Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for Sanity from UFO Black Ops

We have been following this rather closely and may we suggest that nasty gossip be confined to Discussion and not put in Sarfatti's article. For example, someone just falsely attributed Art Greenfield's words of "treason" and "death penalty" to Sarfatti in the article. I removed it and we hope it stays removed. Such nasty gossip and angry words made in the heat of battle, mainly from DES's dogged pursuit of Sarfatti's personal character is unseemly to say the least. DES is a member of Philadelphia Skeptics, which explains his Inquisitorial passion. DES should recuse himself as he has become the main problem in this debate. Ed Poors and Jimbo Wales need to intervene and block DES from vandalizing the Sarfatti article. In our modest and humble opinion DES has definitely crossed the line and has violated ethics if not Wiki rules. Once Sarfatti agrees that none of the content is unfair or seriously inaccurate, may we suggest that his article be permanently protected because he is such a controversial public figure raising both heat and light on both sides of the Culture War. Thank you all for letting us express our view. We are close to ending this whole dispute except for DES who now is the problem. DES is like K. Starr at Clinton's Impeachment. :-) --UFO Black Ops[*]] 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to permanently protect articles because the subject is a controversial public figure (if this were the case, then George W. Bush would be protected permanently). It is also not policy to permit the subject of an article to have veto or approval power over its content. *Dan T.* 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well in that case the Wiki rules should be enforced. In particular putting Art Greenfield's words of "treason" and "death penalty" into the main Sarfatti article is a violation of Wiki rules because it is false. Also Greenfield was quoting directly from Federal Law and what was put into the Sarfatti article was completely distorted out of context. In any case it is obvious that several of the Wiki Admins have violated the basic Wiki rule of objective fairness and they all should recuse themselves and leave it up to Ed Poor, Jimbo Wales and the Wiki board as a matter of integrity and fairness. Sarfatti is a volatile hot head when he is put under the stress of personal attacks on his character. His angry words should not be engraved in stone. Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone. :-)

*UFO Black Ops* 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Art Greenfield

Hi Uncle Ed,

Dr. Jack Sarfatti is a brilliant theoretical physicist of the same caliber as Albert Einstein. Like Einstein, Dr. Sarfatti is working on advanced concepts that will lay the groundwork for the development of advanced systems such as Dark Energy propulsion, Dark Energy weapons, and Dark Energy power generating systems. Harnessing Dark Energy for propulsion, defense, and power will enable mankind to take a Quantum leap ahead of the nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources we now use. There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack Dr. Sarfatti publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Wikipedia to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting Dr. Sarfatti's work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with Dr. Sarfatti's defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

Additionally, pursuant to evidence developed during an investigation into a suspects contacts and activities, they can also be charged with treason under TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2381 § 2381. Treason Release date: 2005-08-03 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Please cease and desist interfering with Dr. Sarfatti. Either erase the section on him or let him edit it one last time and freeze it, as he previously requested. Every time the conspirators change his Wikipedia profile to state that he is a crackpot or worse, and that his work is gibberish, they then post it in his groups and send it out in spam emails to his associates and bulk newsgroups. Allowing this to continue on the part of Wikipedia management after warning makes them an accessory to the crime. Wikipedia disclaimers protect management only from civil and not criminal prosecution. It is Wikipedia's vehicle through which Wikipedia management is allowing Islamofascist operatives to criminally and "willfully convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." It is equivalent to a nationally distributed newspaper allowing enemy forces to write articles to sabotage or interfere with our war effort. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to speech that will damage our defense capabilities and promote the success of our enemies in time of war. During the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered the jailing of 5000 newspaper editors and personnel without trial for the duration of the war because they wrote articles against the war or in support of the South. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and had 13,000 political opponents arrested for varying periods. About half of those arrested died in jail due to deplorable living conditions for prisoners. Prison conditions now are worse in some ways, like when your cell mate gives you the prison bitch name of "squealing piglet." <HaHa> This is just a friendly warning. This is not your average troll problem as you at first thought. Due to the seriousness of this situation, you should have a chance to straighten out this problem before it becomes a federal case. I've found Wikipedia to be a useful source of information on many occasions and I have no interest in seeing Wikipedia shut down.

Thanks,

Art Greenfield

antigray@cs.com

[1]

[2]

Are you talking to me? I'm the number one person around here helping Jack: I'm not thwarting him at all. And unless you withdraw your implicit legal threat against me, I will not object to your Wikipedia account being blocked indefinitely. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Uncle Ed 18:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Responses to comments by Art Greenfield

I would love to see a test case in which soemone tried to apply the above quoted statute to a public web page reporting truthefully that others have epressed negative views of soemone workign for the US Government. Any such case would obviously be blocked as it would involve a clear violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In any case the above law does not apply of its own terms, as we are not legally "at war" -- Congress not having passed a Declaration of War. I do not for a moment belive that any US Attourny would file such a case. The above citation is, IMO nothing but an attempt to use "Fear, Uncertantinty, and Doubt" to impose a pro-Sarfetti POV on the articel. it may well be a PoV that Mr. Greenfield honestly holds. That does not, of couirse, give him or anyone else the right to dictate the content of a wikipedia article. This is also a further blatent violation of the no legal threats policy. DES ^(talk) 23:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And since when is anybody who dares to criticize the saintly and brilliant Mr. Sarfatti a "leftist or Islamofascist"? I, myself, am neither. *Dan T.* 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

American secret military reseach projects are protected by multiple levels of deception to misguide our enemies in their espionage and their own research efforts. Wikipedia's efforts are fully in line with what DARPA wants from us. Ask them if you don't believe me. WAS 4.250 05:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Art Greenfield (#2)

From Art: In response to your post that the federal laws do not apply because there is no "declared war," perhaps you should consult the Wikipedia section on "Declared Wars" where it shows that both houses of Congress voted to authorize the "Iraq War" which is still ongoing in Iraq. See:

Declaration of war by the United States wiki-link corrected, and text copied from page linked above deleted from this page since the link is right here. DES ^(talk) 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I told you I used Wikipedia. Perhaps you should too. You can really learn a lot here. Additionally, when we defeated Saddam's forces, President Bush had his famous photo op on the aircraft carrier in front of the banner that said "Mission Accomplished." It did not say "Complete Victory" or "VI day," much like "VJ" and "VE" Day, that were celebrated when we had our victory over Japan and Germany in World War 2. We had accomplished the first major mission of the Iraqi war, defeating the Iraqi conventional armed forces. The second mission in the Iraqi War is to defeat Saddam's military leaders and personnel who went underground and have been paying Iraqis and foreign terrorists to fight us. Remember the deck of cards with the wanted Iraqi military leaders pictured on them that came out just before the first mission was accomplished? The "deck of cards mission" was first announced publicly in Iraq on April 11th 2003. Pres. Bush landed on the carrier Lincoln on May 1, 2003 and announced that the mission against Saddam's military was accomplished. Then they very publicly reported to the media the next mission as our troops were rooting out the card people, Saddam's militia units, etc. Oh my, that deck pf cards information is found in Wikipedia too at: Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.

Mission: : a specific task with which a person or a group is charged b (1) : a definite military, naval, or aerospace task <a bombing mission> <a space mission> (2) : a flight operation of an aircraft or spacecraft in the performance of a mission. <Merriam-Webster's dictinary>

As you can see, one mission was accomplished (the use of naval carrier force aircraft to bomb and defeat Saddam's army and tank corps) and other missions are ongoing. The cleaning up of enemy forces in cities like Fallujah are examples of other individual "missions" that have "operational names." The "mission" to clear Fallujah was called "Opeartion Phantom Fury." The WAR continues. The enemy is still blowing up our troop convoys, using suicide bombers in cars and on foot, shooting down our helicopters with missiles and RPGs, firing mortars and rockets into our bases, etc. Therefore, this is still considered a "time of war" for legal purposes such as arresting and prosecuting suspects for crimes commited "in time of war." If you would be so kind as to go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operations_and_projects_(military_and_non-military)

you will see listed there military missions and their operation names going way back. Here are the ones so far from the Iraq war: Second Invasion of Iraq

long and irrelevant list of military missions in iraq deleted. No one disputes that military combat is occuring there. DES ^(talk) 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OH MY GOD. They must really be having a real "shootin war" over there. The operative word is WAR. I love Wikipedia.

Art Greenfield

antigray@cs.com

[3]

[4]

Responses to comments by Art Greenfield (#2)

No one disputes, or at least i do not, that military combat is occuring in Iraq. That is not the same thing as a legal "state of war". Many laws that specified that they applied only in "time of war" were held not to apply during the Korean "War"/"police action" and during the confict in Vietnam (which was common called a war but never formally declared to be one).

In any case, state of war or not, publicly commenting on the public reputation of a public figure is a clearly protected activity under the First Admendment, and any law that purports to criminalize such activity, even during a declared war, is going to be tough to defend in court. Furthermore, just how does commenting on Sarfatti's reputation harm the national security? Are agencies of the U.S. government not going to use his services because of what is said about him (however negative) on wikipedia, or on usenet? Is some reputable physicist who he needs to cooperate with going to decline because of this article, in spite of his wonderful accomplishments which Art Greenfield attests to above? If his reputation can be severly damaged becaue wikipedia says that people on usenet say he is a "kook" or that his theories are "nonsense", then just how strong was his reputation in any case? Use some common sense here. DES ^(talk) 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Art Greenfield (#3)

Hi David,

I will try to explain this in easy to understand terms since you have not been able to grasp why certain speech is a federal crime with severe penalties, including the death penalty.

• A. Jack Sarfatti is in the process of doing extremely important defense work.
• B. If you make an oral statement in front of a large assembly of people that Dr. Sarfatti is a kook who writes formulae that are gibberish, that does not interfere with Dr. Sarfatti's work.
• C. If you send letters to the editor of your local newspaper and say the same thing, that does not interfere with Dr. Sarfatti's work.
• D. If you call in to a radio or TV talk show and express the same opinions, that does not interfere with Dr. Sarfatti's work.
• E. The above exercising of free speech is not seen or heard by Dr. Sarfatti, and is very much like the tree falling in the forest, he does not hear that sound either so it does not disturb him or interfere with his work.
• F. When hate mail and email, and threatening mail and email is sent directly to Dr. Sarfatti and the group of physicists he works with, and posted in the Internet groups where they have their discussions of the physics for the defense projects they are working on, and are also sent to Jack's close family members and friends, it causes him emotional distress, places him in fear for his life and the lives of his family members, to the point where he has to take added security measures, file reports with the FBI and the San Francisco Police Department, then it should be painfully obvious that it does interfere with his work across the board, distracting him for long periods from his work, and distracting his associates that he is trying to communicate with regarding their work on the project. Dr. Sarfatti felt like a hunted man as a result, where some Islamofascist nut case would do a drive-by shooting at his house and harm him or his family members. He and his family and associates have received emails, letters in the US mail, and posts in his physics groups threatening that the sender will supply evidence to the police that Dr. Sarfatti was the real murderer of Ira Einhorn's girlfriend. The letters put Jack in fear that women close to him would be killed so that it would look like Jack was a serial killer. You need a clear mind to do theoretical physics work and the group of Islamofascist useful idiots were playing extreme mind games with him to prevent him from using his mind for productive work. As a result, several months of valuable "human computer time" (on his brain) needed to solve theoretical physics problems in the course of developing advanced weapons and propulsion systems were lost forever. Speech was used as a weapon to TERRORIZE.

Interfere: to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes : come into collision or be in opposition. <Merrriam Webster's Dictionary>

Propaganda: 1 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 2 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

<Merrriam Webster's Dictionary>

Remember the old warning about free speech from World War 2? "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS."

In this case, "Loose lips sink starships."

