From: Marcello Truzzi
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: Sokal hoax in reverse??!!
http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
John Baez wrote:
"Of course, as far as science goes, what matters most is the
merits of the Bogdanov’s work. Arkadiusz Jadczyk has entered
into a dialog with the Bogdanov brothers, asking what they mean
by some of the things they wrote in their papers. They seem
unable to give a straight answer. You can also find the
referees’ reports for their Classical and Quantum Gravity paper
here. Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect
his interpretation of this case, but he does have a solid grasp
of mathematical physics, and I feel fairly sure one can trust
his account of his email dialog with the Bogdanovs."
As Arkadiusz Jadczyk’s wife, and the "mystical, mythical,
historical" half of this "marriage of science and mysticism," I
think that it is appropriate to point out that my husband does
not have "some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his
interpretation of this case." In fact, my husband has one of the
sharpest and most insightful minds I have ever encountered. I
need to state for the record that I am the one who has spent 30
years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and
the paranormal. I am also the one who has worked for many years
in hypnotherapy - giving me a very good mechanical knowledge of
how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep
levels.
Mr. Baez, above, has read some of the commentary I wrote that
has now been removed from the discussion of the scientific
issues of the Bogdanov Brothers. I have now isolated my own
views on this page so that it won’t offend the delicate
sensibilities of those who spend too much time in towers -
whether they be ivory or synaptic.
What do I mean by "synaptic?"
Let me try to explain: there is a little known fact about
hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:
A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he
would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was
suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper"
suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will
NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and
behold! the suggestions did NOT work.
Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT
believe that a person could become invisible.
So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and
was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had
been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him
getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened
and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was
brought out of the trance.
Guess what happened?
He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.
Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his
beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a
manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.
The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is
established pretty early in life by our parental and societal
programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT
possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be
accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our
parents and then later we modify our belief based on what
pleases our society - our peers - to believe.
Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the
room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts
of things to test the subject’s awareness of his presence, and
the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous"
activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors
opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he
did not believe that there was another man in the room.
So, what are the implications of this factor of human
consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most
therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to
operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the
subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)
One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a
different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial
conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the
OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.
Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy
subject to physicists, so I don’t want to get bogged down there
just now. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds
of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never
perceive reality as it truly IS.
In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether
it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this
story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is
inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was
activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say,
the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who
or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the
hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he
dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the
hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that
activation was fraudulent.
And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the
hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with
preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of
our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is
entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses
not to see him.
Let’s face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable
realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about
themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse
to admit their condition, or the cuckolded husband who is the
"last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband
is abusing her daughter.
I am not surprised at Mr. Baez’s state of denial. It is the
cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of his
discomfort onto my husband, saying: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation," even if it
has now been established that it is not my husband who has said
theories.
In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering,
(Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers,
2001), Stanley Cohen discusses the subject of denial which may
shed some light on the context in which I have speculated about
the Bogdanov Affaire.
Denial is a complex "unconscious defense mechanism for coping
with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by
reality." Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well
as completely subconscious. An individual who is deliberately
and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual
level of lying, concealment and deception. I don’t think that we
are dealing with this in the present case. What we are dealing
with is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and
"institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation,
whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, etc.
Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite
of denial. "Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level
of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people
are actively aroused by certain information. This information
can be
1) factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or
scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective;
it is obtained by impartial procedures;
2) personal and
narrative truth including "witness testimonies."
I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments -
including epistemological relativism - about the existence of
objective truth, are generally a social construction and might
be considered in the terms of the hypnotized man who has been
programmed to think that there "is no truth."
Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that
are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or
political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it
is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There
are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired
because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a
tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our
lives.
Cohen points out that "All counter-claims about the denied
reality are themselves only manoeuvres in endless truth-games.
And truth, as we know, is inseparable from power." Denial of
truth is, effectively, giving away your power.
Mr. Baez has said: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories
which affect his interpretation."
What if, just for the sake of argument, "Jadczyk" is right (or
in this case, Jadczyk’s wife)? What if Jadczyk’s wife can see
the Third Man? What if, in this case, Baez is wrong? What if he
has chosen to believe the hypnotist - that the Third Man is not
in the room? In this particular case, what might it mean?
We have suggested that there may be a deep underlying reason for
the Bogdanov Affaire. What if it is true? What if there is
something in their work - a particular question, leaving aside
whether or not they are capable of answering it - that is
sufficiently threatening to the "theorized" powers that be, so
as to necessitate maneuvers against them? What if their
popularization of this question - or questions - might lead to
someone else - who might be able to answer it - taking a second
look?
John Baez will never have the CHANCE to know because he has
chosen to deny it from the start. Jadczyk, on the other hand,
may find out... And even if he finds out that there is nothing
of great scientific interest in the work of the Bogdanov’s, he
has at least kept an open - if skeptical - mind, and has behaved
with courtesy toward another human being.
