Paul Devine regarding Phil Schneider's father Oscar
From: "paul devine" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Sat, February 25, 2006 5:15 pm Subject: RE Phil Schneider's father, Oscar
Mark,
I earlier suggested checking up on Phil Schneider's father (Oscar) as an indirect way of checking up on the un-verifiable claims of Phil himself. Some of the material you sent me (for example, think your Sn., 06 Feb. mailing on this same subject, here) concerned the father.
727
As nearly as I could gather from the material you sent me, Oscar was a "medical officer" in real life. Now, you remember the claims that Phil made in his speech about him (Oscar). In that speech, Oscar was a captured U-boat captain who helped develop high-speed film for the 1946 Bikini Atoll A-Bomb tests. But :
(1). A ship's captain is not, normally, ever the ship's medical officer. Also :
(2). The U.S.A. did not need -- as late as 1946 -- for Oscar Schneider or anyone else to develop high-speed film for the purpose of capturing the explosions of atomic bombs. To the best of my recollection, this job had already been farmed out. The results showed as early as the (July, 1945) so-called Trinity Test at Alamagordo, New Mexico. I recently saw a reproduction (was it on Linda Molten Howe's website?) of that so-called Trinity Test, the exposure taken 25/1000th seconds after detonation.
(3). I also pointed out that the list of Nazi submariners taken alive during WW II was a very short list. And that it should easily have been possible to check that list (which must exist, somewhere) for the name of one "Oscar Schneider". As far as I know, no one has undertaken that job.
But the results of (1) and (2) don't look good for Phil's claims about Oscar. Does that say something about Phil's other claims which cannot now be checked? It's possible, of course, that father Oscar was just telling "tall tales" to an impressionable son (Phil).
That doesn't necessarily disqualify the rest of Phil's claims from consideration. But it doesn't help matters any, either. And it does appear that the man was murdered as he, indeed, predicted would happen. Maybe a reason the "overseers" of MJ-12 were involved in Dallas (see my "WIFOTH # 5"-related materials here) is because Schneider was right about the Drugs-Underground Bases-Greys- connection. Such an hypothesis as that would make the most sense out of all this.
Comments?
--- Paul ---
S-646 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Jack Sarfatti
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Tue, February 28, 2006 12:39 pm Subject: Jack Oh Jack
"Summing up, we must say that Sarfatti's claim to have deduced Einstein's equations as an emergent phenomena is a typical example of self delusion and wishful thinking."
Sarfatti => http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0602022Rebutal => http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0602111
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
728
S-647 from Ed Halerewicz regarding another Bob Lazar claim
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Tue, February 28, 2006 4:45 pm Subject: Another Bobo Claim
Here’s a link to someone who claims to back some of Bob Lazar's original claims:http://www.anomalies.net/area51/s4/boblazar/joe/
This is something I figured would be archived at your site but I do not recall coming across it. I came across this info when I first heard of Lazar and am surprised you seem not to have come across it. I recall some “scientific” claims were made and may be of perhaps some interest there.
I do not have time to look at all the image files. But if you could say convert them to Word format so I could read in my free time, I could make comments on the so-called "scientific" claims. What is interesting in that when I first read the files they seemed to have provided much more detail than what is at Bob’s site. Perhaps because is nonsensical, maybe? Anyway, it is something that I feel is up your alley.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-648 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar & Joe Vaninetti's Diary
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Sun, March 5, 2006 4:26 pm Subject: Re: Joe's diary was complete after all
--- [email protected] wrote:
> I guess it did stop at page 57 with an unfinished sentence (AIDS ...). There must be more of it somewhere but not at that particular anolmalies page. So I'm done with that.> > I had heard elsewhere that Lazar mentioned something about developing methods to target selective populaces with the AIDS virus out at S4 as well as the antidotes. Thought it didn't mean anything until I read Joe's unfinished sentence.
I'll take a look as what you have with Joe Vaninetti's notes. It's been a number of years, but I do recall the term "chargegon" (sp?) being used. I remember that some of it sounded bogus and other things did not. But since you took the time to do that, I probably can make more detailed comments at a later time.
