by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

from Cassiopaea Webpage
 

The following message has been making the rounds of various discussion groups:

From: Marcello Truzzi
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: Sokal hoax in reverse??!!

http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html 

John Baez wrote:

"Of course, as far as science goes, what matters most is the merits of the Bogdanovís work. Arkadiusz Jadczyk has entered into a dialog with the Bogdanov brothers, asking what they mean by some of the things they wrote in their papers. They seem unable to give a straight answer. You can also find the refereesí reports for their Classical and Quantum Gravity paper here. Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case, but he does have a solid grasp of mathematical physics, and I feel fairly sure one can trust his account of his email dialog with the Bogdanovs."

As Arkadiusz Jadczykís wife, and the "mystical, mythical, historical" half of this "marriage of science and mysticism," I think that it is appropriate to point out that my husband does not have "some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case." In fact, my husband has one of the sharpest and most insightful minds I have ever encountered. I need to state for the record that I am the one who has spent 30 years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and the paranormal. I am also the one who has worked for many years in hypnotherapy - giving me a very good mechanical knowledge of how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep levels.

Mr. Baez, above, has read some of the commentary I wrote that has now been removed from the discussion of the scientific issues of the Bogdanov Brothers. I have now isolated my own views on this page so that it wonít offend the delicate sensibilities of those who spend too much time in towers - whether they be ivory or synaptic.

What do I mean by "synaptic?"

Let me try to explain: there is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subjectís awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject to physicists, so I donít want to get bogged down there just now. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Letís face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckolded husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.

I am not surprised at Mr. Baezís state of denial. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of his discomfort onto my husband, saying: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation," even if it has now been established that it is not my husband who has said theories.

In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen discusses the subject of denial which may shed some light on the context in which I have speculated about the Bogdanov Affaire.

Denial is a complex "unconscious defense mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality." Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well as completely subconscious. An individual who is deliberately and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual level of lying, concealment and deception. I donít think that we are dealing with this in the present case. What we are dealing with is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and "institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation, whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, etc.

Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite of denial. "Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people are actively aroused by certain information. This information can be

1)  factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective; it is obtained by impartial procedures;

2)  personal and narrative truth including "witness testimonies."

I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments - including epistemological relativism - about the existence of objective truth, are generally a social construction and might be considered in the terms of the hypnotized man who has been programmed to think that there "is no truth."

Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our lives.

Cohen points out that "All counter-claims about the denied reality are themselves only manoeuvres in endless truth-games. And truth, as we know, is inseparable from power." Denial of truth is, effectively, giving away your power.

Mr. Baez has said: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation."

What if, just for the sake of argument, "Jadczyk" is right (or in this case, Jadczykís wife)? What if Jadczykís wife can see the Third Man? What if, in this case, Baez is wrong? What if he has chosen to believe the hypnotist - that the Third Man is not in the room? In this particular case, what might it mean?

We have suggested that there may be a deep underlying reason for the Bogdanov Affaire. What if it is true? What if there is something in their work - a particular question, leaving aside whether or not they are capable of answering it - that is sufficiently threatening to the "theorized" powers that be, so as to necessitate maneuvers against them? What if their popularization of this question - or questions - might lead to someone else - who might be able to answer it - taking a second look?

John Baez will never have the CHANCE to know because he has chosen to deny it from the start. Jadczyk, on the other hand, may find out... And even if he finds out that there is nothing of great scientific interest in the work of the Bogdanovís, he has at least kept an open - if skeptical - mind, and has behaved with courtesy toward another human being.

There are different kinds of denial. First, there is literal denial which is the type that fits the dictionary definition, the assertion that something did not happen or does not exist. This most often occurs in very painful situations where there are conflicts of love: the wife would say that the husband could not have molested his daughter, therefore the child must be making it up. This also seems to apply to denial of the state of our manipulated reality. Our love for our parents, our need for their approval, is often transferred to our peers, our employers, and the State. To think about stepping outside of the belief system that makes us "belong" is just too frightening. It assaults our deepest sense of security.