There are different kinds of denial. First, there is literal
denial which is the type that fits the dictionary definition,
the assertion that something did not happen or does not exist.
This most often occurs in very painful situations where there
are conflicts of love: the wife would say that the husband could
not have molested his daughter, therefore the child must be
making it up. This also seems to apply to denial of the state of
our manipulated reality. Our love for our parents, our need for
their approval, is often transferred to our peers, our
employers, and the State. To think about stepping outside of the
belief system that makes us "belong" is just too frightening. It
assaults our deepest sense of security.
The second kind of denial is "interpretative." In this kind of
denial, the raw facts that something actually happened are not
really denied - they are just "interpreted." If a person is
reasonably intelligent, and is faced with evidence of phenomena
that do not fit into the belief system of one’s family, culture,
or peer group, there is nothing to do but to interpret - to
rationalize it away. "Swamp gas" and the Planet Venus given as
an explanation for UFOs are good examples. Another is Bill
Clinton’s "But I didn’t INHALE" interpretation of his marijuana
use. And then, there was the famous "I didn’t have sex with
Monica" interpretation.
The third kind of denial is termed by Cohen as implicatory
denial where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or
their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are
the psychological, political and moral implications that follow
from deep acknowledgement. For example, the idea that America is
being run by a madman with designs on the entire planet is
recognized as a fact, but it is not seen as psychologically
disturbing or as carrying any moral imperative to act.
Cohen discusses five different contexts of psychological
denial:
1) perception without awareness
2) perceptual defense
3)
selective attention
4) cognitive errors
5) inferential
failures
His conclusion is that "the scientific discourse
misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human
phenomenon [...] a product of sheer complexity of our emotional,
linguistic, moral and intellectual lives."
Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going
to deny nearly everything that I have written, because if John
Baez - a physicist - has denied it, it must be pretty weird,
below is the "context" that I believe may be important to the
Bogdanov Affaire as I originally wrote it:
A most marvelous event has recently transpired in the ivory
towers of science: It has been admitted - in a rare moment of
self-reflective honesty - that most physicists not only do not
really read each other’s papers - they can’t.
Why?
Because they do not understand the very subject of which they
claim to be experts!
Well, that’s bad enough - it is scary to know that our reality
is being charted by a bunch of guys who are just playing
"dress-up." But the deeper implication is more unsettling: that
TRUE progress in science is being hampered by a "system" that
may serve to exclude innovative thinking - and REAL science - by
a far-reaching "good ole boy" network where, as Ark has
described it:
Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but
"papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living,
must produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each
other; colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students
who quote their masters, after which they become masters,
quoting each other, and producing graduate students who quote
them, in an endless cycle of life in the aforementioned ivory
towers.
And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is
true in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results
are really bad: there has been no apparent progress in our
understanding of Nature for seventy long years.... And nature
REALLY needs to be understood, because things are getting a
little out of hand out there in the "real" world.
Don’t misunderstand me: there ARE many very GOOD physicists -
real experts - but they generally don’t get prime-time play in
either books or journals because they are so busy working on
trying to REALLY understand what is going on, that they have
little time to play the political games that get them the cushy
jobs in the "stables" of physics, run by "big bosses" who are
the interface with the government "approvers" of funding. And
those of you who have read our Timeline of Secret Government
Projects already have an idea that getting to the Truth of our
reality is the LAST thing the funding sources wish to see happen
in the hallowed halls of academia.
Science operates on funding just like everything else. We
personally know many excellent scientists who are toiling away
in hot little cubicles, underpaid and overworked, never using
their potential - for what? Just to be able to live, to hope
that one day they will have a little time to breathe, to work on
their ideas, to make real progress in science.
There are also gifted amateurs - those who work in science for
the sheer love of it - and who are excluded from the "good ole
boy network" because they don’t happen to love the politics.
And finally, there ARE those who are just as Ark described them
- masters quoting masters - just because they can - because they
admire themselves and their "master status." And many of them
discover which masters must be quoted and HOW to quote them in
order to get the most money for the least amount of work, all
the while being considered the "highest master."
So it is in any profession; physics is no different.
But that is the "official culture" explanation. We can go back
to sleep and get some rest with this explanation.
However, as we continue to ponder this little scientific
earthquake, we get the feeling that something doesn’t quite
"fit" here. There are a number of reasons for this sensation of
vertigo, including a number of communications from other
physicists who have reported extremely anomalous "encounters" in
recent years with "unknown" interrogators who make contact by
telephone, seeking to "pick their brains" on certain - shall we
say "sensitive" - subjects.