Art Greenfield

antigray@cs.com

[5]

[6]

Responses to comments by Art Greenfield (#3)

I have not sent email or anything else "directly to Dr. Sarfatti and the group of physicists he works with" I have posted in a public forum. If Mr. Sarfatti choses to read that forum, that is not my affair. if he choses to take time to consider how to respond, that is also not my afair. Nothing that I have written could be considered by any reaonable peron as "hate mail" even if it had been sent directly to Sarfatti, which it wasn't. If you really think you can have these actions prosecuted as criminal acts, call the US Attorny for New Jersey. Good luck. If I hear from the governmet, i'll let people know here, and I'll see what the ACLU has to say about the matter. I am not holding my breath. Frankly, if attending to my comments is delaying what Sarfatti is doing for the US Government (assuming that he is actually working for the USG) then there is probably a significant saving of tax money. That is, of course, only my personal opnion. In any case, there is a clear policy here "No legal threats" which you are persistantly violating. if you think my acts are criminal you had better address them through the criminal system, not by posting on wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 10:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I have not sent any communication of any sort thretening Sarfatti or anyone he knows with any physical harm, or indeed with anything at all except a discussion of his internet reputation. If anyone else has made such threats i do not support or condone them, and nothing I have done or will do has encouraged or particuipated in any such threats in any way. Unless you have any evidence that I participated in such threats, implying that I did is defamatory. Please cease to make such implications. DES ^(talk) 10:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't sent any direct communications to Mr. Sarfatti either, nor have I threatened anybody with anything. Nevertheless, he seems to sometimes be including me in his legal threats. So, go ahead and send the FBI to my door; that should be good for a few laughs. *Dan T.* 13:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, some of the above comments from Greenfield seem to be implying that the physicists in question are conducting highly critical defense research via Usenet newsgroups. This seems rather preposterous. Isn't that stuff supposed to be Top Secret, in which case a public newsgroup would hardly be the appropriate place to conduct it? *Dan T.* 14:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for DanT

The "stuff" is not "Top Secret". It is a technique of MASINT of the National Directorate of Intelligence akin to what was called "vacuum cleaning". Think of Public Key Cryptography as a hint. Only a few have the "key" to decode the hidden messages. As DES and others have mentioned it is clear that Sarfatti is magnet for all sorts of people. Most are harmless but some are not. Sarfatti has already supplied invaluable Counter Intelligence in the War on Terror and continues to do so. His work has been described as at "the core of MASINT" by a top USG Intelligence Officer. *UFO Black Ops* 16 October 2005 (time not noted for reasons of security)

Wildly incorrect?

I agree "wildly incorrect" isn't a good way of putting it, but we need something stronger than just "incorrect". Incorrect also covers "you forgot a minus sign on page 23", which this goes far beyond. Anybody got any other suggestions? --fvw* 16:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agee. Saying that his critics call him a crank does convey the general tone of those who oppose him, I suppose. I don't think "wildly" was so bad, given that it was celarly a view attributed to his net critics. I can think of other adjectives, but none are any more neutral than "wildly" except maybe "very". The fact is that thsoe who object to Sarfatti's views do not have a neutral attitude about him, and we should not pretend that they do, but we should be careful to attribute these views properly, to his critics. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's give this guy a fair shake. Does anyone know what Martin Gardner has said about him? Uncle Ed 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Gardner regards him as a crank and a dupe. Or at least he so described him in the chapter from Science: Good, Bad and Bogus, where he clearly regarded Sarfatti as part of the Bogus section. He also mentions in that chapter that Sarfatti's agent for selling Space-time and Beyond to Dutton was Ira Einhorn; that Sarfatti later tried to get his name taken off a re-issue of this book; that Sarfatti assumed (or at least said) that his physics background made him fully qualified to asses the merits of Uri Geller's claims (which he initally considered valid, but later dismissed); that he was at one point backed by and claimed to be a "warm personal friend of" Warner Erhard and supported the claims of EST, but latter was at ods with Erhard and EST. I think that Gardner wrote about Sarfatti in a later work as well, in the same negative vein, but I am not sure of that. I have S:GB&B at hand, and can provide quotes from it if anyone wants them. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is "wildly incorrect"? That is another DEFAMATORY VAGUE SMEAR. Be specific. God is in the details. The fact is no one here is competent to discuss the details of my physics theory - not even Chris Hillman. He tried and failed completely. Now not everything I say in physics is correct every time. There is tremendous complexity in my argument archived here. So which part is wrong? All of it? PROVE IT! Or, is something else meant? It is defamatory to say I was regarded as a "crank" etc even before the Internet. That is a serious allegation. Where is the evidence? Who wrote it? When did they write it? Why did they write it? Have most of you people no concept of good scholarship, how to to research? Your methods are so shlock, so sloppy, so superficial, like you all have attention deficit disorder - how can you presume to be so arrogant as to think you can write an ecyclopedia of any value? Never have I seen so much arrogance coupled to so much cluelessness and sheer incompetence in digging out the real facts.

DESIegel is a blatant liar above. Gardner NEVER wrote that I was a "crank" or a "dupe". I was on a CIA undercover mission as an unwitting "Useful Idiot" during that period of time as my book "Destiny Matrix" describes. Also do a careful reading of what Siegel is saying above. What does it prove?

On page 95 of the Avon Discus pb editon of Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, Gardner wrote: "Was it a 'repeatable' experiment as Sarfetti's release states? Perhaps repeatable in front of PhD paraphysicsts, but not in front of knowledgable magicians. (footnote 3 cites Houdini and Confessions of a Psychic) Indeed Geller's methods are both old-fashioned and well-known. The intersted reader can learn most of them by reading the references cited in notes 2 and 3." This passage refers to the passage, on page 94, where Garner quotes Sarfetti as stating "My personal professional judgement as a PhD physicist, is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck, which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controled and repeatable experimental condtions." ( footnoted to Science News vol 106, July 20 1974 page 46.) I belive that these two passages, taken togehter along with the rest of the chapter, justify summerizing Gardner's view of Sarfetti as being a "dupe" even though he did not use that exact term. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On page 102 of the same volume, Gardner writes: "There are two traits that characterize the true Gellerite. He is a person of enourmous gullibility, the gullibility strenghened by an enourmous will to belive. And he is person incapable of recognizing the absurd. (If he is a physicist, i would add a third trait: The egotisim of beliving that he is competant to detect fraud.)" While Gardner did not explictly label Sarfetti a "true Gellerite", I think the implication is fairly clear from the chapter as a whole that he so regarded Sarfetti. DES ^(talk) 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On page 111 of the same volume (Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus) Gardern writes of Sarfetti "In recent years Sarfetti has been promoting an invention, for which he has pendign patents, desigend to transmit coded information faster than light. I know of no other physicist who thinks it will work." I think the tone and content of this passage are fairly summed up by the word "crank". DES ^(talk) 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that none of the above establishes that Sarfetti was wrong about anything, at best it establishes that Gardner thought Sarfetti was wrong, was a crank and a dupe of Geller. But all i did above was to quote Gardner's published work, and to summerize it, I think quite fairly. I am not a "blatant liar" for correctly quoting and fairly summerizing Gardner's views, while accurately attributing them to a specific publiashed source. If Gardner changes his veiws later, or published other views of Sarfetti in conrast to those here quoted i am not aware of them. If Sarfetti was in fact on a mission from the CIA (why publicly supporting Geller would have aided such a mission I fail to see, but that is beside the point), Gardner was either unaware of this, or chose not to mention it. His published views of Sarfetti do not reflect it. I was asked "Does anyone know what Martin Gardner has said about him?". I responded, I belive fairly and accuratly, with a summery of Gardner's published views. if these views were inaccurate, that does not change the fact that Gardner expressed them. I now ask for an apology for having been called a "blatant liar" by Sarfetti. Sarfetti asks what the other matter I mentioned proved? Was i trying to indicate guilt by assocation? It is true that havign been associated with Einhorn and Erhard proves nothing about the validity of Sarfetti's views. But the fact that Gardner chose to report these facts in print does say something about Gardner's view of Sarfetti. Perhaps Gardner was tryign to use guilt by assocation. But if so that only confirms his nagative view of Sarfetti, although it may also reduce the worth of his view in soem minds. In any case these facts were citesd in the same article I was using as my source, so I repeated them to give the flavor of that source more accurately. DES ^(talk) 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

PSI WARS!

1) Martin Gardner and the whole CISCOPS crew at Scientific American were a Lefty Cabal, all members of the American Communist Party in their youth as was Phillip Morrison one of my professors at Cornell - as was Oppenheimer's wife at least. See The Venona File released by the KGB to the CIA's Herbert Romerstein for the general description of the deep penetration of the KGB into the American Left that I was on the periphery of. This basic information was given to me by Neo Con Pit Bull, Stephen Schwartz, author of "The Two Faces of Islam" who converted to Shia Islam. Schwartz and I have had a bitter split over Michael Savage of The Savage Nation, but that is another story. The same is true of almost the entire Old Guard of CSICOPS. Their basic attacks on paranormal research was politically motivated. I have a CIA memorandum from early 60's from Richard Helms calling for the Clandestine Services (AKA CI) to study the paranormal because the Soviets were using it. Martin Gardner & CSICOPS were helping the KGB in debunking the investigation of the paranormal by the CIA. It is a well known fact that the SRI operation, that I collided with in 1973 - and I have a tape to prove it - was a CIA undercover operation. Indeed the Spook in charge was the late Harold Chipman who I worked with in the 1980's and my book "Destiny Matrix" has the documentation to prove it. Martin Gardner was a science writer without any advanced degrees. His debunking was basically politically motivated.

2) Ira Einhorn WAS my book agent in 1974. SO WHAT CRIME AM I GUILTY OF BECAUSE OF THAT? DESiegel SPINS that into some kind of CRIME that PROVES I am a "kook" or a "crank" - he stops at calling me a "Kike" or a "Subhuman", but his intent is clear.

The words "crank", "crackpot", "kook" are used by the mean spirited people we see here exactly like the words "Kike" & "Nigger" etc have been used. They are used to ABUSE, DEFAME, DEBASE and HUMILIATE and only a SOCIOPATH will not understand that. Are you all sociopaths? What's the matter with you people? Have you no sense of shame, of decency? If Wikipedia is to be a useful instrument of culture then it should forbid the use of all such emotional words that are simply weapons designed to cause pain. No references to the goofy Crank.Dot.Net or Alt.Kooks. should be used as credible sources.

3) I never dismissed Uri Geller's authenticity. James Randi met with me privately at the time ~ 1974 or so and twisted my arm because he was buddy buddy with Phillip Morrison one of my physics teachers and basically they threatened my prospects for future employment in academia. I have been recently with Uri Geller in London on two occasions and I think he has real ability. This is not the place to go into that. it will be in my book "Qabal."

4) It is a fact that I spent a lot of personal time with Werner Erhard, he gave me thousands of dollars. There are many living witnesses to this such as Fred Alan Wolf, the star of the film "What The Bleep Do I Know?" and Saul-Paul Sirag and others like Jagdish Mann. More details are in my book "Destiny Matrix". The politics of what split me up with Werner Erhard are labrynthine and will be in my book "Qabal". They involve the death of John Belushi from cocaine, the release of Tim Leary to us at Esalen in 1976 and other covert intelligence undercover matters dealing with the KGB at Esalen. As I say the real truth here is Cloak and Dagger Looking Glass War and one day will no doubt be a gripping TV series. Some of the basic story is already published in Destiny Matrix. In any case DESiegel's analysis above is INCOMPETENT, SLOPPY, and any real scholar can see through it. It's SHLOCK! My God, he cannot even spell Werner Erhard's name correctly.

Remember I had an Ivy League education at Cornell when it meant more than it does now. I have a Masters and PhD from the University of California. I have been exposed up close and personal to some of the greatest intellects of the 20th Century. I have been a professor at San Diego State University - and you dare call me "crank", "kook" and "crackpot" for having an open mind on the weird stuff, the Twilight Zone of the paranormal and the alien? I fear for the future of America that is quickly devolving into The Stupid Society - indeed the whole world like that Wikian from Singapore. Except for Uncle Ed, so far most of you FLUNK THE COURSE, you have not raised your own bars high enough. Your world is flat - like a punctured tire! I cast pearls before swine because not one of you can really comment intelligently on even one of the physics gems in my equations in the archive. CH is allegedly too medicated to make a real refutation - or so my agents have informed me.