The second kind of denial is "interpretative." In this kind of denial, the raw facts that something actually happened are not really denied - they are just "interpreted." If a person is reasonably intelligent, and is faced with evidence of phenomena that do not fit into the belief system of oneís family, culture, or peer group, there is nothing to do but to interpret - to rationalize it away. "Swamp gas" and the Planet Venus given as an explanation for UFOs are good examples. Another is Bill Clintonís "But I didnít INHALE" interpretation of his marijuana use. And then, there was the famous "I didnít have sex with Monica" interpretation.

The third kind of denial is termed by Cohen as implicatory denial where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are the psychological, political and moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement. For example, the idea that America is being run by a madman with designs on the entire planet is recognized as a fact, but it is not seen as psychologically disturbing or as carrying any moral imperative to act.

Cohen discusses five different contexts of psychological denial:

1) perception without awareness

2) perceptual defense

3) selective attention

4) cognitive errors

5) inferential failures

His conclusion is that "the scientific discourse misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon [...] a product of sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives."

Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going to deny nearly everything that I have written, because if John Baez - a physicist - has denied it, it must be pretty weird, below is the "context" that I believe may be important to the Bogdanov Affaire as I originally wrote it:

A most marvelous event has recently transpired in the ivory towers of science: It has been admitted - in a rare moment of self-reflective honesty - that most physicists not only do not really read each otherís papers - they canít.

Why?

Because they do not understand the very subject of which they claim to be experts!

Well, thatís bad enough - it is scary to know that our reality is being charted by a bunch of guys who are just playing "dress-up." But the deeper implication is more unsettling: that TRUE progress in science is being hampered by a "system" that may serve to exclude innovative thinking - and REAL science - by a far-reaching "good ole boy" network where, as Ark has described it:

Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but "papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living, must produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each other; colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students who quote their masters, after which they become masters, quoting each other, and producing graduate students who quote them, in an endless cycle of life in the aforementioned ivory towers.

And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is true in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results are really bad: there has been no apparent progress in our understanding of Nature for seventy long years.... And nature REALLY needs to be understood, because things are getting a little out of hand out there in the "real" world.

Donít misunderstand me: there ARE many very GOOD physicists - real experts - but they generally donít get prime-time play in either books or journals because they are so busy working on trying to REALLY understand what is going on, that they have little time to play the political games that get them the cushy jobs in the "stables" of physics, run by "big bosses" who are the interface with the government "approvers" of funding. And those of you who have read our Timeline of Secret Government Projects already have an idea that getting to the Truth of our reality is the LAST thing the funding sources wish to see happen in the hallowed halls of academia.

Science operates on funding just like everything else. We personally know many excellent scientists who are toiling away in hot little cubicles, underpaid and overworked, never using their potential - for what? Just to be able to live, to hope that one day they will have a little time to breathe, to work on their ideas, to make real progress in science.

There are also gifted amateurs - those who work in science for the sheer love of it - and who are excluded from the "good ole boy network" because they donít happen to love the politics.

And finally, there ARE those who are just as Ark described them - masters quoting masters - just because they can - because they admire themselves and their "master status." And many of them discover which masters must be quoted and HOW to quote them in order to get the most money for the least amount of work, all the while being considered the "highest master."

So it is in any profession; physics is no different.

But that is the "official culture" explanation. We can go back to sleep and get some rest with this explanation.

However, as we continue to ponder this little scientific earthquake, we get the feeling that something doesnít quite "fit" here. There are a number of reasons for this sensation of vertigo, including a number of communications from other physicists who have reported extremely anomalous "encounters" in recent years with "unknown" interrogators who make contact by telephone, seeking to "pick their brains" on certain - shall we say "sensitive" - subjects.

I have had many thoughts about the "context." Of course, there are those who will say: "the only important thing is whether the Bogdanovs are doing good science... forget about the attendant circumstances." [That is, in fact, precisely what John Baez has said: "Of course, as far as science goes, what matters most is the merits of the Bogdanovís work." Can I call íem or what?]

I disagree and hereís why:

As Ark has written, science seems to be controlled by money. Scientists, for the most part, HAVE to work on those things that get funding. There is nothing terribly unusual about that since that is a general rule for everyone. If you donít get money for your work, you starve and then you donít do any work at all. Yes, thatís somewhat simplistic, but still relevant to the subject here.