I have had many thoughts about the "context." Of course, there
are those who will say: "the only important thing is whether the
Bogdanovs are doing good science... forget about the attendant
circumstances." [That is, in fact, precisely what John Baez has
said: "Of course, as far as science goes, what matters most is
the merits of the Bogdanov’s work." Can I call ’em or what?]
I disagree and here’s why:
As Ark has written, science seems to be controlled by money.
Scientists, for the most part, HAVE to work on those things that
get funding. There is nothing terribly unusual about that since
that is a general rule for everyone. If you don’t get money for
your work, you starve and then you don’t do any work at all.
Yes, that’s somewhat simplistic, but still relevant to the
subject here.
The question is: what gets funded? Who decides? What is the
context in which ALL science is being done? And then, of course,
what is the context in which the "Bogdanov Affaire" has taken
place?
Those who have taken the time and trouble to read our Timeline
of secret and not-so-secret scientific projects - and those
involved in them - may like to close their eyes to this evidence
that science has most definitely been used in a very detrimental
way in our world. After all, such ideas - when they are brought
to public attention - are generally dismissed as "conspiracy
theory" and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.
So please, bear with me a moment here and let’s apply a little
logic to the problem.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word
"conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody
wants to be branded as a "conspiracy thinker." It just isn’t
"acceptable." It’s "un-scientific" or it’s evidence of mental
instability. Right? That’s what you are thinking, isn’t it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces
certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the
heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that
no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an
instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it
stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word.
It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking
about things and doing things that manipulate other people to
produce benefits for themselves.
Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and
Oxford
University before completing his graduate work in history at the
University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes
scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet
history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written
about "conspiracy" in the following way:
The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as
though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective
and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations,
bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are
conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their
important decisions are made in secret by a few key
decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their
activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior.
"Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the
globe.
Within the world’s military and intelligence apparatuses, this
tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s,
[...] the military and its scientists developed the world’s most
awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official
manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their
many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few
who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we
may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate
public information to maintain existing structures of power.
It’s an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality
an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression,
within and without. I have used the term "national security
state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient
way to express the military and intelligence communities, as
well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense
contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its
fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and
duplicity.
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America’s
military and intelligence community in the past half-century has
occurred in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon,
better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model
for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a
single member of Congress even knew about it although its final
cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the
Second World War, other important projects,
such as the development of biological weapons, the importation
of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments,
nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an
unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities,
secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far
removed not only from the American public, but from most members
of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most
powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in
secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment
has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In
addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented.
From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of
off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums
of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime
(and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has
been well established and documented for many years. - Much of
the original money to run the American intelligence community
came from very wealthy and established American families, who
have long maintained an interest in funding national security
operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national
security establishment. The president is the military
commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the
CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice,
little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the
1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the
US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that
during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked
repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air
Command to learn what America’s nuclear retaliatory plan was.
What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office,
horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be
obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control
America’s nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the
Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman,
Kennedy,
Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the
years, the national security state has gained access to the
world's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of
acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited
snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt
or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted
wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains
influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some
of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists,
universities, etc.]
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all
that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people
becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of
official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include
such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the
fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the
1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution... [...]
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of
life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap
will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the
status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could
hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects
ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the
National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and
no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure,
frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public
knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ...
information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is
impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in
neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes
through official denial, other times through proxies in the
media.
[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is
unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official
culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies]
will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or
necessary to make it. Don’t hold your breath.
This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people,
generating high levels of interest, taking place in
near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies
unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A
sobering thought and cause for reflection.
[Richard Dolan]
Consider this: even if Dolan is writing specifically about
America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be
considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this
"national security state" to comply with the demands of the US.
Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow
me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view,
the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and
independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of
warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all
that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people
becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and
fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at
the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are
necessary to maintain the status quo.
And maintaining the "status quo" in science HAS to be one of the
main objectives of the Power Elite.
And how do they do that? By "official culture."
And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective
of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their
power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not mean
the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program, and
the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human
beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined
the principles a very long time ago and little has changed
since.
The fact is, I like to call it "Cosmic
COINTELPRO" to suggest
that it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the
psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live
in denial. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be
wise." This is most especially true when we consider the
survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that
there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the
inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the
"subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our
world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."
Usually, when we think of COINTELPRO, we think of the most well
known and typical activities which include sending anonymous or
fictitious letters - which are sometimes later withdrawn with an
"apology" after they have already accomplished the goal of
destruction; publishing false defamatory or threatening
information; forging signatures on fake documents; introducing
disruptive and subversive members into organizations to destroy
them from within, and so on. Blackmailing insiders in any group
to force them to spread false rumors, or to foment factionalism
is also common.
What a lot of people don’t keep in mind is the fact that
COINTELPRO also concentrated on
creating bogus organizations and
promoting bogus ideas.