User:Jack Sarfatti ^(talk) 5:23 PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT) the previous signature had been piped to "DES" which could have implied that the above were my words, which is not the case. DES ^(talk) 20:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To repond to the above points in order: 1) The CIA is hardly a source for peer review of science. If it is the case that they belived in the paranormal as a possibly useful technology (a claim I have often seen made, but never well documented), that does not prove that it in fact has any value. In any case, whatever the "political" views of the people involved, I think it is well established that the various investigations and publications of CSICOP (Committe for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) were motivated by a desire to expose unjustified claims and foster a climate of critical thinking. That does not, of course, prove that their critiques were always or even usually correct (for greater openness, I have long been a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer and a member of the Philadelphai skeptics organization, which may color my views.) DES ^(talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2) I did not say that associating with Einhorn was in any way a crime, nor was it. I sad that Gardern reproted this fact, because it indiacted the flavor of Gardner's expressed veiws of Sarfetti. As a practicing Jew, i am most unlikley to call anyone a "kike" or "subhuman". To call someone a "kook" or the like is to express a judgement on that person's actions and expressed views, not on his religion, ethnicity, or social status. Just as to call someone a "liar" is to express a judgement on his motives and the accuracy of his statements. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

3) Gardner reported (on page 104 of my copy of S:GB&B) that on 19 November 1975 Sarfetti issued a press release, which was published in Science News in which Sarfetti said "On the basis of further experince in the art of conjuring, I wish to publicly retract my endorsement of Uri Geller's Psyco-energetic authenticity. I do not think that Geller can be of any serious interest to scientists who are currently investigating paraphisical phenomena." Did Gardner quote you inaccurately or out of context? If not, wouldn't you aregee that this statement sounds a great deal like having "dismissed Uri Geller's authenticity"? If you said this when you didn't mean it because your "arm was twisted" or because you feared for your future employment in academia, that is not my fault. (nor is it documentd, other than by ypur statment, as far as i know.) It is also a very serious charge to make against two generally respected people, one of them your own former teacher. But in any case, I based my statements on the published record, and I cited my source. I have the book in front of me at the moment, and I invite anyone to confirm its contents. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

4) I am sure the story of your interactions with Werner Erhard is complicated, and that the facts I gave above don't do it justice. I didn't claim that they did. I was merely summerizing the brief account given in the Gardner article, again in order to indiacte the way in which Gardner veiwed you (or at least wrote of you) when the article was published. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

While I do not have a PhD in physics (or indeed in any subject) I do have an undergraduate degree in that subject, I am an associate member of Sigma Xi, I have been an officer of a professional society (ACM), I have had articles published in professional venues, I have been the editor for professional conference proceedings and I maintain a fair reading knowledge of physics on the "informed non-professional" level. Also, my father and my grandfather were both college professors in the sciences, as is my brother. I have a fair notion of academic standards and wha constitutes scientific evidence, and scientific discourse. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and i am a notoriously poor typist, and transpositions are not uncomon in my typing. Make of that what you will. I apologize for misspelling anyone's name. DES ^(talk) 20:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

October 2005 legal threat

For whatever reason, I received the following legal threat via email today:

Date: Oct 12, 2005 12:54 AM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: JackSarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net)


I have filed the following complaint with the appropriate legal authorities:

The Wikimedia Foundation is registered as a non-profit corporation in the State of Florida. [7]

The Board of Trustees of this Foundation have allowed vicious lies, smears, slander and libel about me to appear on their website and they have repeatedly prevented me from defending myself.

Please note I am involved in USG National Security work and what these people are doing is detrimental to US National Security. The Wikimedia Foundation, wittingly or unwittingly I do not know, is aiding the terrorist cause.

Sincerely


Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. physicist
San Francisco, CA



Did anyone else receive a copy of this? Hall Monitor 22:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If it hurts our security to call a kook a kook, or a crank a crank, then we are in deep trouble. DES ^(talk) 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I mean about the WIKI hypocrisy, the DOUBLE STANDARD. This guy is clueless. He is merely a hack programmer with no credentials, with no knowledge of the advanced physics in which I have a PhD from UC, can deeply insult me here, but if I call him an SOB or worse, I am the one breaking the rules and he, innocent little darling, is not? THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I OBJECT TO! Some of you guys are no better than Joe McCarthy calling an innocent man a Communist, or a Red Neck calling a Black Man a "Nigger". Are you all blind! Calling a PhD physicist a "kook", a "crackpot", a "crank" is the SAME as a Nazi calling a Jew a "Kike" or SUBHUMAN. Wiki shoulfd ABSOLUTELY forbid this kind of defamation. It's a BLATANT HATE CRIME and only a MORAL IDIOT will fail to see that. [User talk:Jack Sarfatti|^(talk)]] 4:41PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

Are you claiming that no PhD physicist ever held such unjustified views as to be fairly describd as a "kook"? If so, i disagree wth you. Do you deny that characterizing someone as a "kook" or a "crank" is to make an allegation about the soudness of his views, that is, to make a judgement, not unlike your refering to me as "clueless" and a "hack programmer with no credentials". I did not characterize your personality, your ethics, nor did I level any ethnic slur at you. In fact i didn't even call you a kook, I said that others have verifiably done so, and that we should report that fact. I will expand on my statment above -- If even calling someone a kook falsely is "aiding the terrorist cause"; if our national security depends in a significant way on not "insulting" people doing non-public work for the U.S. Government, then the U.S. is in a very sorry state indeed. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I talked on the phone was him subsequent to his sending that. If he makes no more such threats, I consider the matter closed. Uncle Ed 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't, and Ed Poor does not have the authority to make a final determination on behalf of the foundation, the wikipedia community, or individual contributors other than himself. His view carries weight, but it is by no means final. There is a clear policy against making legal threats on wikipedia or against wikipeda or its editors while also continuing to post here, and the above quoted messge violates that policy. Has Sarfetti said that he has withdrawn, or in fact never filed, the suit threatened above? DES ^(talk) 20:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. That matter is closed.

Next matter, Chris Hillman says a Google Search shows that many people have written that my formula

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Phase of Vacuum)

is "nonsense". Well I can't find anything like that on Google. I challenge Chris Hilman to produce the exact quotes.

JackSarfatti 5:43PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

Outrageous Vandalism of Jack's writing!

HELP! MAY DAY! MAY DAY! Where is Uncle Ed now that we need him? Someone has repeatedly REMOVED the following from this page in VIOLATION OF WIKI RULES. That person should be BLOCKED!

This is what has been VANDALIZED more than once in several versions

The above leaves out very important facts that were deleted when I put them in. It is seriously incomplete and again gives a totally skewed picture of who I am, what I think and my role in the world.

Please provide the full citations that GyroGearLoose only provided incomplete references to. Likewise, the refs above are less than complete because they were copied from the SF Comical article; please fix. GangofOne 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well if people had not vandalized all that detailed info in the first place that would not be necessary would it? Double standard. They broke the rules and called me the real victim here the "vandal". Saul-Paul Sirag and Creon Levit at NSAA AMES have all those details. I have them somewhere. When I find them I will put them in. But for now as reprinted in my book Super Cosmos p. 25 on Amazon My discovery of the recently observed SUPERSOLID was published in PHYSICS LETTERS Vol 30A, No 5 3 Nov 1969 months before Nobel Prize Tony Leggett published his similar prediction. The title of my paper is "DESTRUCTION OF SUPERFLOW IN UNSATURATED 4He FILMS AND THE PREDICTION OF A NEW CRYSTALLINE PHASE OF 4He WITH BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION. Pages 23 -26 have quotes from real BIG SHOT physicists about my work that someone vandalized because it refuted their libel or slander and smears that I am merely a "kook" and a "crank" and a "crackpot" - these are not personal attacks? Huh?

"Dear Jack: Congratulations! What greater pleasure can a physicist have than see a long range prediction finally come true. David" David Finkelstein on March 26, 2005. Finkelstein emeritus from Georgia Tech

Also on Feb 16, 2005

"Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! You actually did something once of very great importance - and apparently you did not realize this. This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory (you can quote me). George" George Chapline, Jr Ed Teller's Golden Boy at Lawrence Livermore for many years, PhD in physics from Cal Tech.

"To whom it may concern, The Glogower Susskind paper of 1963 which introduced phase operators for a quantum oscillator was in direct response to discussions between Glogower, Susskind, and Jack Sarfatti. Sarfatti's contributions were significant. The correct attribution should be to the 'Glogower, Sarfatti, Susskind' operators. Sincerely, Leonard Susskind" Professor of Physics, Stanford University written on Dec 31, 2004

All three of these reports were vandalized off the article on me and replaced with a false claim from I think Chris Hillman that my co-worker Alexander Burinski in Moscow said that my formula

B(curved spacetime tetrad) = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)

was nonsense. Burinski refuted that false allegation allegedly made by Chris Hillman? Instead they let smears by alt.Kooks and other unqualified people stand in a prominent place and erased the above remarks by important physicists! Now that' the truth.

Now as to my Goldstone paper with Stoneham later head of Theoretical Physics, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Didcot, Berks (see photo in my autobiography "Destiny Matrix" on Amazon. The American Institute of Physics in 1980 or so published a Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics citing that paper as noteworthy.

You can ask Ray Chiao at Berkeley Physics Dept on how my laser filament paper influenced his early experiments. You can ask Creon Levit at NASA AMES about out oft-cited paper on applying Bohm's quantum potential to molecular structure computer simulations.

Nobel Prize physcist Brian Josephson has been similarly smeared like me because of his interest in the paranormal and cold fusion. Even John Wheeler has been smeared because he uses literate language and metaphor that rankles the hacks who can barely formulate a sentence and hide behind unreadable jargon. To say I use jargon is Pot calling Kettle Black. I am a much clearer writer than most.

Finally my paper explaining the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of the hadronic resonances as tiny Kerr black holes with strong short-range gravity G* ~ 10^40G on 1 fermi scale was published by Herbert Frohlich in 1973 in his journal "Collective Phenomena". It caused Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize) to invite me to ICTP in Trieste, Italy 1973-74. You can ask historian of physics Jagdish Mehra about that. He was there. BTW I was tutored in group theory at Cornell by Robert Brout who I later met again in Brussels in 1973 when I visited Prigogine. Yuval Neeman and others in Israel are working still on this idea connecting QCD to strong short-range gravity. You can also ask Eshel Ben-Jacob head of the Israel Physical Society about me. No, Wikis for shame, for shame! This has been a vicious smear against me perhaps politically motivated because of my national security work. I do not know, but others may well find out. Also my adventures in the weird - paranormal, UFOs have been part of a long-standing covert intelligence operation involving American, British, French, Israeli and other Intelligence organizations. Some of this is explained in all three of my books since 2002 all on Amazon. To focus on my early adventures as a young man 30 years ago as if that's the whole story is clearly a gross distortion.

Also I wrote almost all the physics parts of Gary Zukav's best seller (millions of copies) "Dancing Wu Li Masters". I did not write the goofy New Age philofawzy in the book. That was all Gary. Also it is insulting to say Author House is "self-publishing" - the context in the global smear spin of the campagin to defame me, is that somehow this makes the books illigitimate. Everyone knows the economics of publishing is changing and that Author House is the in the vanguard because of the takeover of publishing by Mega Corporations diluting the quality of literature to the level of Wal Mart. How hypocritical since Wiki is the epitome of Self-Publishing - is it not? [User:Jack Sarfatti|JackSarfatti]] 4:01PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

Jack Sarfatti does NOT "believe" in UFOs

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN UFOS. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PARANORMAL. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING! As a scientist I am a skeptic and I DISTRUST FAITH and BELIEF. Therefore saying I believe in UFOS is NOT TRUE. It is SIMPLISTIC and DEFAMES me by reducing my subtle mind to the level of the person who wrote that false allegation! Capisce? I PLAY WITH IDEAS! I am not Usama Bin Ladin on JIHAD to DEFEND THE FAITH! I have discarded many wrong ideas such as the superluminal communication device that Martin Gardner mentioned. My God that was 30 years ago! What other bones in the closet next I wonder? I, and friends of mine, received anonymous demented hate mail from someone in Springfield MO essentially accusing me of being the real Ira Einhorn!