After a brief look at the material at "Lazar's site", I found his table data very fishy and makes me want to stop listening to anything he claims all together. For example, a 1.87x10 -10 m radius is radius that is much too large for an atom (the ground level of an electron, for example, has an orbit of 0.5x10 -10
729
m, so there would be no ground level!). If you lined up 300 proton radii together (about what Bob claims for 115), that radius would be 3.01x10-13 m. Even the linear approximation which is lot realistic at all is much less than what he claims (another red flag). The actual formula for nuclei radii is R=A^(1/3)*1 Fermi-meter. That comes out be about 6.68x10-15 m which is a huge huge problem for Bob's claims.
I did a calculation for its density based on Lazar claims. I don't recall it exactly, but it was in the ball park of 10-6 kg/m2. I haven't converted it to the g/cm3 form yet, but I doubt it would make any sense with what Bob claims either. With your background in chemistry and nuclear physics, you should be able to easily check these claims for yourself. I find them to be just as fishy as I do.
And his 7.46 Hz. carrier frequency makes no sense to me. If it's the carrier frequency, then it would be the end of the story. But at a micron wavelength would imply a frequency of 2.988x1014 Hz. So that claim makes absolutely no sense to me. So these are things to keep in mind while reading Lazar's claims. I also imagine that you are bright enough to see these facts as well if you look for them. [StealthSkater note: I thought Lazar said the cycle of the power reactor was 7.46 Hz while the "Gravity-A" wave was in the microwave region.]
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
S-649 from Ed Halerewicz regarding Bob Lazar & Joe's Diary
From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr." <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: Mon, March 20, 2006 8:56 pm Subject: Re: Jack is Back (Part 2 of ... ?)
--- [email protected] wrote:
> The only subject in high school that I ever excelled (probably because of laziness) was chemistry. So when I went to Bethany College (in northern West Virginia), it was only natural that I enrolled as a chemistry major. The only things that I remember from freshman chemistry was (1) atoms make compounds by forcing 8 electrons into their outermost orbits (either by giving up, acquiring, or sharing) [note: there was nothing about electron energy levels or anything similar -- at least that I can remember]; (2) computations of compound weights based upon "molar" equations; and all those funky pH calculations.> > Because of the high cost of the private school, I transferred to West Virginia University the following year. Still as a chemistry major. Took Organic Chemistry. It was really more of developing a problem-solving ability to synthesize some compound "using alcohols of 4-or-less Carbon atoms". As in freshman chemistry, there was no quantum/physics stuff.> > I switched majors in my junior year to chemical engineering. That year I took Physical Chemistry which taught basic thermodynamics and chemical equilibria. This was probably the most important chemistry course for chemical engineers. Again, I don't recall any physics-related stuff in that, although some of those thermodynamic problems were exercises in partial differential equations. I also took basic Physics that year. But it was more about
730
forces (gravitational/ballistic trajectories, centrifugal, Corolis(sp), etc. rather than particle physics.> > The next year I took a required 1-semester course in "Modern Physics". What I remember was solving Lorentz-Einstein transformation problems and quantum type problems. What I mean by "quantum" is, for example, what wavelength of light will cause a tube full of some gas to laminate. "Quantum" meant energy was only exchanged in packets. There was nothing (at least, that I recall) about statistical mechanics (I'm still not sure this day as to what exactly that is) or quantum probability (although I recall something about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- but never could figure out just what good it was). There must have been something about different energy levels of electron orbits for one to calculate the wavelength needed to excite an electron. But I can't remember. And I know there was never anything about "energy levels" in the nucleus. I don't think quarks were known back then. It was just the neutron, proton, electron, and positron. Antimatter was somewhat of an academic fictitious exercise.> > Chemical Engineering curricula is basically Heat, Mass, and Momentum transfer problems. A model is made to represent something happening in a particular regime (e.g., laminar, boundary layer, or turbulent flow). Note that the models are very simplistic and probably bear little resemblance to what is actually occurring on a physics level. But nobody cares. They work very well as long as you keep them> in their respective domains/regimes. Their parameters are easily established by lab experiments (unlike the more theoretical models which many times are impossible to quantify).