[abraxasinas]

Originally Posted by Kojak

I recently saw Paul on camelot and was very impressed, and bought his book. I thought this would be a must for the library. Now I've just seen some information that requires some clarification from him. I must say though, I'm not here to cause trouble ,although this post would look that way. I admire Kerry and Bill and believe they act with integrity, I have watched all their videos, they do an excellent job, excellent!! We're all different, and all pushing for the "truth". Anyway, here's a link for you regarding the issue, the story is about 3/4 the way down, and here's the cut and paste below-

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

SECRETS OF ANTI-GRAVITY DEBUNKED
2009 Dec 27 from Brian McDermott
I recently purchased a book from you that you have been promoting on your website, entitled “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion,” by one Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D. May I say at the outset, that I am mystified as to how anyone could possibly have a Ph.D. and write such a book.

I scrolled down the contents page, and was absolutely gob-smacked to find a chapter there, Chapter 10 on Page 296, on what the author called “The Searl Effect.” I thought the author would be calling Searl to heel for misleading the public with his absolute nonsense; but, upon reading the chapter, I found that he went on waxing lyrical, singing the praises of the “Searl” machine, what it was supposed to do, what effects it had, how it “glowed in the dark,” how it “lifted itself off the table”, and went up and “banged against the ceiling”, how the “roller” magnets rolled around the ring, how it “went up into space”, etc. etc.

Let me explain my very own experiences with John Searl, some years ago now. As Past-President of the Inventors’ Association here in Australia, when I lived on the Gold Coast for some years, and with some successful patents to my credit and runs on the board – one of them winning the AUSTRADE Australian Export-of-the-Year Award for 1989 - I first heard and read about John Searl and what he was supposed to have done, in a magazine here, who obviously bought his story, as I did, in my naivete at the time, and trusting him, I spoke to him a number of times on the phone from here in Australia, and he invited me over to where he lived in north London, as his house guest, to inspect his “generator,” with a view to investing in it and developing it. He gave me next to no details over the phone.

After some consideration, and as I had some time and money on my hands at the time, I accepted his offer, and arranged to spend 10 days over there as his house guest. John Searl met me at Heathrow airport, and took me to a rented shack in th north London suburb, in what was a very low-class accommodation, a real hovel, to say the least. That was the first shock. After having a cup of tea and a piece of toast, we began to talk, and it took me about 20 to 25 minutes to come to the realisation that Searle didn’t have anything! NOTHING! He couldn’t even talk properly! All he wanted was for me to give him money!

He spoke of how his first “generator” took off on its own accord, glowing, and went up and bounced against the ceiling, the second one flew off into space, and he lost it – it never came back! The next one he made also took off and did the same thing, and it went up and flew over Denmark, and he had to contact some “amateur radio operators” over there and instruct them to send up some signals to it, which then turned it around and brought it back home, safe and sound! I asked him how he knew it was over Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that. I asked him how he knew who to contact amongst the amateur radio operators in Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him what frequencies he told them to transmit, he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him how they could transmit signals to a “saucer” that didn’t have any radio receivers or controls in it, and no steering gear or navigation equipment (I am a commercial pilot and former flying instructor also), he couldn’t answer that either. I could immediately tell that he was making up his stories as he spoke. Nothing made sense.

I asked him where it was now, and he said they dismantled it! I asked him where were the parts then, and or the NdFeB magnets, which were expensive, and he couldn’t answer that either. He made an attempt to convince me that it worked, and how it worked, and when he sensed, and then realised that I was not believing him, he stopped talking, and a couple of big crocodile tears rolled slowly down his face. He didn’t try any more.

He spoke of neodymium – he couldn’t even speak properly, or pronounce words properly, he didn’t even know what the properties of NdFeB magnets were, he didn’t even have one magnet in his place – no bits and pieces, nothing. Moreover, he had no technical knowledge whatsoever. I was absolutely flabbergasted how someone could carry on like John Searl did, trying to con money out of people. I am even more flabbergasted how someone with a PhD could write about him the way he has in this book. He hasn’t done any homework whatsoever. It is simply an outrageous compilation of plagiarism, to sell a book. Had I known that he had written up Searl, Townsend Brown, et al in the book, I never would have purchased it. It’s A CON!




I would love to know what's going here, who's telling the truth? Unfortunately this diverts us from the main game, but we need answers nonetheless.