The Cave in Planet of the Apes

My God! Most of the Pharisees here, The Pundits here, my self-appointed Inquisitors here are simply blinded by my Light, my ALIEN BRILLIANCE, My Genius, My Daemon, My Demiurge. See Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I have been out of The Cave a long time and you are all Cave Men. I am like Charleton Heston in Planet of the Apes! I am Prospero to your Caliban!

[User:Jack Sarfatti|JackSarfatti]] 8:21PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

Above, you say: "3) I never dismissed Uri Geller's authenticity." Now you say "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PARANORMAL." Please reconcile. GangofOne 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a WEAK MIND.? Can't you understand English? Folks are dumb where you come from. They never had no learn'in. You do not have any idea of how SCIENCE WORKS and you dare to JUDGE ME? A scientist ENTERTAINS hypotheses. Given my experiences with Uri Geller the most probable explanation is that he can bend metal with his mind. This is not the place to explain HOW I came to that conclusion. The point is I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT! There is more evidence for Ur Geller's PK than there is for STRING THEORY! There is more evidence for UFOs and Aliens then there is for LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY! All judgements in science are TENTATIVE pending further evidence and further understanding. That is true of EVERYTHING in science. I don't BELIEVE in ANYTHING. In other words I DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE FAITH in ANY IDEA like Usama Bin Ladin has in ALLAH or the Evangelicals have in THE SECOND COMING and APOCALYPSE & THE RAPTURE? Do you get the distinction yet or is this too subtle for you poor Tit Willow?

If I am a "crank" then you are a Country Bumpkin.

Mikado. You believe that the most probable explanation is that Geller can bend metal with his mind. GangofOne 09:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The UFO Aviary

Now Dan Smith is involved in National Security stuff back in Washington DC. I think it's clear who is saying what?

On Oct 12, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

"Jack,

The more we learn about the world, the more complicated it seems, and the more things we realize that could go wrong."

10-4

"Now, with the visitors on the scene, our world has suddenly gotten a lot more complicated, and sure enough, we are finding many more things that could go wrong, having to do with how they got here and what they might do while their here, viz. the possibly unlimited PK powers."

10-4

"In a recent message you noted how the Earth seemed to be on the verge of destruction. I don’t want to belittle the paranoia; fear can be an excellent motivator, just look at your constructive efforts to protect us from the bad aliens."

10-4

"However, too much of a good thing can turn against us if the fear gets to the point of paralysis."

No danger of that from my end. Speak for yourself.

"Allow me then to interject a more moderate point of view."

Bah! Humbug!

"A useful analogy here would be an ecosystem. What we see is the amazing tenacity and creativity of life under the rudest of shocks, and the most extreme conditions. Life has seemingly prospered up until very recently when we have begun to wonder if the advent of Homo sapiens will threaten the whole system. Is it any coincidence that just in our time of peril the fact of a cosmic ‘ecosystem’ is suddenly being impressed upon us? "

10-4

"We are being made fully aware that we are being visited by a great variety of sapient creatures from the far corners of the world and beyond. Yes, there is evidence of clashing cultures down here and out there, but, based on your own physics, we have to be amazed that our biggest complaint to-date is the evident stealth of our visitors. If they would just incinerate a few more buildings, like in the movies, fewer folks would think we were nuts. "

10-4

"Just when our own systems seem on the verge of failure, the cosmic system makes the scene. Shouldn’t we break out the champagne? "

Always! Did I not play Alfred in Fledermaus?

"Just one minor glitch. The MJ folks also remain in stealth mode. Why all the tiptoeing? Isn’t it more than a little creepy? "

Well it can mean several things:

1. They are all dead - at least brain dead.

2. They don't really have anything - it's all a RUSE like in Wizard of Oz

3. They are simply scared because they don't understand how it all really works. That's where I come in. I am at the very CORE of MASINT! http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html Remember BBC's Dennis Bardens of MI6? telling me I was "In the thick of it" Cambridge, Blue Boar Inn 1974 prior to U.London Uri Geller tests with David Bohm, John Hasted, Arthur Koestler, Arthur C. Clarke all in same small room at Birkbeck with Uri, Schippi & Brendan O Regan. The meeting Martin Gardner debunked in Science, Good, Bad & Bogus as an alleged agent for the Soviet KGB IMHO. All of CSICOPS started as a KGB Cabal. I bet that's in The Venona Files? Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it. It all fits what Dennis Bardens told me

"Jack, first I want to tell you that I am a Qabalist. It is MY DUTY to inform you that we are in the midst of a PSYCHIC WAR RAGING ACROSS the continents between THE SOVIET UNION AND YOUR COUNTRY and you are to be IN THE THICK OF IT."

Now why did he tell me that? Was he just kidding around? Remember I had been to SRI and I have the TAPE on computer to prove it. Soon it will be on the WEB for all to hear! Then I meet Werner Erhard, Uri, Puharich et-al and the rest is history distorted by Martin Gardner and other KGB curmudgeons and grumpy old men like Robert Park. Robert Conquest of The Hoover basically did not trust the physicists who built the bomb - my teachers. They were almost all contaminated by KGB associations from Oppenheimer on down.

"Suddenly the phone rings. "

1953 http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.htmo

"It seems that your complaints about the Aviary ‘incompetence’ have ruffled a few feathers."

That was my CLEAR INTENT!

"What is your problem, someone wants to know."

What's my problem? What's my problem? Are you talking to me? I'm the only one here. It's not MY PROBLEM it's their problem! It's time that THEY $#&^ or get off The Pot right? If they can't take the heat, then they should get out of the kitchen. What a bunch of weak pukes. What a bunch of pussies- eh? How did Colin Bennett put it? Prissy Queens all a flutter in their tutus? ;-)

"It’s mainly about the physics, says I. Oh, well, he’s just talking to the wrong folks. Hal is not the only physicist in the group, it turns out. So who should Jack be talking to? We’re not going to tell him that. Does that mean I have to critique him single-handed? Guess so. "

It means that the "physicists" don't really KNOW WHAT IT TAKES. I have caught them with their pants down and their hand in Uncle Sam's cookie jar. NO MORE NO BID CONTRACTS! I am calling in The Rico Act and The Patriot Act! The Tenors are in town and we are taking over their territory. They have grown too soft and complacent. They piddle as Rome burns. Capsice?

"I don’t know how much you want to make of it, but there it is.

Dan"

From: Jack Sarfatti [8] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:58 PM To: Dan Smith Subject: Re: Play it again, Jack

On Oct 12, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

"Could you please provide an explanation for the psychokinetic bending of a spoon.

Jack,

Are there then any limits on the powers of psychokinesis?

Dan"

Russell

goes on to quote these two limericks

illustrative of the metaphysics of

the 'amiable Bishop Berkeley':

There once was a man who said, 'God

Must think it exceedingly odd

If he finds that this tree

Continues to be

When there's no one about in the

Quad.'

Dear Sir,

Your astonishment's odd;

• I* am always about in the Quad.

And that's why the tree

Will continue to be,

Since observed by

Yours faithfully,

God."

Contrary to popular opinion I am NOT GOD in The Quad! That is an empirical question isn't it? Look at Q in Star Trek. Is that possible? Perhaps. Remember Roddenberry was influenced by Puharich. It's all a matter of how tight you can get the phase-locking between your mind and the vacuum. The point is I am developing a new language, a new paradigm to discuss these issues. We are still in the early stages.

Rome was not built in a day you know.

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:26 PM To: Dan Smith Subject: Re: Play it again, Jack

Generally & ROUGHLY speaking, the GENERAL idea is simple.

B = k(hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Phase of Vacuum - Phase of Mind Field of Psychic)

B = curved tetrad field controls the space-time structure of the metal.

i.e. Einstein's metric field is

g(curved) = (1 + B)(flat)(1 + B)

Consciousness controls the modulating Phase of Mind Field.

My formula above is over simplified of course. There will be a propagator i.e.

B(there-then) = Integral over active area of "brain" of psychic(Feynman Propagator(there-then|here-now)B(here-now) )

The local zero point energy density & pressure in the metal is

~ /\zpf ~ (effective coupling area)^-1cos[Phase of Vacuum - Phase of Mind Field]

There will be a propagator version of this for action-at-a-distance as well. This is good enough for now OFF-THE-CUFF in a matter of a few seconds. This is a post-quantum non-computable transmission from UT. Capsice.

"ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE!"

Here are the KEYS OF ENOCH! :-) i.e. The Key to The Mystery of Qabala

IT Space-time structure is a BIT Vacuum Phase Modulation Effect like in a Hologram (e.g. Bohm-Pribram).

IT FROM BIT

means, fundamentally, at geometrodynamic level is the SUPERSOLID ODLRO eq.

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Vacuum Phase)

this is like Bohm's SUPERFLUID ODLRO eq

v = (h/m)Grad(Phase of Superfluid Order Parameter)

e.g. Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol III on Superconductivity.

This is Magick without Magic.

This is what Jack Parsons was looking for in "Strange Angel". it's what they have all been looking for through the ages.

This is The Final Secret of The Illuminati, the Cosmic Trigger. This is what Carlo Suares meant when he said to me in Paris in 1973 (20 years after 1953 http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html)

"Jack, you are Heir to The Tradition."

No coincidence that Yuval Neeman spent a lot of time with in presence of Max Jammer talking about the importance of "Sarfatti" to Jewish History.

All those who viciously attack me personally, I do not mean intelligent correction of any errors I may make, are Enemies of The Jewish People. It's that simple. They are also Enemies of the American National Security State.

As Tony Smith has pointed out, we are dealing here with powers more powerful than nuclear. Powers both mental and physical. Uri Geller is a key part of this whole story of CONTACT. Ask Saul-Paul Sirag to explain it to you. JackSarfatti 9:25PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

POV: needs attribution

Cut from intro:

Critics often characterise his work as being wildly incorrect and describe him as a "crank". These views, and the reputation derived from his advocacy of them, are major reasons why Sarfatti is notable.

Please provide references for the above. All I could find was a blogger named David Hertz:

Sarfatti is universally reviled in the physics community. Sarfatti is a loud and obnoxious crank and he gets his panties yanked up over his ears (atomic wedgie!) on a regular basis when he posts to sci.physics. Sarfatti isn't a heterodox scientist posting controversial material. Sarfatti is a crank, spewing gibberish, and is probably mentally ill. [9]

If that's the best we can do, we'd better say that:

• Blogger David Hertz called Sarfatti "a crank".

But this harks back to notability. Is a random, uncredentialed blogger someone we want to be quoting for an encyclopedia article of enduring value? Uncle Ed 04:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference 2 above does not support the charge that I am a crank etc. In fact it is from a book by Robert Anton Wilson "Dr. John Archibald Wheeler and Dr. Jack Sarfatti have offered even more radical offshoots of this notion. Dr. Wheeler has proposed that every atomic or sub-atomic experiment we perform changes every particle in the universe everywhichway in time, all the way back to the Big Bang. The universe is in constant creation, as in Sufism, but atomic physicists are its creators.

Dr. Sarfatti is working on the theory of information-without-transportation and hopes to develop an FTL system which will indeed allow me to send an email (or its equivalent) to Julius Caesar with all the paradoxes that might result, producing multiple parallel universes."