The question is: what gets funded? Who decides? What is the context in which ALL science is being done? And then, of course, what is the context in which the "Bogdanov Affaire" has taken place?

Those who have taken the time and trouble to read our Timeline of secret and not-so-secret scientific projects - and those involved in them - may like to close their eyes to this evidence that science has most definitely been used in a very detrimental way in our world. After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.

So please, bear with me a moment here and letís apply a little logic to the problem.

The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy thinker." It just isnít "acceptable." Itís "un-scientific" or itís evidence of mental instability. Right? Thatís what you are thinking, isnít it?

In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.

Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the worldís military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the worldís most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. Itís an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by Americaís military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occurred in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what Americaís nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control Americaís nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the world's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Donít hold your breath.

This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection.

[Richard Dolan]

Consider this: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "national security state" to comply with the demands of the US.

Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

And maintaining the "status quo" in science HAS to be one of the main objectives of the Power Elite.

And how do they do that? By "official culture."

And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.

The fact is, I like to call it "Cosmic COINTELPRO" to suggest that it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, ítis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."

Usually, when we think of COINTELPRO, we think of the most well known and typical activities which include sending anonymous or fictitious letters - which are sometimes later withdrawn with an "apology" after they have already accomplished the goal of destruction; publishing false defamatory or threatening information; forging signatures on fake documents; introducing disruptive and subversive members into organizations to destroy them from within, and so on. Blackmailing insiders in any group to force them to spread false rumors, or to foment factionalism is also common.

What a lot of people donít keep in mind is the fact that COINTELPRO also concentrated on creating bogus organizations and promoting bogus ideas.

In the scientific community, this can work in any numbers of ways, the most common being "proprietary organizations" that fund research that leads nowhere in order to keep someone with promising ideas busy. It is not stretching things to consider that "exciting new ideas" or areas of research might be promoted for the express purpose of vectoring scientists into following false and time-wasting research so as to prevent them making significant breakthroughs. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties. According to investigators, these FBI programs were noteworthy because all documents relating to them were stamped "do not file." This meant that they were never filed in the system, and for all intents and purposes, did not exist. This cover was blown after activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania in 1971. What we do not know is how far and wide the practice extends, though we can certainly guess.

There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.

So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In our opinion, the CIA is but one "arm" of the cult, just as Benedictines were but one order of the Catholic Church. To borrow from, and paraphrasing, Marchetti:

This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Itís membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.

And we are seeing it happen before our very eyes!

Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.

Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.

In "Zen And the Art of Debunkery," thinker and writer, Daniel Drasin describes the goals of true science, exposes the pseudo-scientific opposition to scientific advancement, then reveals some of the absurdities one must rely on to be a "natural" at COINTELPRO - whether one is receiving pay from the alphabet soup guys or not. A few of the items in his list are:

∑ Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

∑ Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

∑ Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science.

(Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

∑ Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

∑ Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

∑ Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

(Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuriesí worth of denial free and clear!)

∑ If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

∑ Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Maintain the idea that a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect." [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

∑ If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *any*thing.

∑ In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

∑ Practice debunkery-by-association. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

∑ Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing whatís *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

∑ Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the orthodox approach as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of the unorthodox approach as so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but thereís nothing there to study!" Characterize any unorthodox scientist as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the mediaís favorite code-word for "bogus." [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Hereís how:

a) take one element of a case completely out of context;

b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it;

c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained;

d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!

∑ Label any poorly-understood research "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If youíre lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries! [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyoneís claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position theyíve taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis-replicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that "to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

∑ Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

∑ When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

∑ If youíre unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad-hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."

∑ Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge.

∑ Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that youíve "found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!" ∑ Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.

We are observing and reporting the Bogdanov Affaire in almost real time, as it began and as it develops. And lo and behold! the elements of debunkery are coming into play exactly as described above! [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Why is it so that scientists - most particularly physicists and mathematicians of a good and honest disposition - seem to be the ones who most actively resist the very idea that their profession MAY have been taken over and "vectored" by conspirators who do not have humanityís best interests at heart?

Why do scientists - those to whom the power elite MUST look for solutions to their "power problems" - think for one instant that their profession is exempt from conspiratorial manipulation and management?

That just isnít logical, is it?

