Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:46, 27 November 2005

For older discussion, see:

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

JackSarfatti (talk · contribs)

also, JackSarfatti (talk · contribs) and J.Sarfatti (talk · contribs) and JackSarfatti In A Bikini (talk · contribs) and Adastra (talk · contribs) and 71.139.97.67 (talk · contribs) and probably GyroGearLoose (talk · contribs), Jackhorner (talk · contribs) , Rwill9955 (talk · contribs) see also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_JackSarfatti

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

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

Template:TrollWarning

Mediator intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So What About The Books?

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Sarfatti - San Francisco.

The monsters are due on Wikipedia

A parable for our times?

From the original 1960's Twilight Zone series:

"The Monsters are Due on Maple Street"

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

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

Hmmm...how about:

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

Closing narration by Rod Serling:

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

- Gary Bekkum

Posting of birthdate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISSO 1999-2001

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

Involvement with paraphysics section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth Date Issue

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

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

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

Vanity Press Issue & Dancing Wu Li Masters

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

But back to the general issue of Vanity Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article as it is now is fairly good.

I would prefer some reference to my three books at least

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

for people who want to know more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eye Witness Testimony on Writing of Dancing Wu Li Masters

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

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

Verifiability

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

Cranknet

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

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

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

Vanity publication vs self-publication

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

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

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

Gang Of Two!

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

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

Cap Weinberger & The CIA Chipman File

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

My Role in Reagan's Decision to Launch SDI

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

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

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

Sarfatti-Mussolini Connection

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

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

Name Dropping

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

1) Jack's claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nasty Vicious Spiteful Insulting "Trivia"

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

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

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

Staying Cool

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

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

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

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

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

Jack as Conceptual Performance Artist

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

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

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

and various music files from 1964 Cornell & Oberlin on

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

http://qedcorp.com/London/

http://qedcorp.com/APS/

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

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

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

Apparent or what?

Cut vagueness from article:

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

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

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

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

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

Change

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

to

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

Change

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

[Jack Sarfatti]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's good. It's a wrap.

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

Grammar cleanup

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

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

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

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

Who are Picknett and Prince?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Denounce"? No. Not appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

High strangeness

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

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

I am not a pseudo-sciientist

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

Mainstream Physics

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

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

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

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

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

Also my EVO WEAPONS EQ.

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

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

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

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

dV/dr = 0

d^2V/dr^2 > 0

is NOT PSEUDOPHYSICS!

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

Self published works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRAVO! [Jack Sarfatti]

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

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

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

Do you think I am an idiot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Spooky Reality of the 1953 Contact

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

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

Also

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

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

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

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

Jimbo Wales complains about Wiki Quality Control

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

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

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

comment on "Gang of Two talk section"

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

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

What Non-Mainstream Physics?

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

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

Great Spirits Scorned

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

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

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

Published works

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

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

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

Mediator check

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

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

No nothing like that I know of.

Jack Sarfatti, Nov. 27, 2005

New Development on Faster-Than-Light

Begin forwarded message:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bcc

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

Begin forwarded message:

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

Subject: Re: Your STAIF paper

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

Ray Jensen

Screen Writer Ron Stahl on how to interview Jack Sarfatti

How to do a proper interview of Jack Sarfatti

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

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

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

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

Yes!

“1. What is a WWD?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alamogordo Daily News

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

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

“How do they appear?”

Ask US Navy physicist Bruce Maccabee not me.

“Describe their abilities.”

Ditto.

“What is required to construct one?”

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

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

Again, why do you use the future tense? ☺

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

My theory is being tested now on several fronts.

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

Yes, that's what I am describing above.

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

No.

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

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

@@ Line 659: / Line 659: @@
 Any problems let me know, but it looks like the 'recent unpleasantness' has abated. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
+No nothing like that I know of.
+Jack Sarfatti, Nov. 27, 2005
 ==New Development on Faster-Than-Light ==