> > The same can be said for my Nuclear Engineering (note: not nuclear physics -- that's a whole different animal!) courses in grad school. Nuclear reactions used a "diffusion" model rather than the more theoretical "kinetic" one. Why? Because they lent themselves to experimentation quite well to determine their coefficients. And with computers, you could fine-tune them even more by increasing the number of regimes (narrowing the "thickness" of each one). For example, for neutrons with a certain speed, the cross-sections would be this. In another speed range, they would be that. And so on.> > No why does varying ("moderating") neutron speed affect cross-sections? Who knows. And who cares for the purpose of modeling a reaction for scale-up purposes. The textbook that I used that came closest to what I would call "nuclear physics" was written by Lamarsh (may he burn in Hell!). I remember that one of his problems caused me to waste an entire weekend on 300 sheets of paper expanding an integral and canceling out (-) and (+) terms until I finally got the answer. What a waste of time! A supplemental textbook written by Samuel Glasstone (who did a similar one involving space sciences for the USAF Academy) was excellent, however. Very engineering-oriented. It's amazing how deeper you go into reactor engineering that more-and-more details (about things you never considered) pop up to complicate the ever-growing system of equations. I can't remember much about the nuclear reactor heat transfer … === message truncated ===
Well, I certainly did not require a detailed background on your education and employment. I just thought with your background that you should have more extensive knowledge on nuclear physics than I. I find it rather strange they did not mention energy levels in your college chem classes as they were mentioned even in my high-school chem class. But the education system is always changing.
731
As far as that Joe article goes, I do not believe he is (or was) a real physicist either -- perhaps a janitor or something like that from his notes. The one thing that looked like hyderbrons (sp?) should be Baryons (as neutrons were included), not Hardrons as I said before because of Leptons. In the 80s, neutrinos were thought to have 0 mass like the photon (technically the jury is still out on that according to particle physics). So the idea that a charged particle with no mass and another no mass particle having the mass of an electron is laughable.
The half-life for the neutron was correct, but the one for the proton couldn't have been more wrong! The proton is believed to be absolutely stable AND NOT for 10^(-39) seconds which is like saying hydrogen is a fictitious elements which is complete non sense (which is just three orders smaller than Planck Time), the only theories which state it may decay gives a lifetime of some 10^31 years, far off from the garbage in Joe's Diary.
I think "masons" probably mean the Higgs Boson. But even at that time, the Higgs Boson theory was known. So a lot of the basic physics that he writes about don't make sense. Even some of the quark masses known at the time were not reported correctly in the diagram drawn (which makes me further question the material).
The five chargeon concept with 5 for the proton only makes sense if you give the proton a charge of +3, the electron -3, and the neutron remains 0 as usual (in itself that is not a problem, but the masson concept still is!). From that context, a "chargeon" might be what are presently called gluons. But even then, the color force was known even though it didn't quite resemble the present version of the model. The idea of an electron possessing "Gravity A" as Lazar claims is also nonsense. If that were true, pair production would only take place in the nucleus of atom. Experimental data, however, violently opposes this conclusion.
The nuclear density that I did earlier is really irrelevant to Lazar's claims of the density of Element-115. But I found such a formula for Copper and applied that to Lazar's claims and found his "atomic density claim" which is twice the size which is allowed for in current theory.
Anyway, I found a number of physical things which are just incorrect in their statements. And I haven't even got into the gravity claims yet!
As far as Jack goes, his book -- originally posed for Barnes and Nobles and now just self published -- makes me think it might have been considered garbage even by the "New Age" press.
-- Edward Halerewicz, Jr. Truss Technician/Independent Researcherhttp://da_theoretical1.tripod.com/index.htm
<= previous E-mails 550-599 next E-mails 650-699 =>
732
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'
733