In the physical sciences, very often machines and instruments are utilized to "take measurements." In order to achieve accuracy with even the most accurately tooled device, certain tests are undertaken to establish the "reading error" of the gadget. What we would like to suggest is that the "official culture" that establishes what may or may not be taken "seriously" is a planned and deliberate "reading error" built into the "machine" of science - our very thinking - the suggestions of the "hypnotist." [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

William March wrote in The Bad Seed:

[G]ood people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others doing the things they themselves are incapable of doingÖ

Without a historical context of science, there is little possibility that a sincere scientist - who is generally not much interested in history, based on my own experience - will ever be able to establish the "reading error" of his machine - his thinking.

There are only so many hours in the day, only so many days in the year, and only so many years in the life of a scientist. The amount of study that is necessary to discover the threads of "conspiracy," where they lead to and what they lead away from, is actually overwhelming. I know: Iíve spent about 30 years doing it. Whatís more, I began my research from a skeptical point of view that "conspiracy" was paranoid thinking and I was determined to find the way to demonstrate that there was NO conspiracy. Unfortunately, not only did my plan fail - my hypothesis was utterly demolished by the hard facts.

But what I did learn was that finding those "hard facts" was very difficult and time-consuming. And that is deliberate. After all, how good a conspiracy is it if it is so easily discovered? And it is clear that in such a high stakes arena as the Global Control agenda now being overtly pursued by the Bush Reich - after years and years of the "secret science" - whatever conspiracies exist, will be managed with all the resources and power of those elitists who wish to retain control. That is a formidable obstacle.

I would also like to mention the fact that, even though I am the one who has collected and sorted data, my husband, a mathematical physicist, HAS assisted me in analyzing it. At first he did it to humor me. And then, as he applied his knowledge of mathematics to the various problems I brought to him, he began to realize that science CAN be applied to these problems, and once that is done, it strips away the denial mechanism and one is left with the inescapable conclusion that nothing is as it seems and never has been. We live in an ocean of lies, disinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and smokescreens.

Too bad more competent scientists do not bring their skills to the solving of these problems. But that is precisely what the "Secret Cult" does NOT want to happen. And that is precisely WHY the most subtle and far-reaching of the "COINTELPRO" operations have been run on scientists themselves.

The possibility that COINTELPROis in operation in regards to the Bogdanov twins ought not to be taken lightly. Physics and mathematics are the numero uno professions that have been used - historically speaking - to support the power elite. It is logically evident that "they" have a vested interest in making sure that the money goes only to projects that,

1)  will augment their control; in which case such projects will be buried and no one will know about them

2)  projects that do not threaten their control, in which case we may assume that they are funding research in the public domain that leads AWAY from the "important" issues.

In short, if itís popular, gets funded, is allowed out in the open, you can almost guarantee that it is smart but useless.

You can take that to the bank.

Here is where we come back to the context. If we take it as an operating hypothesis that there does exist a powerful elite whose interests are served by science, and who have a vested interest in public science never approaching the "secret science," we have adjusted our "machine tolerances" and can look at the problem in a different way.

First of all we might wish to ask: who benefits if one or the other proposition about the Bogdanov affaire proves to be the "right one?" If they have infiltrated the scientific community with a "fraud," what might be the result? If, on the other hand, they have truly attempted to bridge the chasm between science and mysticism - what might be the result if they are ridiculed, flamed, and generally discredited?

These are all interesting questions that must be asked in context. So, here is the context:

The Bogdanov brothers worked really hard to get PhDs in physics. We are told that this was accomplished more by tactical maneuvers than by good science.

But then we face the problem of "what is good science?"

A general definition would be that good science is that which contributes the increase of knowledge within the scientific community overall, providing better methods of solving problems.

By this definition, there is a LOT of "respectable science" that is not "good science." Also, by this definition, there is a lot of "good science" that is not "respectable." In fact, based on our short review of "conspiracy," we might even think that most "respectable science" is deliberately vectored toward being very "smart but useless." And then we might suspect that the very best of the "good science" is deliberately ridiculed, attacked, or otherwise suppressed at a very early stage.

We know all too well what it is like to be subjected to COINTELPRO. We personally have known a number of scientists who died under unusual circumstances - most of whom were working on very similar problems - generally UFT and gravity issues. Coincidence? Conspiracy theory? Nonsense?