In the scientific community, this can work in any numbers of
ways, the most common being "proprietary organizations" that
fund research that leads nowhere in order to keep someone with
promising ideas busy. It is not stretching things to consider
that "exciting new ideas" or areas of research might be promoted
for the express purpose of vectoring scientists into following
false and time-wasting research so as to prevent them making
significant breakthroughs. COINTELPRO was also famous for
instigation of hostile actions through third parties. According
to investigators, these FBI programs were noteworthy because all
documents relating to them were stamped "do not file." This
meant that they were never filed in the system, and for all
intents and purposes, did not exist. This cover was blown after
activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania in
1971. What we do not know is how far and wide the practice
extends, though we can certainly guess.
There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret
cult.
So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking
CIA official,
in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the
first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor
before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there
IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the
clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In our opinion, the CIA is but one "arm" of the cult, just as
Benedictines were but one order of the Catholic Church. To
borrow from, and paraphrasing, Marchetti:
This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level
government officials in the world. It’s membership is composed
of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce,
finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of
important public influence - including the academic world and
the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a
political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political
policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and
illegally.
And we are seeing it happen before our very eyes!
Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take
whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
The most effective weapon of
COINTELPRO is Ridicule and
Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done
via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public
influence - including the academic world and the mass media.
Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally
manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no
conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely
that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in
denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy
men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over
your own possible observations and senses.
In "Zen And the Art of Debunkery," thinker and writer,
Daniel Drasin describes the goals of true science, exposes the
pseudo-scientific opposition to scientific advancement, then
reveals some of the absurdities one must rely on to be a
"natural" at COINTELPRO - whether one is receiving pay from the
alphabet soup guys or not. A few of the items in his list are:
· Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal
opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ
vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or
"trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of
scientific authority. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
· Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but
as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping
infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may
fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it
entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
· Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any
actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no
such evidence is worth examining.
· Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are
inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse
the *process* of science with the *content* of science.
(Someone
may, of course, object that since science is a universal
approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter;
hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically
responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such
objections using a method employed successfully by generations
of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no
contradiction here!")
· Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority.
The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly
proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
· Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are
"touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are
"stated."
· Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support
such ridiculous claims!"
(Note that this technique has withstood
the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo.
By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the
ecclesiastical authorities bought
the Church over three
centuries’ worth of denial free and clear!)
· If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back
that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight
body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests,
simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
· Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all*
of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects,
accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective
or metaphysical terms. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
· Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the
unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals
reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any
situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until
what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms
of established knowledge. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
· At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is
familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore
irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence. [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect
his interpretation of this case"]
· State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed
as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
[John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which
affect his interpretation of this case"]
· Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers."
Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays
uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo. [John
Baez: "Jadczyk
has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his
interpretation of this case"]
· Maintain the idea
that a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional
contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that,
"after all, situations are complex and human beings are
imperfect." [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy
theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]
· Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction
between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this
murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically
that "there is no evidence!"
· If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further
investigation, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!"
Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to
prove *any*thing.
· In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will
eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process
of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet
been established for the phenomenon in question.
· Practice
debunkery-by-association. In this way you can
indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from
one case to another to support your views as needed. For
example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the
one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been)
exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate
example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your
armchair and just say "I rest my case."
· Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to
seeing what’s *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.
· Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and
away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war
against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique
power to make people of virtually any persuasion go
completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only
those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to
buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule
provides. [John
Baez: "Jadczyk
has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his
interpretation of this case"]
· Use "smoke and mirrors,"
i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery
mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context
information and outright lies will fool most of the people
most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts
B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use
homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!)
Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact
and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of
truth will always appear to firmly support your entire
edifice of opinion. [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy
theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]
· Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example:
if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies,
respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great
truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one
will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.
· Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
question. Characterize the orthodox approach as deep and
time-consuming, while deeming that of the unorthodox approach as
so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the
tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there’s nothing
there to study!" Characterize any unorthodox scientist as a
"buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media’s
favorite code-word for "bogus." [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
· Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or
expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or
reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the
whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story.
Here’s how:
a) take one element of a case completely out of
context;
b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could
explain it;
c) declare that therefore that one element has been
explained;
d) call a press conference and announce to the world
that the entire case has been explained!
· Label any poorly-understood research "occult," "fringe,"
"paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or
"new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case
immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you’re lucky, this
may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by
decades or even centuries! [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
· Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone’s claims
by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to
misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth;
for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of
any position they’ve taken. Another effective strategy with a
long history of success is simply to mis-replicate their
experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that
"to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless." To make the whole
process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to
their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in
popular myth.