What's wrong with you people? Can't you get anything right? You guys would fit in fine in The Spanish Inquisition! JackSarfatti 12.02 AM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)

Please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarkss. Uncle Ed 13:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not looking very hard, especially considering much of his infamy comes from USENET, so how about trying Google Groups? Some search results:

• 419 for Jack Sarfatti crackpot
• 328 for Jack Sarfatti crazy
• 253 for Jack Sarfatti delusional
• 199 for Jack Sarfatti nuts
• 191 for Jack Sarfatti kook
• 155 for Jack Sarfatti crank
• 105 for Jack Sarfatti paranoid
• 95 for Jack Sarfatti nut
• 95 for Jack Sarfatti lunatic
• 75 for Jack Sarfatti nutty
• 30 for Jack Sarfatti cuckoo
• 28 for Jack Sarfatti flake
• 22 for Jack Sarfatti nutcase
• 17 for Jack Sarfatti "kook of the month"
• 7 for Jack Sarfatti whacko
• 6 for Jack Sarfatti fruitcake
• 2 for Jack Sarfatti screwball
• 2 for Jack Sarfatti "tinfoil hat"
• 1 for Jack Sarfatti fruitbat

Yes, a lot of overlap and unrelated coincidences, but a quick spin through the top results confirms the essence of the second graf. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo and Anthere on avoiding smears

Anthere wrote (on the mailing list):

Please, avoid doing anything which could make us liable of anything, and as Jimbo recommanded just today "Let's please all review the page about him at Wikipedia to make sure that it does not contain "vicious lies, smears, slander and libel". Of course, we should do this with absolutely anyone... but here is a case when it is particularly important ;-)

I agree with the above. Uncle Ed 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The above shows how incompetent whoever made that Google list is. You can do the same Google test above with almost ANY CELEBRITY and PUBLIC FIGURE and find all sorts of vile trash about all of them. You guys have no conception of what good information really is. Put the President of the United States in there instead of my name what do you get? This is a really stupid exercise by stupid people. All of those citations, that are not by me using the word "crackpot", for example, are from a relatively small number of people with no credentials that I have pissed off when they present me with their not even wrong theories. It's their revenge. I can find no "David Hertz physicist" on Google.

(1) Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks; I marked 2 phrases which aren't allowed here. (2) Your main point seems to be that All of those citations ... are from a relatively small number of people with no credentials. Uncle Ed 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote ":Sarfatti is universally reviled in the physics community. Sarfatti is a loud and obnoxious crank and he gets his panties yanked up over his ears (atomic wedgie!) on a regular basis when he posts to sci.physics. Sarfatti isn't a heterodox scientist posting controversial material. Sarfatti is a crank, spewing gibberish, and is probably mentally ill."? I have lots of political enemies and for you to cite this kind of crap is vicious defamation, if you do not check your sources. I am sure that Jimbo and Uncle Ed will not allow it.

Excuse me for breaking in, but I'm the one who posted Hertz's blog comment here on the talk page. Please understand that I did so, not to support Sarfatti critics, but to describe them. Wikipedia needs to describe David Hertz's standing in the science community. All we know about him (as of yesterday) is that he signed a blog entry which criticized Dr. Sarfatti. Uncle Ed 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is David Herttz? I never heard of him. Did he conduct a pole of physicists? Let's see the data? What about the remarks of the 3 physicists above? They are outweighed by "David Hertz"? I can't find him on Google. Anyone can say anything about anybody! You are violating due diligence checking your sources. If by now my words do not show you I am not what Hertz describes then you are simply really stupid.

I agree that negative personal remarks should be omitted consistently no double standard

personal remarks should be omitted --Uncle Ed

Fine, so "stupid people" is a negative personal remark. I agree. But "crank" , "kook", "crackpot" used against me is also a negative personal remark. You say it is not? Well that violates The Rule of Law, IF that is what you say here? That is a Double Standard in which the rights of dissident thinkers are trod over.

SIMPLE LITMUS TEST FOR "CRACKPOT" ...

When scientific errors are objectively pointed out with rational detailed argument and explanation, does the subject retract his error?

If YES, then the subject is NOT a crackpot, kook, crank etc

If NO, then he or she is.

By that test I am NOT a "crackpot". Therefore to use such a slur on me is defamation, slander and libel, because it simply is not true.

Furthermore, it is illegitimate to say that investigation of UFOs and paranormal, consciousness, and cold fusion ipso-facto makes one into a crackpot. By that criterion Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize in physics, Fellow of the Royal Society, Professor at Cambridge University is also a "crackpot" in the same Ship of Fools with me. Now what is wrong with this picture?

Sir Roger Penrose FRS, Professor at Oxford, would also be on board with us by that criterion.

Jack Sarfatti

Negative Spin

The "editors" focus on the negative and never mention my many supporters! Now why do you think that is? I will tell you. Most of the negative stuff about me originated in an old tiff between me and John Baez and his lackeys who include CH. Also I was attacked for attacking Paul Ginsparg who is part of the Baez Inquisition and is, in fact, one of the most hated and feared men in the entire physics community because of his increasingly dictatorial Stalinist control of the Cornell archive. Nobel Prize physicist Brian Josephson has led the charge against Ginsparg. This is the biggest scandal in physics today, CH is part of that problem.

Suppose we stipulate (for the moment) that this account of the tiff and its fallout is true. Our challenge as volunteers writing for this encyclopedia is to put this dispute into perspective. I suggest a strategy of writing a series of unbiased, properly sourced articles on each of the figures in the dispute:

• John Baez
• CH - please spell out full name
• Paul Ginsparg

We also may need to know what's in the Cornell archive. Uncle Ed 13:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI: CH == Chris Hillman== User:Hillman. Read all of Talk:Jack Sarfatti for details. arXiv.org http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html "Covert censorship by the physics preprint archive" by Brian Josephson, http://archivefreedom.org/

Tony Smith a real physicist, and a practising attorney mind you, says

On Oct 12, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

"Jack, I see that your wiki page has been revised. As of shortly after midnight EDT Thursday 13 Oct 05, it said, in the lead paragraph:

'... critics often characterise his work as being wildly incorrect and describe him as a "crank". ... Some of his wide-ranging speculations include UFOs as extraterrestials, reality of some parapsychological phenomena, speculations on faster-than-light communications, and most recently his design for space travel by warping the fabric of spacetime to form wormholes between distant regions, loosely speaking. ...'

Is that OK with you ?""

NO IT IS NOT! These Yokels do not even know that wormholes and warp drives and time travel are discussed in serious physics journals! They think it's only me I guess. Also mention UFOs, paranormal and they stereotype you with a knee-jerk reaction. They seem to have no critical thinking skills at all! Rampant stupidity run amuck. The New Barbarians. Cyber Trash!

"Aside from such prejudicial phrases as "wildly incorrect", I wonder if it is worth the effort to correct the erroneous description of your current UFO propulsion model as '.. to form wormholes between distant regions ...' when it is mostly to warp spacetime in the region of the vehicle using dark energy / Josephson junction techniques."

Exactly! These WIKI "editor" guys are really CLUELESS INCOMPETENT Dilettantes! Tony you should go in and correct it for the record. I am working with Uncle Ed on this. He is some honcho at ABC News I think who has pull with Jimbo Wales. He is the brightest of the lot I have run into.

"On another point, and this is something that seems to me to be important, if wiki is going to quote unnamed "critics" saying that your work is "wildly incorrect", then maybe they should quote me (credentials shouldn't matter, as UNNAMED critics have UNKNOWN credentials) as saying:

"The potential importance of Jack's model is that its dark energy may exceed nuclear energy as much as nuclear energy exceeds chemical energy. Therefore, if the USA fails to explore Jack's model, and if another nation, such as China, Iran, Russia, ... does explore it and find it to be correct and exploit its full potential, then the USA will lose its position as leading superpower, and either be doomed to second-rate status (if the new superpower is relatively benign) or be destroyed like Carthage (if the new superpower views the USA as the Great Satan)."

But of course that's too positive since many of these shlemiels have already made up their minds.

and

"My work, although using an approach different from Jack's, leads to substantially the same results as Jack's, and such mutual confirmation may indicate correctness."

Tony if you go in and correct it and add it, I am pretty sure Uncle Ed will not let them remove it.

"I would like to see the wiki article state what I say immediately above, and to see it have a section in which you describe your model as you have in recent e-mails.

Tony"

Go ahead and do it. See what happens. Thanks.

If the above is a copy of a Usenet newsgroup post, maybe it should go on a subpage of this discussion page - or simply be referenced by a web link. Wikipedia talk pages are primarily for its contributors to discuss ways of improving an article. Uncle Ed 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More Incompetence & Why is Jack notable?

When I do the Google "Jack Sarfatii crackpot" MOST of those citations are ME using the word "crackpot"!

I further object to: His reputation for holding controversial and non-mainstream views extends back to the 1970s. Although he has a background in physics, critics often characterise his work as being wildly incorrect and describe him as a "crank". These views, and the reputation derived from his advocacy of them, are major reasons why Sarfatti is notable.

Since when is it crazy and "cranky" to hold controversial and non-mainstream views? Think for once. YOU ARE PROMOTING A CONFORMIST TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY in which any one who does not belong to the MAINSTREAM, any DISSIDENT is suspect, is a CRANK! Einstein would be a CRANK back in 1905 you stupid stupid fools! You stupid people, you mealey-mouthed pedants, you Inquisitors who spend your time looking through the CYBER TRASH because you have NO CREATIVE IDEAS of your own, are no better than the Stalinists who imprisoned artists, scientists, poets, and musicians in The Gulag. SHAME ON YOU WHOEVER YOU ARE? You have NO SOUL. You are the WALKING DEAD! Sociopaths!

JackSarfatti 10.59 PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

If you're trying to get people to take you seriously as a physicist, and stop regarding you as a crackpot, crank, or crazy, then making lots of rants in which you call people "stupid stupid fools" is hardly the most productive way to go about it. *Dan T.* 11:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack, I suggest you go through this discussion page and delete the passages I've marked up with strikeout tags. This is not Usenet, it's a website owned by a foundation. This is not a newsgroup, it's a discussion page for an encyclopedia articl.

Two suggestions: avoid personal remarks, and keep the caps lock off.

You've got our attention; now, please learn our ways. Uncle Ed 14:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The Two Faces of Lubos Motl

I did notice that one of the citations was by my friend Lubos Motl of Harvard physics who does call me a "crackpot" not because of any physics ideas but because of my UFO contact experience. This is odd since Lubos also has a "joke" entire website in which he claims to be an alien ET! In any case how will Lubos be affected by the fact that there are high-level people in the US Intelligence Community who take the UFO phenomenon quite seriously?

On Oct 12, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Dan Smith said to Jack: "... It seems that your complaints about the Aviary 'incompetence' have ruffled a few feathers. What is your problem, someone wants to know. It's mainly about the physics, says I. Oh, well, he's just talking to the wrong folks. Hal is not the only physicist in the group, it turns out. So who should Jack be talking to? We're not going to tell him that. ...".

IF the Aviary is stupid enough to say things such as "... he's just talking to the wrong folks ..." and then, when asked who are the right folks, saying "... We're not going to tell him that ...",

AND

if the Aviary is significantly representative of the USA intelligence community

THEN

maybe the USA is so fucked up that it deserves to lose its pre-eminent place in today's world.

Tony

PS - I consider the example of "... psychokinetic bending of a spoon ..." to be unfortunate.

Spoon-bending, Uri Geller, etc, has bad connotations in many circles.

What is relevant here is NOT bending spoons in dining rooms.

What IS relevant here is:

1 - building a vehicle that can use dark energy / coherent nanoarrays to travel in ways similar to reports about UFOs. (Whether or not those reports are true is a pointless red herring.)

and

2 - using dark energy / coherent nanoarrays to direct such energy, either as a peaceful energy source or as a weapon, far more powerful than nuclear energy.

PPS - If the Aviary wants to ignore Jack, and to ignore my opinion about Jack's model, then perhaps the Aviary should consider some OBSERVATIONAL support for Jack's model:

Jack's model EXPLAINS the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft, and further,it also EXPLAINS the anomalous spin rotation axis of the planet Uranus. (In case the Aviary doesn't realize it, the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft occurs at the orbit of Uranus, and Uranus is the only solar planet whose rotation axis is parallel to the plane of its orbit. Jack's model indicates that is NOT mere coincidence.)

Bohemians and Philistines

I live in San Francisco's North Beach. I bet most of my critics here live in souless places, urban sprawl surrounded by fast food joints part of the lonely crowd. BTW books that mention me signficiantly include: The Star Gate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince Bohemia by Herbert Gold Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav Alien Intelligence by some Brit I forget his name Time Warps by John Gribbon and others I can't recall now.

