Text Size


Tag » David Neyland
  1. There has been dissatisfaction on the right with Mae Jemison's handling of the DARPA grant to get private investors to build a starship in the next 100 years.
    On May 12, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Angelo wrote:

    Jack, I heard that in 2 years (from Orlando 2011) she just did nothing useful, she did not find any single investor, she spent almost all DARPA grant (500 k$) and no one knows how, she left her partner Icarus Interstellar without a penny. I don´t know if this is the whole truth but I think that we are very close to it! :-)
    In fact this year Icarus interstellar is organizing his own symposium on interstellar propulsion and missions.


    Come on, Jack, regarding Hill´s book please tell me your opinion on the UFO propulsion system described by Hill. I think that it is consistent with the witnessed UFO performance, but...



    Some see the whole effort as a political kow towing to the politically correct left.

    Jack Sarfatti
    Back in London after two weeks in Paris, Provence and Geneva, the UFO controversy and the failure of the DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project heat up.
    • Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, AC wrote:

      "I am wary of claiming hard evidence when there is precisely zero evidence of FTL being achieved by UFOs. Tight-turns and flickering images is evidence? Sherlock Holmes' advised eliminating the possible before concluding the impossible. Don't mistake the light-show for the reality."

      Jack: You miss the obvious point, which is that if UFOs are real alien ET craft, the only way they can get here is with low-power warp/wormhole technology. The evidence is much better than a Roschach inkblot. Many informed people on the list think you grossly under-value the UFO evidence for real machines of extraordinary technology - including weapons. It's ultimately a Bayesean gamble. I am betting that real low power UFO alien ET technology is out there. You can continue on your path, but I doubt you will ever get serious funding for it. I hope I am wrong in that prediction.

      AC "As for funding proposals, it's far too early to propose to build starship. A sad fact that every starry-eyed dreamer presently lives with. My final question wasn't a rhetorical device - what sighting makes a solid case for FTL in UFOs?"

      Jack: Ask the experts like Eric Davis, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedmann, Hal Puthoff. My own focus is NOT the observational UFO evidence. My job is simply, ASSUME as a thought experiment, that alien ET UFO machines are here (possibly time machines from our future descendants here on Earth in a Novikov loop in time - Destiny Matrix) then how can we copy/reverse engineer their technology.
    • Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:14 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:

      Eric has outed himself many times in the public record.

      Begin forwarded message:

      From: ....
      Subject: Re: Eric Davis On the Limits of Academic Discussion and How this Stifles Progress
      Date: May 17, 2013 8:37:03 AM GMT+01:00
      To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com>

      Interesting. I've read the Hill book and have owned a copy since its initial publication. It's littered with margin notes and highlighting, as I consider it among the best in print on the subject. You might also be aware of Dr. Wang Sichao's statements, of Nanjing University's Purple Mountain Observatory, regarding tracking inbound objects decelerating from .8c.

      "During his August 23 speech in Guangzhou, Sichao stated that UFOs have been observed by astronomers traveling as fast as 80 percent of the speed of light at distances of between 150 and 1,500 km from Earth."


      I have been trying to find a contact for Dr. Wang for some time for a quote on the record, but my Chinese isn't good enough for cogent communication; I only took two years at uni.

      However, out of respect, I do not wish to use this statement of yours about Dr. Davis unless you wish to publicly out him, and I don't think that would benefit your working relationship. He is not responding to requests for comment. Nor will Professor Peter Sturrock of Stanford, who I am almost certain asked the question based on video imagery and audio of his voice, as well as a nondenial-denial statement of his in email. I recognize that going public could have damaging repercussions for Dr. Davis' career and do not wish to impede his work. On the other hand, that statement of his I quoted has been unnoticed on the public record for over two years and so I believed it was fair game. I note Dr. Davis is scheduled to speak at MUFON's 2013 symposium. I'm trying to line up someone in attendance to directly ask him for a quote regarding that statement.

      The technical details regarding the correctness, or lack thereof, in his analysis I'll leave to those better educated in the field. If I might quote that I'd be thankful. But a general quote on the stifling of fringe research into anomalous events is also of interest. I'm currently reading a fascinating paper by Roland Benabou of Princeton, "Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets" which I believe to be relevant, along with Kuhn's classic.

      http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Review of Economic Studies-2013-Benabou-429-62.pdf

      Thank you,
      Purple Hills Observatory professor says objects demonstrate anti-gravity capabilities
    • Jack Sarfatti On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:
      Yes, of course. I know Eric Davis for years from Joe Firmage's ISSO and I am completely aware of his position on this and what his real secret work is/was about. Eric is wrong about no evidence for warp drive in near earth flight. 180 degree turns at high speed is evidence as is sudden stopping and apparent dematerialization. See, e.g. Paul Hill's book. Also he contradicts himself below when he talks about the possible wormhole on the Bigelow ranch. Wormhole and warp drive physics are both essentially the same and the evidence is that there is a low power technology for them. I gave a paper on this at the Oct 1, 2011 DARPA 100 yss Starship Meeting. Vince Tefilio and two referees at JBIS, who obviously were not competent, mistakenly thought I was talking about simulations of warp drive in meta-materials. That is not the case and Jim Woodward correctly describes what I actually wrote in his Star Ship book (Springer-Verlag). One referee did not understand textbook quantum density matrix formalism - pathetic.