· Hold claimants responsible for the production values and
editorial policies of any media or press that reports their
claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a
sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself
must have been without substance or worth.
· When a
witness or claimant states something in a manner that is
scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not
scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed
scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly
be objective. [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy
theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]
· If you’re unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the
participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad-hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most
powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For
example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited
financially from activities connected with their research,
accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected
with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking
tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole
means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that
income is being realized from such activities!" If they have
labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may
safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."
· Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the
opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the
necessary knowledge.
· Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you’ve "found
the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!"
· Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims
have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the
field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually
studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.
We are observing and reporting the
Bogdanov Affaire in almost
real time, as it began and as it develops. And lo and behold!
the elements of debunkery are coming into play exactly as
described above! [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual
conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this
case"]
Why is it so that scientists - most particularly physicists and
mathematicians of a good and honest disposition - seem to be the
ones who most actively resist the very idea that their
profession MAY have been taken over and "vectored" by
conspirators who do not have humanity’s best interests at heart?
Why do scientists - those to whom the power elite MUST look for
solutions to their "power problems" - think for one instant that
their profession is exempt from conspiratorial manipulation and
management?
That just isn’t logical, is it?
In the physical sciences, very often machines and instruments
are utilized to "take measurements." In order to achieve
accuracy with even the most accurately tooled device, certain
tests are undertaken to establish the "reading error" of the
gadget. What we would like to suggest is that the "official
culture" that establishes what may or may not be taken
"seriously" is a planned and deliberate "reading error" built
into the "machine" of science - our very thinking - the
suggestions of the "hypnotist." [John
Baez: "Jadczyk has some
unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of
this case"]
William March wrote in The Bad Seed:
[G]ood people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others
doing the things they themselves are incapable of doing…
Without a historical context of science, there is little
possibility that a sincere scientist - who is generally not much
interested in history, based on my own experience - will ever be
able to establish the "reading error" of his machine - his
thinking.
There are only so many hours in the day, only so many days in
the year, and only so many years in the life of a scientist. The
amount of study that is necessary to discover the threads of
"conspiracy," where they lead to and what they lead away from,
is actually overwhelming. I know: I’ve spent about 30 years
doing it. What’s more, I began my research from a skeptical
point of view that "conspiracy" was paranoid thinking and I was
determined to find the way to demonstrate that there was NO
conspiracy. Unfortunately, not only did my plan fail - my
hypothesis was utterly demolished by the hard facts.
But what I did learn was that finding those "hard facts" was
very difficult and time-consuming. And that is deliberate. After
all, how good a conspiracy is it if it is so easily discovered?
And it is clear that in such a high stakes arena as the Global
Control agenda now being overtly pursued by the Bush Reich -
after years and years of the "secret science" - whatever
conspiracies exist, will be managed with all the resources and
power of those elitists who wish to retain control. That is a
formidable obstacle.
I would also like to mention the fact that, even though I am the
one who has collected and sorted data, my husband, a
mathematical physicist, HAS assisted me in analyzing it. At
first he did it to humor me. And then, as he applied his
knowledge of mathematics to the various problems I brought to
him, he began to realize that science CAN be applied to these
problems, and once that is done, it strips away the denial
mechanism and one is left with the inescapable conclusion that
nothing is as it seems and never has been. We live in an ocean
of lies, disinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and
smokescreens.
Too bad more competent scientists do not bring their skills to
the solving of these problems. But that is precisely what the
"Secret Cult" does NOT want to happen. And that is precisely WHY
the most subtle and far-reaching of the "COINTELPRO" operations
have been run on scientists themselves.
The possibility that COINTELPROis in operation in regards to
the Bogdanov twins ought not to be taken lightly. Physics and
mathematics are the numero uno professions that have been used -
historically speaking - to support the power elite. It is
logically evident that "they" have a vested interest in making
sure that the money goes only to projects that,
1) will augment
their control; in which case such projects will be buried and no
one will know about them
2) projects that do not threaten
their control, in which case we may assume that they are funding
research in the public domain that leads AWAY from the
"important" issues.
In short, if it’s popular, gets funded, is allowed out in the
open, you can almost guarantee that it is smart but useless.
You can take that to the bank.
Here is where we come back to the context. If we take it as an
operating hypothesis that there does exist a powerful elite
whose interests are served by science, and who have a vested
interest in public science never approaching the "secret
science," we have adjusted our "machine tolerances" and can look
at the problem in a different way.
First of all we might wish to ask: who benefits if one or the
other proposition about the Bogdanov affaire proves to be the
"right one?" If they have infiltrated the scientific community
with a "fraud," what might be the result? If, on the other hand,
they have truly attempted to bridge the chasm between science
and mysticism - what might be the result if they are ridiculed,
flamed, and generally discredited?