Also you can here me sing in semi-professional shows when I was younger in music files on http://qedcorp.com/APS/ http://qedcorp.com/London/ http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

Listen to

http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html and click on html files at http://stardrive.org/cartoon/

JackSarfatti 11.37 PM, 12 October 2005 (PCT)

Now you're getting thoroughly irrelevant. Your place of residence (and that of your critics), and your singing ability, have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of your theories in physics, or the validity of criticisms of you. *Dan T.* 11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tone of Lead

It is simply a fact that many critics of Sarfatti are very negative about his theories and speculations. It is also a fact that Usenet is not the usual venue for publishing even highly unconventional ideas in physics. Sarfatti has been considered negatively by many since his involvment with paraphysics dating back to ths 1970s, long before the existince of Usenet, for which I have proveided reputable sources (and can provide more). It is also a fact that were it not for his provocative statements and the largely negative reaction to them, Sarfatti would not be in any way notable.

Now, none of that means that his critics are correct. It is true that many well-known people are strogly attacked, and it is also true that many eventually widely acccepted scientific ideas are considered absurd and crankish early in their history. (Continental drift comes to mind and there are many other examples.) It is possible (although I belive unlikely) that Sarfatti's ideas will be similarly respected in the future. (Of course that fact that many respected theories were once thought crankish does not alter the fact that most ideas thought crankish are always so regarded -- the crank thory that proves correct is a rare beast.)

But the fact is that his reputation as a "crank" or "crackpot" -- albiet one with real credentials as a physicist -- is what makes Sarfatti notable. IMO the lead paragraph MUST say this quite clearly, or we are distoring the facts in fear of a lawsuit -- fear which is quite certianly bogus. It is not actionable to say that people have called him a crank, when they have. It is not actionable to accurately report the general tone of the reaction to Sarfatti, on Usenet and elsewhere. There are those who regard Sarfatti's views quite favorably, and this should also be reported. But in the absence of the controversy surrounding him, Sarfatti would simply be another non-notable person with a PhD. Therefore that controversy must be the main topic of the lead. DES ^(talk) 19:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well put, and I agree. The controversy is the reason there's even an article. Friday (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive."

1) "It is simply a fact that many critics of Sarfatti are very negative about his theories and speculations."

False. You have not given even ONE valid example of that. I doubt you would be able to understand what the physics is about anyway. You cannot produce even ONE objective valid refutation of any of my physics ideas by anyone. CH saying "it's nonsense" is not objective. It's not valid. It is not rationally argued. No reasons are given. Also I retracted my FTL Communication Idea 15 years ago. Furthermore, making a mistake in physics does not make one into a crackpot! Also, you have suppressed the fact that I predicted the SUPERSOLID decades before it was discovered and before Tony Leggett, who gets the credit published his paper. George Chapline and David Finkelstein confirm that in writing and you have consistently deleted that important factual information from the article. That is hardly fair is it?

2) "It is also a fact that Usenet is not the usual venue for publishing even highly unconventional ideas in physics."

Sez who? That is exactly what Usenet SHOULD be for! INSTANT WORLD WIDE COMMUNICATION OF IMPORTANT IDEAS NOT THE CRAP THAT MOST IDIOTS PUT ON IT. Peer review is a joke in physics today. Everyone in the field knows it. The free market place of ideas is supposed to be the Wiki idea, or am I wrong? Mainstream journals DO NOT PUBLISH UNCONVENTIONAL IDEAS! What planet are you on?

3) Sarfatti has been considered negatively by many since his involvment with paraphysics dating back to ths 1970s, long before the existince of Usenet, for which I have proveided reputable sources (and can provide more).

STOP RIGHT THERE! You just committed a HATE CRIME! Are you ABOVE THE LAW? So working on paranormal stuff automatically makes one a crackpot? Is that your position? That's like saying it's OK to lynch niggers because they are less than human. Same idea. Think about it. Sarfatti thinking outside the box means he is not entitled to the same respect as someone, you for example, taking the safe boring path through life. Who are your reputable sources? Show them. Martin Gardner? Show where his exact text justifies your false extrapolation. Also, I do not in 2005 hold to the same ideas I did in 1975! Why focus on 1975 and exclude 2005?

4) It is also a fact that were it not for his provocative statements and the largely negative reaction to them, Sarfatti would not be in any way notable.

False. I would be notable for several ideas in physics. The quotations by David Finkelstein, Lenny Susskind, George Chapline and Tony Smith prove that. It's OK to say "negative reaction", but it's not OK to LYNCH ME and DEFAME ME by putting "crank" and "crackpot" on a very scant article in such a way that that is the KEY MESSAGE the casual reader will go away from. Now ANY LAWYER will tell you you are treading on shaky ground if you do that and cannot prove your case should it ever go to court. This is NOT a threat. I am on several TV shows and I am in Paramount Pictures Star Trek. That does not make me notable. I am cited in several popular books. That also makes me notable. For example, Herbert Gold's book Bohemia, not to mention The Dancing Wu Li Masters that I ghost wrote most of for Gary Zukav and that sold a jillion copies and is still selling after 25 years. My original Space-Time and Beyond sold fairly well also. So look David E. Siegel from Two Independence Way Suite 100, Princeton NJ 08540, your research on me is pure shlock. It's fragmentary and it gives a completely distorted image of who I really am and what I really think and WHY I AM NOTABLE!

5)" Now, none of that means that his critics are correct. It is true that many well-known people are strogly attacked, and it is also true that many eventually widely acccepted scientific ideas are considered absurd and crankish early in their history. (Continental drift comes to mind and there are many other examples.) It is possible (although I belive unlikely) that Sarfatti's ideas will be similarly respected in the future. (Of course that fact that many respected theories were once thought crankish does not alter the fact that most ideas thought crankish are always so regarded -- the crank thory that proves correct is a rare beast.)"

OK, THAT'S ENOUGH you SOB! I have several MAINSTREAM PAPERS of importance that are recognized. Details were systematically vandalized from the article. Prediction of the SUPERSOLID is a KEY ONE. That ALONE makes me NOTABLE as a physicist. You DEFAME ME here and you maliciously SUPPRESS the facts. You owe me a BIG PUBLIC APOLOGY! So what you SYSOP geeks are above the law here? You can defame me, but I can't defend myself? This is still America not the Soviet Gulag!

6) "But the fact is that his reputation as a "crank" or "crackpot" --"

DEFAMATION, SLANDER,LIBEL, HATE CRIME. Who called me that? What are their credentials? Why did they call me that? You better be ready to justify this IN DETAIL! Citing that IDIOTIC GOOGLE LIST will not do. It collapses completely as evidence under close scrutiny. What you are doing is BOGUS. It's VICIOUS and it's MEAN-SPIRITED. SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU! If I were a Warlock, I would change you all to maggots!

7) " albiet one with real credentials as a physicist -- is what makes Sarfatti notable. IMO the lead paragraph MUST say this quite clearly, or we are distoring the facts in fear of a lawsuit -- fear which is quite certianly bogus.

Oh yeah? Try me. I will get on a plane and fly to Princeton and have the Sheriff serve you PERSONALLY at 2 Independence Way Suite 100 in Princeton with a summons faster than you can imagine IF you succeed in your VILLAINY. This has nothing to do with WIKI this is UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL BETWEEN YOU DAVID E.SIEGEL and me. Got that? Capisce? Now that's a promise.

8) "It is not actionable to say that people have called him a crank, when they have."

I have just called you an SOB, should that be put at the top of the Wiki article on you? It's not actionable? Sure it is in the context of the Wiki article which SMEARS & DEFAMES me to the casual public. Sure it is when that is emphasized as the essential WHOLE OF THE ARTICLE. Now Mr. David E. Siegel, I am being nice to you. What's this thing you got up your @$$ about hurting me personally? It's very strange.

OK Mr David E. Siegel, BIG SHOT PROGRAMMER suppose I did an article on you that ONLY SAID that some BUM ON THE STREET called you a FRAUD. And suppose the BUM ON THE STREET really did call you a FRAUD and I had a video of you and him to prove it. Would that be actionable if in fact you were not a fraud? WHY Mr. DAVID E. SIEGEL do you INSIST on EMPHASIZING WHAT SOME BUMS ON THE STREET say about me when it isn't true? What's this Jihad you are on against me?

9) It is not actionable to accurately report the general tone of the reaction to Sarfatti, on Usenet and elsewhere.

Sure it is. You got a really big surprise coming. What's YOUR MOTIVE in all this? But the real question is WHY is that noteworthy? Is it news? Why don't you also write about how my farts smell? Shall I write about how you pick your nose in public and then eat your bubbkas? Shall I write that you never wipe your arse well enough and that there are always urine stains down your pants and you frequently forget to zip your fly as you eat twinkies? Suppose I write in the article about you that many people think you are a pedophile and in fact there are several demented people on the net who have said that you are a pedophile? Is that not actionable? This is all hypothetical Mr. David E. Siegel because in fact I have no evidence at all that you are a pedophile and I am not at all accusing you of being a pedophile right? This is all an academic exercise to get through your obviously thick skull that me calling you a pedophile, I mean simply reporting that other people have written such lies, would be actionable if I really were to do that on the basis of baseless reports by vicious low-life scumbags who were out to do you harm. You writing that I am a "crank" etc. is exactly as bad as if I were to falsely accuse you of being a predatory pedophile, which I am not doing of course, simply because I found such trash about you on the Usenet groups. Capsice?

10) There are those who regard Sarfatti's views quite favorably, and this should also be reported.

But in fact that has not happened in the article has it? The article is overweighted with the personal insults to me by vicious low lifes.

11) But in the absence of the controversy surrounding him, Sarfatti would simply be another non-notable person with a PhD. Therefore that controversy must be the main topic of the lead.

Mr David E. Siegel you are I would suspect a "Liberal with a mental disorder".

"But if it be a sin to covet honour,

I am the most offending soul alive." 

Henry V [Jack Sarfatti] 11:14 PM PCT October, 13, 2005

Books that mention Jack Sarfatti significantly include

Not a complete list: Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson The Star Gate Conspiracy by Pincknett & Prince Time Warps by John Gribbon Alien Intelligence by ... Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav [Jack Sarfatti] 12:58 AM PCT October, 14, 2005

DES makes a serious FALSE ALLEGATION with NO PROOF

NO IT IS NOT A FACT AT ALL! You cannot produce even one example of that at all! All the negative stuff about me is STRICTLY PERSONAL! You have not provided reputable sources and you have accepted the fallacy that investigation of weird stuff ipso-facto makes one into a "crack pot". That Sir IS A HATE CRIME! And I say YOU ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED and I say you are HARRASSING ME and causing me PAIN AND SUFFERING in the legal sense. You have not given ONE EXAMPLE of any of my PHYSICS IDEAS that qualify as CRANK. And don't say FTL COMMUNICATION as I RETRACTED THAT YEARS AGO! Capisce SIR? Is that POLITE enough for you SIR, or should I say YES MASSA! I know what you are. You are not fooling me. User:Jack Sarfatti ^(talk) 4:47 PM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)

False Allegation

"Sarfatti has, on occasion, used such claimed government work in order to attempt to silence critics by claiming that any public criticism of Sarfatti is harmful to the national security because it could disrupt this work. He has also threatened to report critics, and owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking, to the FBI or other governmental agencies as aiders of terrorism."

The above should be removed. I never threatened to bring in FBI about a website. That is garbled. I mentioned that the FBI was investigating a number of anonymous hate crime letters mailed to me and my friends from Springfield MO on Sept 17, 2005, which happened to coincide with the time when all this started. Also there is not enough positive information. My discovery of the Super Solid is major and the 3 quotes from Chapline, Susskind and Finkelstein. Who the hell do you think you are? Well, I will find out exactly who you are. Tit for tat. Again you defame me and I will take whatever legal measures against you personally if such defamation of me from you persists. Investigations of UFOs and paranormal is not sufficient to smear me with "crank" & "crackpot". I consider what you are doing to be personal harrassment and comission of a hate crime and will seek a restraining order against you if you persist. It is you who distort the facts by citing irresponsible people who have called me those names. It is actionable slander (libel) to emphasize that and to suppress the positive facts about me. In any case I don't think Jimbo Wales and Uncle Ed will permit that. This is not a threat to Wiki but it is a serious warning to Siegel. As it stands now the article is unacceptable because it is skewed to the negative and not fairly balanced with positive facts about me like the quotes from Susskind, Finkelstein and Chapline. [User:Jack Sarfatti|] 3:23 PM Oct 13, 2005 (PCT)

Jack, please stop the legal threats. Other editors will take you much more seriously if you aren't threatening to take legal measures against them. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 22:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should take extra-legal measures? Extreme measures? Surely you do not suggest that? :-) [Jack]

I think what he is suggesting is that you stop using the threat of legal action as leverage and engage in rational conversation instead of vitriol. If you want to take legal action, stop talking here and just go and take legal action. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal action? Legal action? Are you talking to me? I don't need to take no damn legal action. What are you talking about anyway?

