Hal Puthoff ruins Nick Cook's & Eric Davis's credibility of UFO Investigations with his wrong PV/ZPE physics

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 9, 2004 10:15:04 AM PST
To: "Colin Bennett"
Cc: Victor Martinez
Subject: Puthoff ruins Nick Cook's & Eric Davis's credibility of UFO Investigations with his wrong PV/ZPE physics

Hal's job may be to discredit UFO studies by associating it with his bad gravity and zero point physics (with Haisch) that I found to be rejected as "crackpot" by several top relativity theorists at the GR 17 meeting with Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. On the other hand, it is probably Hal's ego that won't let him get off his no-starter go-nowhere wrong physics ideas! The top people at GR 17 derailed NASA BPP's funding because they associated Hal's bad physics with it. See what Dr. David Park, a past president of the American Physical Society, wrote about Hal's theories. Hal managed to delude Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly that his rejected theories are "mainstream" and esteemed by the top physicists in the field. The opposite is true despite Kit Green's statements to the contrary. It's hard enough to sell UFOs as legitimate but when you back it up with obviously bad physics - that's the Kiss of Death for UFOs in the physics community! Hal Puthoff & Co are harming serious UFO research by pushing their bad physics as the explanation of the phenomenon. That's The Truth! Hal's physics theories violate Einstein's Golden Rule: "Physics should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than IS possible." From my recent discussions on Puthoff's and Haisch's PV and ZPE theories with several top physicists at GR 17, the consensus of a significant sample of the Top Guns was that Hal's PV theory stressed in Eric Davis's USAF contract report on "Teleportation" violates the local equivalence principle and the coordinate independence of the laws of nature in general and in particular Hal's use of the exponential metric in the SSS case is mathematical nonsense confusing the isotropic radial coordinate with the Schwartzschild radial coordinate and ignoring elementary differential geometry and manifold theory. In short, Hal's approach to "metric engineering the fabric of space-time" is not considered a contender by the top people in the field.

See David Park's review "What's New" of Nick Cook's book
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002september/september2002.htm

On Dec 8, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:

Hello all savants,
I really cannot understand what the fuss and bother is about this article by Maccabee, Haisch and Puthoff. Did it really take three admittedly fine brains to write this anodyne resume of what we have all known for years? The last two-thirds of it consists of an simple-minded historical overview available in hundreds of books published over the years. Anne Druffel has written an excellent and definitive book on Condon, for example but these scientists do not mention her name. As for the first third, it consist of arguments published by Jack Sarfatti and Eric Davies long ago, and their names are not mentioned, either. The only excuse for writing this limp, bland, dog-legged piece of dead prose is that they intended a popular article for a popular magazine. It is the same old story - none of these three scientists have had a UFO experience. As such they approach the problem as an exercise in applied systems-engineering, with no human  element involved in the brief arguments. This is dry old station-master Ufology, reminiscent of Stalinists Dick Hall and Jan Aldrich, being list compilers and date-base expanders who would not be out of place at a late Victorian Seminar. As a piece of committed expression on the most exciting subject in the world,  this article is depressing - sufficient to make warthogs roll over and die, cross-eyed with grief. The next time these people want to present something, they should get in touch with me, and free of charge, I will edit and present their material in a manner that will prevent possible suicides.

If people want a lively Postmodern view of a model of alien contact, then they should read my latest article in Phenomena Magazine (Area 51 section). It bring bring them up to date. They should also read my previous article on Chemtrails, look up in the sky, and get a new idea of what is meant by "high strangeness."

Colin Bennett
HQ Combat Diaries
Portobello Road
Notting Hill
London
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: 12/08/04 21:22:59
To: Victor Martinez


OK
For the record I agree with everything in that Puthoff article except
for the pitch for PV. Hal needs to get off that dead horse which
damages the message on the UFO evidence with mainstream physicists in
relativity. They really shudder at the mention of Hal's PV theory.
There is nothing NEW in Hal's latest paper that is not already in my 2
books from 2002.
 
 
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Victor Martinez wrote:
 
> Calm down, Doc!  You know you love engaging Dr Puthoff in online
> catfights!  I received your lengthy response and I'll stream it either
> very late tonight or very early tomorrow morning before I go to school.
> I want everyone to read, review and digest Dr Puthoff's piece first
> before reading your rebuttal.
>
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti
> Date: December 8, 2004 8:28:24 AM PST
> To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)

>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 10:16 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:
>
>> www.earthtech.org
>>
>> then go to "What's New" for a copy of the attached report in pdf
>> format.
>> ---------------------------------------
>> IN A BOMBSHELL, IN-DEPTH, DETAILED SCIENTIFIC PAPER, DRs HAROLD E
>> PUTHOFF, JAMES DEARDORFF, BRUCE MACCABEE AND B HAISCH ADDRESS FERMI's
>> PARADOX AND WHY EARTH HAS NOT BEEN VISITED OPENLY BY
>> EXTRATERRESTRIALS,... OR HAS IT?! ˆ
>> Published in The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Volume
>> #58, Jan/Feb 2005, pp. 43-50
>>
>> FERMI's PARADOX: Physicist Enrico Fermi asked, "If there are
>> extraterrestrials, where are they?"  The fact that no convincing
>> evidence had been found of extraterrestrial activity in or near the
>> solar system suggested to him that there were no intelligent
>> extraterrestrial societies in the Galaxy.
>
>>
>> "If they existed," he said, "they would be here."  The same point,
>> also
>> known as the Space Travel Argument, was subsequently raised more
>> forcefully and visibly in 1966 by Freeman Dyson, in 1975 in two
>> articles by Michael Hart in the U.S., and David Viewing in Great
>> Britain, as well as by others.
>>
>> FLASH:  S.F. North Beach Bohemian Ivy League-educated theoretical
>> physicist Dr Jack "Rabbi" Sarfatti said to be in "shock & awe" at Dr
>> Puthoff's, et al, latest peer-reviewed, ground-breaking scientific
>> paper.