These are all interesting questions that must be asked in
context. So, here is the context:
The Bogdanov brothers worked really hard to get PhDs in physics.
We are told that this was accomplished more by tactical
maneuvers than by good science.
But then we face the problem of "what is good science?"
A general definition would be that good science is that which
contributes the increase of knowledge within the scientific
community overall, providing better methods of solving problems.
By this definition, there is a LOT of "respectable science" that
is not "good science." Also, by this definition, there is a lot
of "good science" that is not "respectable." In fact, based on
our short review of "conspiracy," we might even think that most
"respectable science" is deliberately vectored toward being very
"smart but useless." And then we might suspect that the very
best of the "good science" is deliberately ridiculed, attacked,
or otherwise suppressed at a very early stage.
We know all too well what it is like to be subjected to
COINTELPRO. We personally have known a number of scientists who
died under unusual circumstances - most of whom were working on
very similar problems - generally UFT and gravity issues.
Coincidence? Conspiracy theory? Nonsense?
The stories about the "atmosphere" of their efforts to get their
PhDs present some confusion. Did they deliberately plan to get
their PhDs with an agenda? Was their agenda to bamboozle the
scientific community - to take it by storm - for the express
purpose of exposing its "reading errors?" Well, if that is the
case, considering the state of science, then they could be seen
as "folk heroes." They might be viewed as very clever in
utilizing the context to accomplish a very benevolent objective.
As it happens, one of the effects - even if somewhat trivial -
is the following, announced by John Baez, quoted above:
You may be pleased to know that Classical and Quantum Gravity
has decided to stop using the 2 referees who accepted the Bogdanov’s paper. I don’t know about the other journals who
accepted papers of theirs... but of these journals, Classical
and Quantum Gravity is supposedly the most prestigious, with
therefore the most to lose.
If the same standards were applied to all papers published in
their journal, the numbers of affected papers may be guessed to
be 25% or more.
What is interesting is the "timing" of this affair just at the
moment that France is causing some problems for the Bush Reich’s
War plans. In short: is the Bogdanov affair an emerging effect
of the overt imposition of "official culture?" A sort of US vs.
France/Old Europe?
And in this case, who is on first?
Actually, this would be a question that might be best answered
by scientific analysis. When one is considering such things as
COINTELPRO, the confusing elements of double and triple reverse
psychology might be sorted out by those who are trained to use
mathematically logical constructs. However, they are the very
ones who are most turned off by the very idea. [John Baez: "Jadczyk
has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his
interpretation of this case"]
We suggest that is deliberate.
Are the Bogdanov’s targets of a clever
COINTELPROoperation
because they may be popularizing something that the "powers that
be" wish to avoid? Maybe it is just science in general? Or, are
they being publicly "attacked" to engender sympathy for their
work, and to make people suspect that they are targets of a
COINTELPROoperation so that all of the attention of science
will be vectored to their ideas and away from truly "good
science?"
It will certainly take more investigation, more collecting of
data, more analysis of cause, effect and results before it is
even possible to come to a conclusion. This can only proceed in
a fair and objective way with the cooperation of the Bogdanovs.
If they have ideas that are good science, but which are being
suppressed by this recent "event," we hope to discover them, to
assist them in clarifying and placing those ideas on a firmer
foundation of precise mathematics.
If, on the other hand, the Bogdanovs do not truly have in mind
any benefit to good science, but are rather "running an
operation" for beneficiaries unknown, [which may simply be their
own egos] then it is very likely that they will withdraw from
legitimate scientific scrutiny and cooperation in an effort to
get to the bottom of the matter.
Who knows?
As we now know, "Ted" Newman is one of the primary individuals
who spread the story about the Bogdanovs. Ezra "Ted"
Newman, is
also a signatory of something called the "petition against
anti-Israeli boycott." This petition states:
The nation of Israel is going through a difficult time. Its very
existence is being targeted by daily murderous terrorist
attacks. Hundreds of innocent people, women and children have
been killed by homicide bombers in the recent months. At the
same time anti-Semitic attacks have become a daily occurrence in
Europe. These developments pain us and concern us. We are aware
that some European academics have called for a cultural and
scientific boycott of Israel. We believe that this call is
immoral, dangerous and misguided, and indirectly encourages the
terrorist murderers in their deadly deeds. The government of
Israel has the right and the duty to protect its citizens
against terror. We sincerely hope that upon further reflection
these scientists will understand the dangers of their request.
We also call upon all our colleagues to express their support of
the people of Israel in these trying times by fostering and
developing scientific ties with their colleagues from the State
of Israel.
Ezra "Ted" Newman is interesting for some other reasons. As it
happens, Ezra wrote a paper entitled: Heaven and Its Properties.