On Oct 13, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Cliff May, Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, Washington DC wrote to Jack Sarfatti:

Walid Phares weighs in:

Cliff

Either suggested suicide: someone gave him the revolver and suggested it's better to trigger..

Or assisted suicide: someone shot him and a press release was issued

Here is what I wrote and said so far

"Top news on al Jazeera and in the Arab world, the officially dubbed "suicide" of Brigadier General Gaazi Kanaan, Syria's interior minister is a high indicator of storms to come. The Security General had ruled Syrian occupied Lebanon for almost two decades. His knowledge of the intelligence and terrorism web is boundless. Some sources in Syria and Lebanon, reacting to the news this morning called the death, an "assisted suicide." Kanaan, according to these sources knew "significantly" about the assassins of former Prime Minister Hariri. He "committed" suicide as the time President Assad would be addressing world opinion and the American public via CNN." Walid Phares

Phares on al Hurra TV: "Syria: General Kanaan's "assisted" suicide?" Phares on al Hurra TV: "General Ghazi Kanaan was the security ruler of Syrian-occupied Lebanon for decades. He has ordered executions, torture, transfer to Syrian prisons and has been in the center of Syrian connections with Terrorist regimes and organization for 30 years. He knew mountains of information on Terror and crimes executed in Lebanon and the region. He was on the UN commission's list of high suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. His suicide was most likely "assisted."

---

Original Message-----

From: Jack Sarfatti [10] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:26 PM To: Cliff May

Subject: Re: SYRIAN SADDAM'S SUICIDE? Yeah sure.

Odd, but perhaps not surprising since he was the Syrian Intel guy in Lebanon. Maybe it was payback for the assassination? I am going to check out Greer's Colby story again with my friend who knew him well.

On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Cliff May wrote:

Also (from NR's Corner):

SYRIAN INTERIOR MINISTER'S "SUICIDE" [Andy McCarthy] The Washington Times reports: "A Syrian official who declined to speak on the record told the Associated Press that Gen. Kenaan shot himself in the mouth with a silencer-equipped gun." How thoughtful to use a silencer. Wouldn't want to disturb your neighbors down the hall or call lots of attention to what was going on in your office. That would probably be your top priority while blowing your brains out. Posted at 06:19 AM [Jack Sarfatti}

The reference for the above is right on this very page: [11] *Dan T.* 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I get justifiably angry when I am attacked personally. You mean you don't? I am Italian from the Mean Streets of New York and I live in an Italian neighborhood in San Francisco. Also what is in the article is false. I do not try to silence legitimate critics talking about my physics ideas. I WELCOME SUCH OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. IF I MAKE AN ERROR AND SOMEONE POINTS IT OUT I CORRECT IT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEM! I do attempt to silence critics when they attack me PERSONALLY. Calling me "crank", "crackpot", "kook" is the same as calling me "kike" and anyone who does that to me should think twice about it. That's my code. Correct my scientific errors by all means, but insulting me is like insulting Cyrano De Bergerac and I have a long memory. I will do everything WITHIN THE LAW to get satisfaction for the kind of mean-spirited insults such as are still on the article. In the old days it would have been a duel at dawn. Capisce?

On Oct 13, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Gary G. Ford wrote:

Jack,

On observing Jacob Sarfatti, I quickly perceived in YOU - him - the RIGHT ATTITUDE of Inquiry!

Jack is quick and nimble, persistent and ARGUES HARD, but is not held enthralled with his own past defunct ideas, unlike many Academics who clutch at memory of a few once lit bright straws they beheld!

Jack Sarfatti USES his past Ideas, good, bad, or just part-and-part, as Steps of Learning to Advance onward to Higher Ground,

Readily admitting error when it is suddenly shown apparent, often at his own hand and deeper analysis,

Correcting, recovering, building, moving on, with misfires also as sources of learning, inspiration, as Jack wonders,

"Ok, ok, THAT combo was in Conflict, but what if we changed Item 'A' while leaving Aspect 'B' as it were? What THEN...?!"

Yes, Jack, YOU are THE MASTER MAGICIAN of Theoretical Physics, The Life, Free Flame of Inquiry, while many others are candle wicks sootily burning down, or kerosene wicks shielded by glass chimneys.

Some of the Brightest Others will be seen one day as Welsbach Mantle Enhanced flames, brilliant by virtue of field of inquiry (the Mantle) into which they fell to association, by accident, at the most opportune moment: Heroes of Good Luck!

Jack is out in the Howling WIND, fighting to touch The Face of Truth, yet he KEEPS HIS FLAME BRIGHT!

While others are bugs in academic rugs, warming themselves on memory of their past accomplishments, there is Jack, out in the Storm, fighting for the DEEP TRUTH which will set us free of the Veils of Ignorance/Half-Comprehended, Semi-Intractable Speculations, which flannel the eyes of the Academically Secure.

Keep up the Fight, Jack!

The TIME TO TRAVEL FAR is Coming Near!

Gary, swimp@shaw.ca

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks for your support. :-) The point is if Wiki puts up anything negative about a public figure then they have to do due diligence check their sources CAREFULLY like NY Times is supposed to do. The research done by my defamers was SHLOCK and of course in the case of CH and possibly others politically motivated as I have a history with CH and his Gang. Fortunately Jimbo Wales and Uncle Ed seem to be on the ball on this. It's OK to say my ideas are out of the mainstream and that I am often attacked. However, the attacks by non-professionals are meaningless. One must distinguish attacks on my character from attacks on my ideas. Attacks on my ideas are OK and indeed are necessary provided that they are not vague smears like pontifications "it's nonsense". An argument must be given and if I see it is correct I will retract. Crackpots don't retract. That's the key distinction. I have retracted on MANY WRONG STUPID IDEAS that pop into my mind such as the particular design for the FTL signaler that Martin Gardner mentioned. It's no disgrace to make mistakes. Covering up mistakes is what is bad. I never do that. I continually ERROR-CORRECT. For my politically motivated detractors to stand up and scream like hyenas "Look! Look! What Jack said!" 30 years ago as if I say it today, is completely dishonest. Every scientist has made mistakes! That's part of science! Unlike my funny friend from UNCLE, Dan Smith, I am not INFALLIBLE! ;-) My detractors, including the one who sent me and my friends anonymous hate-mail from Springfield MO on Sept 17, 2005 (reported to FBI) try to reduce me to some isolated sociopathic psycho without a life like most of them apparently are. I am not alone. I do not have 8 million supporters like Michael Savage, but I am getting there by BEING THERE! ;-) On Oct 13, 2005, at 10:55 AM, david mosier wrote:

Just emailed you an article from Science.com on Dark Energy. Have no idea if it's worthwhile or not. You can figure that out easily enough. Meanwhile, the latest WiKi entries for you seem to be pretty good-if they last. Whoever tried to smear you with the bogus WiKi entries has seen their plan blow up in their faces. By listing all the collected anti-Sarfatti lies and slanders in one place, and calling attention to them, you and others were able to address and refute them one by one, plus put your real bio in place of the slanderous one. If they hadn't done what they did, in the forum they did it in, you wouldn't have had the chance to nail those lies and slanders as efficiently as you (and others) did, and had the chance to get your real bio on WiKi. To say nothing of alerting your friends and supporters who will check regularly to make sure the real stuff stays up, and the bogus stuff comes down as soon as it goes up. They tried to smear you on the Internet but found that on the Internet, as elsewhere, Sarfatti has a lot more friends and supporters than he has enemies and detractors.

[[User:Jack Sarfatti] (talk) 4:03 PM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)

Unacceptable for the article

The following should be removed completely because it is obviously vindictive as well as so garbled as to be not true by not making the relevant distinctions. Any mention of the Kook.Net et-al run by irresponsible nihilists, the Cyber Nazis, is not a credible source and DEMEANS Wiki. Would Britannica put that vicious trash in? Would the New York Times? And still main point is that the article is unjustly SKEWED to the NEGATIVE to SKEWER ME. I am a COMPLEX CHARACTER and that article as it stands CUTS MY LIMBS off! It aides and abets Islamofascism and yes, quote me. Whoever wrote such stuff also in a past life hammered the nails into Jesus on The Cross!

I think the above, as well as your earlier comparisons of your critics to Joseph Stalin, falls into a similar category to the style of argument referred to by Godwin's Law. So, why haven't you brought up Adolf Hitler yet? *Dan T.* 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, he did say "Cyber Nazis". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that it's not going to stop anything though. --Apyule 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The objectional lines still in the article are:

"Sarfatti has, on occasion, used such claimed government work in order to attempt to silence critics by claiming that any public criticism of Sarfatti is harmful to the national security because it could disrupt this work. He has also threatened to report critics, and owners of Web sites with articles about him not to his liking, to the FBI or other governmental agencies as aiders of terrorism. [edit] Criticism

Sarfatti's websites have earned the crankiest rating from the crank.net website, and he has an entry in the net-legends FAQ (See external links below). He was given the Victor von Frankenstein Weird Science Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup " It's enough that people who dig can find that trash in the archives. [[User:Jack Sarfatti] ^(talk) 4:40 PM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)

Alien Invasion!

I fear for Culture when Robots Rule The Roost David provides the following disclaimer: The proposal to be discussed represents his personal opinions. Although David is employed by LEX2000 Inc., owner of APL2000 Inc., he is not a part of the APL+ language design team. His proposal does not represent official policy of APL2000 Inc. He does not know when, or if, APL2000 will implement namespaces, nor in what form they might be implemented, should that occur. For any official statements from APL2000 Inc., see their web site at www.apl2000.com, send email to sales@apl2000.com, or write to APL2000 Inc., Two Independence Way Suite 100, Princeton NJ 08540. David E Siegel (AKA DES) may be reached by email at siegel@acm.org, or by mail at the address above. User:Jack Sarfatti ^(talk) 7:54 PM, 13 October 2005 (PCT)

I have no clue what the heck any of the above means, other than that it has some connection with the APL programming language. Just what its supposed relevance is to this article is unclear. And your signature is broken; it seems to be missing a right bracket. *Dan T.* 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You are another Genius I see. ;-)

The above was a disclaimer I appended to a published discussion of a proposal for a change in syntax in the APL programming language which i made some years ago. Because I was then emplyed by the company that owned the product, but was expressing my personal views as a user of the APL language (and as a person then active in ACM's Special Interest Group on APL) I felt that I had to make it clear that I was not expressing company policy. All this proves is that User:Jack Sarfatti is doign web searches for anything with my name on it. The above disclaimer is several years old, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. It is also out of date, because the company it refers to is no longer independantly owned, which can be easily verified in the public record. It does identify the mailing address at which I worked some years ago. Some might think this was an attempt to harras or stalk or intimidate me. If so it is an ineffective one -- the address in question is one I made public years ago, and knew that anyone could find with a google search. I have no idea what User:Jack Sarfatti intended by posting this here -- I can't see that it either advances his position or in any way discredits me -- except that it proves that i am a professional programmer, and that I wrote some rather stilted prose as a legal disclaimer atteched to a paper (the rest of which was IMO rather better written) on the subject of APL language design some years ago. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred Alan Wolf

Wiki has a page on my long-time partner Fred Alan Wolf who has written many books on the same kind of paranormal consciousness stuff that I am skewered for. Yet nowhere on Fred's page is he called a "kook", a "crackpot" etc. Try the stupid Google test on him. [[User:Jack Sarfatti] ^(talk) 12:26 AM, 14 October 2005 (PCT)

A comment that I want to make

I've been looking at this for a while and after some investigation I would like to share some of my views. I don't think that Jack Sarfatti is a krank, but he does use their methods. This means that he clearly comes across as one when you first look at it, but if you spend the time digging through the material, there seems to be some interesting physics there (especially some of the earlier stuff).