The stories about the "atmosphere" of their efforts to get their PhDs present some confusion. Did they deliberately plan to get their PhDs with an agenda? Was their agenda to bamboozle the scientific community - to take it by storm - for the express purpose of exposing its "reading errors?" Well, if that is the case, considering the state of science, then they could be seen as "folk heroes." They might be viewed as very clever in utilizing the context to accomplish a very benevolent objective. As it happens, one of the effects - even if somewhat trivial - is the following, announced by John Baez, quoted above:

You may be pleased to know that Classical and Quantum Gravity has decided to stop using the 2 referees who accepted the Bogdanovís paper. I donít know about the other journals who accepted papers of theirs... but of these journals, Classical and Quantum Gravity is supposedly the most prestigious, with therefore the most to lose.

If the same standards were applied to all papers published in their journal, the numbers of affected papers may be guessed to be 25% or more.

What is interesting is the "timing" of this affair just at the moment that France is causing some problems for the Bush Reichís War plans. In short: is the Bogdanov affair an emerging effect of the overt imposition of "official culture?" A sort of US vs. France/Old Europe?

And in this case, who is on first?

Actually, this would be a question that might be best answered by scientific analysis. When one is considering such things as COINTELPRO, the confusing elements of double and triple reverse psychology might be sorted out by those who are trained to use mathematically logical constructs. However, they are the very ones who are most turned off by the very idea. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

We suggest that is deliberate.

Are the Bogdanovís targets of a clever COINTELPROoperation because they may be popularizing something that the "powers that be" wish to avoid? Maybe it is just science in general? Or, are they being publicly "attacked" to engender sympathy for their work, and to make people suspect that they are targets of a COINTELPROoperation so that all of the attention of science will be vectored to their ideas and away from truly "good science?"

It will certainly take more investigation, more collecting of data, more analysis of cause, effect and results before it is even possible to come to a conclusion. This can only proceed in a fair and objective way with the cooperation of the Bogdanovs. If they have ideas that are good science, but which are being suppressed by this recent "event," we hope to discover them, to assist them in clarifying and placing those ideas on a firmer foundation of precise mathematics.

If, on the other hand, the Bogdanovs do not truly have in mind any benefit to good science, but are rather "running an operation" for beneficiaries unknown, [which may simply be their own egos] then it is very likely that they will withdraw from legitimate scientific scrutiny and cooperation in an effort to get to the bottom of the matter.

Who knows?

As we now know, "Ted" Newman is one of the primary individuals who spread the story about the Bogdanovs. Ezra "Ted" Newman, is also a signatory of something called the "petition against anti-Israeli boycott." This petition states:

The nation of Israel is going through a difficult time. Its very existence is being targeted by daily murderous terrorist attacks. Hundreds of innocent people, women and children have been killed by homicide bombers in the recent months. At the same time anti-Semitic attacks have become a daily occurrence in Europe. These developments pain us and concern us. We are aware that some European academics have called for a cultural and scientific boycott of Israel. We believe that this call is immoral, dangerous and misguided, and indirectly encourages the terrorist murderers in their deadly deeds. The government of Israel has the right and the duty to protect its citizens against terror. We sincerely hope that upon further reflection these scientists will understand the dangers of their request. We also call upon all our colleagues to express their support of the people of Israel in these trying times by fostering and developing scientific ties with their colleagues from the State of Israel.

Ezra "Ted" Newman is interesting for some other reasons. As it happens, Ezra wrote a paper entitled: Heaven and Its Properties. We find Newman in strange company with Andrija Puharich, Hall Puthoff, Russell Targ of SRI, Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Evan Harris Walker - ultimately leading to Tom Bearden and Richard Hoaxland, and the whole gang of the so-called Stargate Conspiracy. Hmmm...

The originator of the rumor - Niedermaier - is at Tours University. As it happens, the only French member of the editorial board of Classical and Quantum Gravity is a certain P.T. Chrusciel, also happens to be at Tours University. Here we find another odd "coincidence." Chrusciel seems to be one of the few scientists on the planet doing really interesting work in the areas of Unified Field Theory. These ideas naturally include gravity and electromagnetism - both of which have been highly controversial subjects for many years. These subjects - in recent times - have been subjected to extreme COINTELPRO type operations as the links to Bearden and the gang will demonstrate.