We find Newman in strange company with Andrija Puharich,
Hall Puthoff, Russell Targ of SRI,
Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Evan Harris
Walker - ultimately leading to Tom Bearden and Richard Hoaxland,
and the whole gang of the so-called Stargate Conspiracy. Hmmm...
The originator of the rumor - Niedermaier - is at Tours
University. As it happens, the only French member of the
editorial board of Classical and Quantum Gravity is a certain
P.T. Chrusciel, also happens to be at Tours University. Here we
find another odd "coincidence." Chrusciel seems to be one of the
few scientists on the planet doing really interesting work in
the areas of Unified Field Theory. These ideas naturally include
gravity and electromagnetism - both of which have been highly
controversial subjects for many years. These subjects - in
recent times - have been subjected to extreme
COINTELPRO type
operations as the links to Bearden and the gang will
demonstrate.
The whole subject gets even "spookier" when one begins to
connect all of the dots in the timeline of American military
science, only to discover that the University of Pittsburgh -
home to Ezra "Ted" Newman - is pretty close to the home to a lot
of strange COINTELPRO type activities - Penn State - the most
scandalous of which was, of course, the Ira Einhorn affair. When
we consider Ira, we find ourselves coming around in another loop
to Puharich and the gang, as well as that entrepreneur of "Real
Star Trek," Jack Sarfatti and his band of Merry Physicists with
strange military connections. This then loops us back to the
American Military secret science, and we start to feel a bit
dizzy at all these circles within circles. What a tangled web we
weave...
"The fact is, what the Bogdanov’s did or did not write is no
better or worse that the work of a large number of theoretical
physicists who often use mathematical terminology rather less
than knowledgeably, shall we say charitably? According to
several experts in the field, there are a lot of mathematical
physicists who do not know that there exist several inequivalent
principal bundles with the same base, same typical fiber, and
who also do not know the difference between a principal bundle
and a vector bundle. What is even worse is that a number of
these guys are known as "specialists of geometry in physics."
The difference between the Bogdanov brothers and the above
mentioned "experts" is that the B.B.’s are ASKING for
constructive criticism - they are willing to undertake the
process of defending their work. It seems that one of the
symptoms of the decadence of physics is that those who don’t
have a clue, do not even care about their own lack of precision
or even competence. The Bogdanovs seem to be rather driven to
unveil the mysteries of the Universe using their own money,
while the nonsense promoted by Tom Bearden and the Stargate gang
actually gets government funding!
As we survey this issue, what emerges is this: if the Bogdanov
Brothers were not TV personalities, it is very likely that
nobody would even care that there may be problems in their
papers (IF that turns out to be the case!) What is evident is
that the Bogdanov brothers seem to be sincerely interested in
their ideas, have spent a number of years and a lot of money
working on their projects, and have done a lot of good for
science as a profession by promoting it to young people. On the
other hand, the very fact that the Bogdanov brothers are
television personalities could be an extremely useful tool for
"vectoring" science.
But is it a Vector? Is it COINTELPRO? Who is on first?
November 5, 2002, Ark posted the following to sci.physics.research, the newsgroup where the rumors about the
Bogdanov brothers were first made public by John Baez. As it
happens, the post has not yet been approved by the moderators!
It seems that it is open season on the Bogdanov Brothers, French
Academics, but Ph.D.s at American Universities are a "protected
species."
Ark’s post:
The Bogdanovs - that I am trying to document in a balanced way
at
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanovs.htm (and linked
pages) may be a good start for looking at "real hoaxes."
Recently I was prompted to study the book Conscious Acts of
Creation: The emergence of new physics by William A. Tiller,
PhD, Walter E. Dibble, Jr., PhD, and Michael J. Kochane, Ph. D.
The Preface to the book is signed by Rustum Roy, Penn State,
Wayne B. Jonas, USUHS and .... E.C. George Sudarshan, University
of Texas, Austin.
Are we ready to be bitten by monopoles? Here is a quotation:
"Through the agency of a nine-dimensional coupling substance in
the vacuum, called deltrons, the faster than light magnetic
monopoles functioning in reciprocal space can interact with
electric monopole substance functioning in direct space of
physical matter. The vacuum phase transition mentioned above
involves an ordered phase formation of magnetic monopole
substance phase of R-space. These magnetic monopoles of R-space
travel so fast that they ’write the waves,’ thought to be de
Broglie pilot waves, controlling the movement of particles in
D-space. A symmetry principle, called the mirror principle is
thought to operate between D-space substances and R- space
substances so that the monopole charge singularities in one
space produce dipole images through the mirror into the other
space. Likewise, the monopole mass singularities in one space
produce images through this mirror into the other space. Thus
the negative negative monopole mass singularities of R-space are
thought to be the origin of the ’dark matter’ we currently
detect with our instruments in D-space.(...)"