      On May 17, 2013, at 5:28 AM, JMG wrote:

      Dr. Sarfatti,

      We have been in limited contact before. Would you be willing to give a quote on the record concerning the limits of academic debate in regard to fringe physics and other scientific matters? I wish to write about how cultural limits within the scientific, academic and grant funding establishment impede discovery and stifle careers.

      The context of this regards a rather remarkable statement by Astrophysicist Dr. Eric W. Davis, who spoke about how some members of NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Project had researched aspects of the UFO phenomena in deriving speculative theories that were later published. This statement was made during a Society for Scientific Exploration lecture on the potential for Warp Drives, Wormholes, and Gravity manipulation in 2010. The talk is posted to the SSE website, and has also been available on the SSE Youtube channel for about two years; a link will be included at the bottom of this email.

      Dr. Davis obtained a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona in 1991, was a co-founding member of NASA-JSC's Advanced Deep Space Transport Technology Assessment Group, and was a contract physicist for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project before it was disbanded due to funding shortfalls in 2002. He has numerous published papers on the potential for wormhole and warp drive physics.

      During the Q&A session after his lecture, he was asked: "Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?"

      His answer was quite remarkable. A full transcript of his statement is provided at the bottom of this email. I've written a short news article on the matter which may be of interest as well, if only to show the quality of my writing and accuracy of presentation.

      The man I believe to have asked the question is a well respected academic physicist at Stanford, but he is unwilling to go on the record. After contacting the gentleman, he agreed that he had attended the event but stated that he 'did not remember' if he had posed the question. He then did not respond to a further request in confirming his identity. Based on photographs and audio recordings, I am confidant he is the gentleman in question. I suspect you would recognize him as well. But I respect his unwillingness to confirm identity or go on the record and did not disclose it in the article. In addition, after attempting to contact Dr. Davis, I did not receive a reply, indicating that he too is unwilling to go on the record (as is his right).

      This unwillingness to talk about statements made in public and on camera about a matter of extreme sensitivity to the academic community is the impetus for the article I wish to write. It will not editorialize the existence or nonexistence of UFOs, but instead will focus strictly on the issue of how exploring fringe topics can endager academic careers and thus stifle scientific progress.

      Sources for this work would include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Noam Chomsky's thesis on restricting the envelope of debate within Manufacturing Consent; material about the academic review conducted at Harvard University after Professor John Mack began investigating and publishing material about UFO abduction cases; etc. Again, the issue is not that I want a positive statement regarding the veracity of fringe matters, but that I would seek a statement about how fears of damage to academic credibility and even risk to tenure might impact future career paths for both established and up and coming academics.

      For background, I am a former technical staffer and computer services manager at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT, having worked there for about twelve years. Thus, I know the community and culture reasonably well. However, I am not an established print author, nor do I have a degree in physics. I simply hold a nontechnical BA from Harvard.

      Thank you,


      Source Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xDx1po_apZU
    • Jack Sarfatti Full transcript of Dr. Eric Davis' SSE statement (see from 37m30s on):

      Audience Question: Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?

      Dr. Eric W. Davis: The answer is yes and no. Secretly, yes and overtly no. Because the mainstream academics don’t like the topic of UFOs and they really don’t have any credibility with them, especially with policy-makers and decision-makers in charge of funding and programatics. They don’t want to hear the topics of UFOs. So, for the purpose of doing this officially [we didn’t bring in UFOs], but we did consider it under the table.

      And yes, there is a subset of us who have looked at UFO data. And we’ve looked at all the physical events and physical descriptions that have been provided by investigators from Jacques Vallee to yourself, and whatnot, and George Hathaway and so forth. And we’ve been able to use that data as input to give us an idea, and that data does drive the concepts that we did derive later on [when we did] the book and went into the original NASA program. Like warp drives and wormholes. For example, at the NIDS Utah Ranch, where I used to work for Bob Bigelow for six years, we had the experience of one scientist and one investigator seeing a wormhole – what looked like a wormhole – with a creature crawling through, and then the ranch owners had seen an opening in the sky in broad daylight with a triangular craft that came through it. Well, that’s an example of data that indicates there’s a wormhole involved. I mean, geometry tells you what a wormhole looks like when it intersects our space. It appears as a very bright – intensely bright – point of light and then, as the intersection gets larger and larger, it opens up and you begin to see the hole. And, things would be going in and out of it. So, that’s an example of two datasets that we verified at the NIDS Utah Ranch that match what I know as a physicist what a wormhole would do.

      Warp drives. We haven’t seen UFOs do performances that adhere to the warp drive, because the warp drive… basically it’s just between stars and we don’t see UFOs warping anywhere or warping around. We see them doing ninety degree turns and rapid motions; they disappear and reappear. That is undetermined yet. I would think that wormhole is a big possibility still. I’m trying to think of anything else. I would think that anti-gravity – we have anti-gravity in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and I cover that in my chapter in the book; one of my three chapters. There are aspects of anti-gravity, the properties of negative vacuum energy that would create a repulsive force that allows something to levitate up. And UFOs do exhibit that. So there’s Hal Putthoff’s Polarized Vacuum Model. It’s a different form of Relativity where instead of a space-time you envision space-time as a polarized vacuum of a quantum zero point fluctuations. And, if you exert a field on that medium, the fluctuations are polarized, that creates a space-time bending effect similar to warp drive and wormholes. So, we see that. We see that in aspects of what’s predicted.

      Article text on the statement Dr. Davis made:

      By J. Maynard Gelinas Dr. Eric W. Davis, formerly a contract research physicist ...See More