The whole subject gets even "spookier" when one begins to connect all of the dots in the timeline of American military science, only to discover that the University of Pittsburgh - home to Ezra "Ted" Newman - is pretty close to the home to a lot of strange COINTELPRO type activities - Penn State - the most scandalous of which was, of course, the Ira Einhorn affair. When we consider Ira, we find ourselves coming around in another loop to Puharich and the gang, as well as that entrepreneur of "Real Star Trek," Jack Sarfatti and his band of Merry Physicists with strange military connections. This then loops us back to the American Military secret science, and we start to feel a bit dizzy at all these circles within circles. What a tangled web we weave...

"The fact is, what the Bogdanovís did or did not write is no better or worse that the work of a large number of theoretical physicists who often use mathematical terminology rather less than knowledgeably, shall we say charitably? According to several experts in the field, there are a lot of mathematical physicists who do not know that there exist several inequivalent principal bundles with the same base, same typical fiber, and who also do not know the difference between a principal bundle and a vector bundle. What is even worse is that a number of these guys are known as "specialists of geometry in physics."

The difference between the Bogdanov brothers and the above mentioned "experts" is that the B.B.ís are ASKING for constructive criticism - they are willing to undertake the process of defending their work. It seems that one of the symptoms of the decadence of physics is that those who donít have a clue, do not even care about their own lack of precision or even competence. The Bogdanovs seem to be rather driven to unveil the mysteries of the Universe using their own money, while the nonsense promoted by Tom Bearden and the Stargate gang actually gets government funding!

As we survey this issue, what emerges is this: if the Bogdanov Brothers were not TV personalities, it is very likely that nobody would even care that there may be problems in their papers (IF that turns out to be the case!) What is evident is that the Bogdanov brothers seem to be sincerely interested in their ideas, have spent a number of years and a lot of money working on their projects, and have done a lot of good for science as a profession by promoting it to young people. On the other hand, the very fact that the Bogdanov brothers are television personalities could be an extremely useful tool for "vectoring" science.

But is it a Vector? Is it COINTELPRO? Who is on first?

November 5, 2002, Ark posted the following to sci.physics.research, the newsgroup where the rumors about the Bogdanov brothers were first made public by John Baez. As it happens, the post has not yet been approved by the moderators! It seems that it is open season on the Bogdanov Brothers, French Academics, but Ph.D.s at American Universities are a "protected species."

Arkís post:

The Bogdanovs - that I am trying to document in a balanced way at http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/bogdanovs.htm  (and linked pages) may be a good start for looking at "real hoaxes."

Recently I was prompted to study the book Conscious Acts of Creation: The emergence of new physics by William A. Tiller, PhD, Walter E. Dibble, Jr., PhD, and Michael J. Kochane, Ph. D. The Preface to the book is signed by Rustum Roy, Penn State, Wayne B. Jonas, USUHS and .... E.C. George Sudarshan, University of Texas, Austin.

Are we ready to be bitten by monopoles? Here is a quotation:

"Through the agency of a nine-dimensional coupling substance in the vacuum, called deltrons, the faster than light magnetic monopoles functioning in reciprocal space can interact with electric monopole substance functioning in direct space of physical matter. The vacuum phase transition mentioned above involves an ordered phase formation of magnetic monopole substance phase of R-space. These magnetic monopoles of R-space travel so fast that they íwrite the waves,í thought to be de Broglie pilot waves, controlling the movement of particles in D-space. A symmetry principle, called the mirror principle is thought to operate between D-space substances and R- space substances so that the monopole charge singularities in one space produce dipole images through the mirror into the other space. Likewise, the monopole mass singularities in one space produce images through this mirror into the other space. Thus the negative negative monopole mass singularities of R-space are thought to be the origin of the ídark matterí we currently detect with our instruments in D-space.(...)"

If you think that these concepts are explained somewhere in the book - you may be surprised to find out that after you are through with the book, you will not have an idea of what the "theoretical part" is about.