If you think that these concepts are explained somewhere in the
book - you may be surprised to find out that after you are
through with the book, you will not have an idea of what the
"theoretical part" is about.
Now, let me mention that I wrote papers on magnetic monopoles
and on "reciprocity" (including conformal symmetric spaces).
Therefore, I suggest, that after we are done with KMS, signature
fluctuations, and topological field theory, there is a new
field to be exploited in the space of hoaxes: D-spaces and
R-spaces and monopoles that write the waves, thought to be de
Broglie pilot waves.... All supported by PhDs.
ark
Conscious Acts of Creation is being madly promoted by the
"alternative crowd" as "proof" that all their
"you create your
own reality" ideas are true. Conscious Acts of Creation, tells
us:
This book marks a sharp dividing line between old ways of
scientific thought and old experimental protocols, wherein human
qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind and spirit
cannot significantly affect physical reality, and a new paradigm
wherein they can robustly do so! …utilizing a unique
experimental protocol on both inanimate and animate systems,
that the human quality of focused intention can be made to act
as a true thermodynamic potential and strongly influence
experimental measurements for a variety of specific target
experiments.
After almost 400 pages of speculation and descriptions of
experiments and very little math, we are told:
Under some conditions, it is indeed possible to attach an aspect
of human consciousness, a specific intention, to a simple
electrical device and have that device, when activated, robustly
influence an experiment conducted in its vicinity in complete
accord with the attached intention. Thus, if they do it right,
humans can influence their environment via specific, sustained
intentions. […] Some new field appears to be involved in the
information passage that occurs between conditioned locales that
are widely separated from each other in physical space. Even
with transmitters and receivers located inside electrically
grounded Faraday cages, highly correlated patterns of
information appeared in the remotely located locales. […]
Although we don’t fully understand them, we now have some new
tools with which to probe the deeper structures of the universe
and a new adventure is underway for humanity.
It is important to note that the "intenders" of the experiments
were long-time practitioners of Siddha Yoga and could thus be
considered metaphysically "in tune" to some considerable extent.
The question is: What did they accomplish? Based on the
descriptions, it sounds pretty earth-shaking, right?
Well, as noted, after almost 400 pages we find that the most
significant result seems to have been changing the pH of a small
sample of water.
Yup. That’s it.
But we notice that nobody says a word about this sort of thing.
At this point in time, the physics community hasn’t said a
discouraging word about Tom Bearden and his follower, Richard
Hoagland - nor the interesting fact that Bearden is a former
associate of Ira Einhorn, Andrija Puharich, the gang at
Esalen
and Penn State who flirted with the edges of the Secret
Government experiments in mind control and the promotion of
LSD
to the young people of America. Nobody has cried "Hoax!"
Speaking of journalists: at the very start of the matter, Andrew Orlowski wrote in the Register:
Usenet posters describe the papers as "laughably incoherent". A
fascinating thread on Usenet begun by John Baez brought the hoax
to light, and persistent questioning by Arkadiusz Jadczyk on his
website has done much to expose the pair.
However, as of today, Orlowski has written:
In his a terrific investigative report reporter
Richard Monastersky adds much valuable material to the public record,
citing some damning critiques of the physics establishment’s
methodologies. "They’re sort of stringing together
plausible-sounding sentences that add up to nothing," reports
John Baez, who brought the Bog.Bros. to the world’s attention in
a Usenet newsgroup. [...]
Almost all of the debunking in the
Bog.Bros. case has come from
Usenet posters and enthusiastic amateurs - Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk
has been adding comments each day on his webpage. The
traditional intermediaries have remained silent.
Do you notice that "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" went from being an
exposer of the hoax - mentioned in the same paragraph as John
Baez - characterized by his "persistent questioning," to being
described as an "enthusiastic amateur." Forget the fact that his
physics career makes him one of the few experts in the field - a
mathematical physicist - who is qualified to examine the matter
in its broadest terms. The reader may wish to have a look at his
CV and List of Publications linked from the navigation table at
above left to make this determination.
[Note added later: Orlowski has apologized for this
characterization and has changed the text that is currently
posted on the internet. ]
We also notice that Orlowski has described Monastersky’s article
as a "terrific investigative report." Daniel Sternheimer dealt
with Monastersky’s piece, showing how his "terrific
investigative report" was not so accurate. Considering the fact
that Orlowski’s report is showing similar "slanted
inaccuracies,"
do we dare suggest that there is a possible agenda? It’s
beginning to sound like George Bush’s "Weapons of Mass
Destruction..."
Read Daniel Sternheimer’s response to Monastersky.
Then, consider what I have written here and it will be clear
that MOST of the scientific community is being manipulated by
ridicule and fear and just plain COINTELPRO which is the only
thing that exceeds the speed of light in science.
No wonder they can’t figure anything out.
The Pale Rider at High Noon...