Yes Kojak; I had similar experiences about 'pretend' scientific inventors and 'pioneers'.
Paul LaViolette is similar to Tom Van Flandern; both are 'fair dinkum' scientists with PhD's from respectable universities.
BUT both of them, in the course of their investigations, decided that there are fundamental 'mistakes' in the 'standard models' of the scientific paradigms.

Now of course there are humungous improvements to be made of those 'standard models'; BUT just as Einstein DID NOT 'throw out' Newton, but used Newtonian Mechanics as a Basis to build upon; so will the 'scientific revolutions' be necessarily build upon the basis of the Relativities.

Both Paul and Tom decided to 'throw out' Einstein and so soon 'lost credibility' in their respective academic environments.

Then both went 'alternative' and sought for avenues to 'validate' their 'heresy from the mainstream' in encompassing parts of the 'alternative science' movement whenever suited to their own agendas.

So I presume that Paul LaViolette came across some of Searle's (yes I remeber him being published in what was it Nexus, New Dawn?) claims and he then found correlations with his concepts, presuming of course, that Searle's claims would be true.

You, unfortunately have found out by personal experience, that the 'smart scientists' are as biased in their judgements as everyone else, when it suits personal egocentricities.

My experience was with an American, Joseph Carter, who published in a Melbourne alternative magazine called Nemesis (now defunct). In this magazine he 'made friends' with the editor in praising his efforts to 'expose' the bankrupt fiscal and medical systems on this planet. (The editor, George, was rather informed about alternative medicine and the banking rorts, but knew very little about science).

So Joseph Carter claimed himself to be 'the greatest physicist' who ever lived; he had solved the Fermat's Last Theorem (Years before Andrew Wiles actually did so at Cambridge); he was constantly monitored by the CIA and the FBI, who wanted his great inventions and on and on.

Now and this is important for anyone reading this; Joseph REALLY BELIEVED this to be so and was in no manner trying to con anyone.
How can I tell?
He handwrote over three long pages in meticulous handwriting outlining his 'brilliance and genius' to me as someone who had 'challenged' his scientific understanding via the editorial section of Nemesis.
Iow, Joseph had dismissed the tides as a gravitational phenomenon, ridiculed the Einstein Universe and Quantum Mechanics and on and on.

Reading his 'ideas of how the universe works', made me write a lengthy letter to the editor (all of this occurred over a decade ago, when I was not computerized) -outlining that the universe did not 'work the Joseph Carter' way.

Being a friend of Joseph's, George sent my letter to Joseph before publishing it to obtaing Joseph's 'scientific commentary' on my reply.

Joseph Carter replied to George in a most hilarious (to me, very serious to him I suppose) manner accusing me (and my supposed academic organisation) of whatever under the sun and so forth.
He could refute nothing I said and so a pages long 'letters to the editor' section in Nemesis stands as a testimonial to the event.

But it didn't end there and this is why I am sharing this story with the forum.
Soon later I received another personal and handwritten letter from Joseph Carter, in which he challenged me privately to deconstruct his 'theories about the universe' and his book: 'The Ultimate Theory' or something like that.
I replied and invented the following scenario.
My organisation was working vehemently on a particle accelerator or synchrotron, colliding muons with antimuons.
One of Joseph Carter's 'new physics' was the transformation gradient between eloectric and magnetic fields in such accelerators.
As his ideas would CHANGE the decay rates of relativistic muon-antimuon collisions; I made the following proposal to him.
'Joseph, if your new physics is correct, then we here, working on the muon synchrotron simply require your detailed formulations to REPLACE the equations of Special Relativity. We shall program the computers with your formulas and prove your theory and overnight you will become a world famous physicist and win a Nobel prize.
We here, after reading your works, are convinced that it might work.
We have written out a cheque of 10,000 dollars in your name; which we shall send immediately to you upon receipt of your ground breaking formulae.'

About 10 days later I then received Joseph Carter's reply.
He never mentioned anything about alternative equations to undo Relativity but said something like: "I've got something much better for you; a machine which will do such and such 'free energy' etc. etc. All I need is a generator or dynamo to get it going."
In this letter was a rough drawing of this 'machine' connecting to a power source.

I did not reply to Joseph Carter and he never followed up the offer of $10,000 to replace the equations of special relativity.

Hopefully I have not bored you with this anecdotal story (I've still got the letters somewhere); but to me the significance is the superegocentricity of such 'pioneers' and yet they are SINCERE in a basic kind of way.

Thanks to anyone for having read this.
I thought sharing this would be illuminative on a forum such as this.

Abraxasinas