I'm not sure if this will lead anywhere or help anyone, but there it is. --Apyule 10:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe his physics are fine, but his personal style, evidenced above in this talk page, is to go off on lengthy rants and raves where he calls people names, exaggerates his own importance, inserts irrelevant and incoherent tangents, and in general comes off as somebody who belongs in a place with padded cells. *Dan T.* 12:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that that's the case. His personal style definitely makes him nearly impossible to work with. --Apyule 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

He told me over the telephone that he is Italian and has a temper. He also said he's unfamiliar with the rules here and on that basis asked us to cut him some slack. I said he'd have to withdraw his legal threats; failing that, I'm going to leave him confined to his user talk page: user talk:JackSarfatti.

How we treat this man could have a bearing on the way Wikipedia's readers and the general public view our credibility. We don't want to be caught endorsing unsound science, of course, but on the other hand I don't think we can afford to denounce researchers working on the fringes of accepted science either. There's always that 1 in a 100 chance that this one will turn out to be the next Albert Einstein or Louis Pasteur.

Meanwhile, we'll hedge our bets because there's still the 99% that Sarfatti's speculations will never bear fruit. But as long as there's that 1%, I think we should remain neutral. Uncle Ed 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that he has been propounding unusual theories for 30 years or more, and has yet to achieve any widespread acceptance for any of tham, as far as i can determine, and has also yet to achive any widespread acceptace of himself as a creator of breakthrough ideas, i think the odds of that are far less than 1%, and that in general far fewer than 1% of even those initally dismissed by maintream science as "cranks" or simply "highly unsound" are ever hailed as "the next Albert Einstein or Louis Pasteur". But there have been such cases in history, and no doubt there will be again. You are correct that we should not dismiss someone simply because that person is not accepted by mainstream science. What we should do is report the views of those who support and those who oppose any such person, and attempt to indicate both the numbers and the credentials of those who support and oppose, as well as attrributing specific comments to specific individuals whenever possible, and not express as absolute truth any side of any such controversy. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations made against me (DES) here

Mr. Sarfatti states above that my comments in regard to him amount to a "Hate crime". This is profoundly mistaken, and if Mr. Sarfatti does not understand that, he badly misunderstands what a "hate crime" is. A hate crime is first of all a crime. it is not, generally, a crime to call someone a crank, or even to call soemone by a very insulting racial or sexual epithet. (For example when Mr. Sarfatti referred to me as an "SOB" this is not a crime.) A hate crime is typically a murder, attempted murder, assult, or other violaent crime, which is alleged to be motivited by a group hater3ed, for example by a prejudice agaisnt an ethinic group, or againt people with a particular sexual orientation. The use of epithets by the criminal is typically cited as evidence of this motivation. But without the violent crime, there is no "hate crime".

Mr. Sarfatti also compares my comments with the use of various racial and religious epithets widely condemed as unacceptable. IMO this is an invalid comparison for two reasons. First, I didn't directly express an opnion of Mr. Sarfatti (although from what I have read and from his conduct here, my opnion of him is generally unfavorable). What I did was to document that some other people have said or implied that he is a "kook" or a "crank", to say that this opnmion was widespread (admitly without citing sources, because I thought others had already cited the general Usenet view of him) and to say that the article ought to feature those views -- accurately sourced and cited -- promeniently in the lead section. (That remains my view -- but only insofar as these negative views can be accurately sourced.) Secondly, IMO calling someone a "crank" or a "nut" or the like is to take an individual opnion on the content of that person's views. It is opnion, it is perhaps uncivil, it may even be slander or libel in certian contexts, but it is far different from, and far less objectionable than, the use of racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs which attack an entire group, and which attack a person for membership in a group which that person may have had no choice about. I hope that on refelction Mr. Sarfatti can see the difference. In any case I hope that others here can see it clearly.

In the course of these remarks, Mr. Sarfatti makes what are clearly personal attacks againt me (by calling me a "blatant liar", an "SOB", and a person guilty of "hate crime"). He did this after he had been informed of wikipedia policy on personal attacks. I ask him to refrain from such personal attacks in future, and to consider retracting and apologizing for those he has already made.

In the course of these remarks, Mr. Sarfatti also threatened to sue me personally, and mentioned my work address, perhaps to cause me to fear this threat. I am confident that nothing I have written here is actionable, and that any such suit would be dimissed, possibly allowing me a counter suit for abuse of court procedures. If Mr. Sarfatti chooses to file such a suit, we will see what the reaults are. I have not been served with any process to date, and I don't really expect to be. Wikipedia has a policy (Wikipedia:No legal threats) against making legal threats on the wiki, and agaisnt editing wikipedia while making such threats or engaging in legal process against other wikipedia editors (particualrly over wikipedia content) off-line. Clearly these policies are violated by the above comments, which were, as i understand the matter, made after he had been notified of this policy. I note that this policy says that "Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you will not be permitted to use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article.". I ask Mr. Sarfatti not to violate this policy furhter, and to consider retracting the legal threats he has already made.

Ed Poor above says that Mr. Sarfatti is Italian, and has a temper. I am not Italian, but I also have a temper. When discussing with others, however, whether on wikipedia or off, I try to keep it under control. Ed Poor also says that Mr. Sarfatti is new to wikipedia and does not know all our policies, and should be cut some slack. That is no doubt true. But the rules of civil discourse are not notably different here than they are in most places. Many of Mr. Sarfatti's comments above violate generally accepted standards of civil discourse, which he should have known, no matter how new to wikipedia he might be. I ask him to address people and subjects in a civil fashion in future, and to reconsider his earlier remarks. I ask others to consider how much slack to cut him in such matters. DES ^(talk) 19:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a surprisingly mild reply to the torrent of abuse which Dr. Sarfatti has unleashed at Wikipedia. I am amazed and humbled by DESiegel's example of forbearance.

Jack, if you're reading this, please take some time to reflect on Wikipedia policies (and in particular our 3 telephone conversations) and consider a strategy which will help me, to help you, regain your standing as a Wikipedian. Unlike the pre-print archives, there are no hidden blacklists here. Withdraw the legal threats, and avoid personal remarks, and my fellow Wikipedians will permit me to invite you back.

You can communicate with us at user talk:JackSarfatti - this is the only page at Wikipedia which you can edit, when your account is blocked. Uncle Ed 20:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

the quotes in question

"My God! Most of the Pharisees here, The Pundits here, my self-appointed Inquisitors here are simply blinded by my Light, my ALIEN BRILLIANCE, My Genius, My Daemon, My Demiurge. See Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I have been out of The Cave a long time and you are all Cave Men. I am like Charleton Heston in Planet of the Apes! I am Prospero to your Caliban!" - 12 October 2005 [12] WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"All those who viciously attack me personally, I do not mean intelligent correction of any errors I may make, are Enemies of The Jewish People. It's that simple. They are also Enemies of the American National Security State. As Tony Smith has pointed out, we are dealing here with powers more powerful than nuclear. Powers both mental and physical. Uri Geller is a key part of this whole story of CONTACT. Ask Saul-Paul Sirag to explain it to you." - 12 October 2005 [13] WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"You cannot produce even ONE objective valid refutation of any of my physics ideas by anyone. CH saying "it's nonsense" is not objective. It's not valid. It is not rationally argued. No reasons are given. Also I retracted my FTL Communication Idea 15 years ago. Furthermore, making a mistake in physics does not make one into a crackpot!" October, 13, 2005 [14] WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

discussion about the quotes

A section of quotes from the talk page? Why? Surely there are better quotes from other sources. Friday (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Presumably for the purpose of disruption. --Carnildo 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I clearly stated my reason for the contribution as "the article as is fails to capture his personality and character". The subject of this article claims he is misrepresented elsewhere so I did not with to use less than an unimpeachable source to indicate his personality and character. He claims to have changed over the years so I did not wish to use a dated source. Carnildo's comments are against the guidelines at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We presume the best around here. I presume you did not know better. "Gaming the system" is defined at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as "the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy". You cite the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid self-references that nowhere refers to citations to thwart both the overall goal of "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a reliable and free encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in both breadth and depth" found at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the specific policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can find better more authoritative indications of the character and personality, by all means, add them. Deleting good content on spurious grounds is vandalism. You are now informed that your stated reason ("Remove self-reference") for reverting the proper content I provided is in fact "gaming the system". Providing new reasons for the same action is typically (but not necessarily) considered "spurious". My goal here is solely to provide accurate data concerning personality and character. Let's work together toward making the article better in this regard. Thank you. WAS 4.250 09:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes are rarely appropriate to articles at all; these ones are definitely not relevant. --fvw* 09:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If they are not relevant, they should not be in the article. Quotes don't belong SIMPLY because the are by or about the article's subject. We agree fully on this. I believe the quotes are illustrative and authorittive on the subject of the character and personality of the subject of the article. You can not and do not deny the authoritativeness. You clearly deny they provide useful information on his character and personality. Do I understand you correctly so far? Could you explain how it is you don't perceive relevant data in these quotes by him on his personality and character in his description of himself, his detractors and his scientific accuracy? WAS 4.250 11:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If we chose a different set of quotes he'd come off as having an entirely different personality; which you chose is arbitrary and POV. --fvw* 11:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. WAS 4.250 11:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How do we picture the intrinsic geometry of space-time on a computer in Sarfatti's new theory?

Research Note 1 bcc

Intrinsic pictures of 4D metrics

How do we plot on a computer, the local frame invariant

g(x) = ds^2(x) = guv(x)dx^udx^v

SSS example

r > 2rs

g(r,@) = (1-2rs/r)(cdt)^2 - (1-2rs/r)^-1dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2)

g(r',@') = (1-2rs/r')(cdt)^2 - (1-2rs/r')^-1dr^2 - r'^2(d@^2 + sin^2@'d&^2)

The infinitesimals

cdt, dr, rd@ & rd& << rs/r^3

These are 4 parameters to keep fixed in the computer simulation. They correspond to a kind of lattice spacing and maybe we can do something analogous to a renormalization group flow to a fixed point?

This metric is static - no t-dependence. We only have 2 effective variables, r & @ so we can plot g(r,@) with the infinitesimals as parameters.

Note that the EEP tetrad decomposition is

g(x) = (1 + B(x)^I)nIJ(1 + B(x)^J)

= (1^0 + B^0)^2 - (1^1 + B^1)^2 - (1^2 + B^2)^2 - (1^3 + B^3)^2

(1^0 + B^0)^2 = 1^0^2 + 21^0B^0 + B^0^2 = (1 + 2B^00 + B^00^2)(cdt)^2

Therefore

2B^00 + B^00^2 = -2rs/r

B^00 = (hG/c^3)^1/2(1/c)dTheta/dt this must be dimensionless

Theta = Goldstone phase of the vacuum coherence.

Similarly,

(1^1 + B^1)^2 = 1^1^2 + 21^1B^1 + B^12 = (1 + 2B^11 + B^11^2)(dr)^2

1 + 2B^11 + B^11^2 = (1 - 2rs/r)^-1 = 1 + 2rs/r + (2rs/r)^2 + ...

B1^1 = (hG/c^3)^1/2dTheta/dr

Note that the relation between the gradients of the vacuum phase and the set of global "coordinates" is highly nonlinear especially in space.

To be continued.

[UFO Black Ops Research Group] Oct 15, 2005

Who is the illiterate who can't spell in general and spells Sarfatti as Sarfetti? Also in all the heat above none of the critics mention the ideas that they think Sarfatti professes that are crackpot. MIT physics professor David Kaiser in his award winning book How the Hippies Saved Physics writes Sarfatti's name more than any other indeed over 600 times in the Kindle e-book. Kaiser does not characterize Sarfatti as a crackpot by any means. Also, Martin Gardner in Science, Good, Bad and Bogus says that if Sarfatti is correct about signal nonlocality then he will be "one of the greatest physicists of all time." Since 1976 many physicists are now taking Sarfatti's ideas more seriously e.g. John Cramer, Antony Valentini come to mind. Physicists in China are actively trying to achieve entanglement signaling without the need for a decyrpting classical signal key.