Now, let me mention that I wrote papers on magnetic monopoles and on "reciprocity" (including conformal symmetric spaces). Therefore, I suggest, that after we are done with KMS, signature fluctuations, and topological field theory, there is a new field to be exploited in the space of hoaxes: D-spaces and R-spaces and monopoles that write the waves, thought to be de Broglie pilot waves.... All supported by PhDs.

ark

Conscious Acts of Creation is being madly promoted by the "alternative crowd" as "proof" that all their "you create your own reality" ideas are true. Conscious Acts of Creation, tells us:

This book marks a sharp dividing line between old ways of scientific thought and old experimental protocols, wherein human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind and spirit cannot significantly affect physical reality, and a new paradigm wherein they can robustly do so! Öutilizing a unique experimental protocol on both inanimate and animate systems, that the human quality of focused intention can be made to act as a true thermodynamic potential and strongly influence experimental measurements for a variety of specific target experiments.

After almost 400 pages of speculation and descriptions of experiments and very little math, we are told:

Under some conditions, it is indeed possible to attach an aspect of human consciousness, a specific intention, to a simple electrical device and have that device, when activated, robustly influence an experiment conducted in its vicinity in complete accord with the attached intention. Thus, if they do it right, humans can influence their environment via specific, sustained intentions. [Ö] Some new field appears to be involved in the information passage that occurs between conditioned locales that are widely separated from each other in physical space. Even with transmitters and receivers located inside electrically grounded Faraday cages, highly correlated patterns of information appeared in the remotely located locales. [Ö] Although we donít fully understand them, we now have some new tools with which to probe the deeper structures of the universe and a new adventure is underway for humanity.

It is important to note that the "intenders" of the experiments were long-time practitioners of Siddha Yoga and could thus be considered metaphysically "in tune" to some considerable extent. The question is: What did they accomplish? Based on the descriptions, it sounds pretty earth-shaking, right?

Well, as noted, after almost 400 pages we find that the most significant result seems to have been changing the pH of a small sample of water.

Yup. Thatís it.

But we notice that nobody says a word about this sort of thing. At this point in time, the physics community hasnít said a discouraging word about Tom Bearden and his follower, Richard Hoagland - nor the interesting fact that Bearden is a former associate of Ira Einhorn, Andrija Puharich, the gang at Esalen and Penn State who flirted with the edges of the Secret Government experiments in mind control and the promotion of LSD to the young people of America. Nobody has cried "Hoax!"

Speaking of journalists: at the very start of the matter, Andrew Orlowski wrote in the Register:

Usenet posters describe the papers as "laughably incoherent". A fascinating thread on Usenet begun by John Baez brought the hoax to light, and persistent questioning by Arkadiusz Jadczyk on his website has done much to expose the pair.

However, as of today, Orlowski has written:

In his a terrific investigative report reporter Richard Monastersky adds much valuable material to the public record, citing some damning critiques of the physics establishmentís methodologies. "Theyíre sort of stringing together plausible-sounding sentences that add up to nothing," reports John Baez, who brought the Bog.Bros. to the worldís attention in a Usenet newsgroup. [...]

Almost all of the debunking in the Bog.Bros. case has come from Usenet posters and enthusiastic amateurs - Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk has been adding comments each day on his webpage. The traditional intermediaries have remained silent.

Do you notice that "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" went from being an exposer of the hoax - mentioned in the same paragraph as John Baez - characterized by his "persistent questioning," to being described as an "enthusiastic amateur." Forget the fact that his physics career makes him one of the few experts in the field - a mathematical physicist - who is qualified to examine the matter in its broadest terms. The reader may wish to have a look at his CV and List of Publications linked from the navigation table at above left to make this determination.

[Note added later: Orlowski has apologized for this characterization and has changed the text that is currently posted on the internet. ]

We also notice that Orlowski has described Monasterskyís article as a "terrific investigative report." Daniel Sternheimer dealt with Monasterskyís piece, showing how his "terrific investigative report" was not so accurate. Considering the fact that Orlowskiís report is showing similar "slanted inaccuracies," do we dare suggest that there is a possible agenda? Itís beginning to sound like George Bushís "Weapons of Mass Destruction..."

Read Daniel Sternheimerís response to Monastersky.

Then, consider what I have written here and it will be clear that MOST of the scientific community is being manipulated by ridicule and fear and just plain COINTELPRO which is the only thing that exceeds the speed of light in science.

No wonder they canít figure anything out.

The Pale Rider at High Noon...