Text Size




Jack Sarfatti

16 mins · San Francisco, CA · Edited · 

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:31 PM, Jacques Vallee wrote:

Beowulf is right on. About 1970 Paul Baran (inventor of packet switching at Rand and arguably the true grandfather of the Internet) tested the first radio prototype of

the Arpanet by spread spectrum on the range of frequencies of the SFO control tower. He could do that without interference with air operations because the spread spectrum signal was undetectable -- low in the noise....

See More



Like ·  · Share


Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org



On Jan 3, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:


Ignoring the UFO data in front of our noses is a fatal mistake. Meantime let's see if the fly by anomaly is caused by a small wormhole. There are credible reports by Eric Davis of a small wormhole at the Bigelow ranch in Utah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinwalker_Ranch


Sent from my iPad


On Jan 3, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:


I actually tend to think that few civilizations will end up building Dyson spheres. Again, my suspicion is that it's possible (though not easy in the initial stages) to develop techniques for generating and containing negative energy/mass, and then you have warp drive/wormholes. At that point you can colonize (or terraform and then colonize) new planets. Most likely you don't want more than two or three billion inhabitants per planet (Earth is probably currently overpopulated). You'll primarily use FTL (some sort of wormholes or else readable quantum entanglement) for communication and not put out significant radio signals. So, I would really expect to *only* see regular planetary systems. We can't really say anything for certain until we get enough telescope resolution to see Earth-like planets and whether (1) they show evidence of biological processes like photosynthesis and oxygen-rich atmospheres, and (2) lights illuminating metropolitan areas.


Even such observations would not rule out intelligent life of very different forms than those found on Earth.


From: creon levit NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 5:02 PM



Subject: "zeroth order null result" from WISE for free energy and for UFOs.


More evidence of no high level ET civilizations in our galaxy: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134.pdf


The Gaia mission, currently in orbit, will provide a much tighter (probabilistic) bound. It is surveying a billion local stars. If any of them have a something like a Dyson sphere, we will know.


The Kepler mission found that most stars have planets, and that a significant fraction have habitable planets. So for those like me who do not at present find UFO evidence convincing, these missions, and the negative results from all SETI searches to date, reinforce the Fermi paradox. It leads one either towards “we are alone” or to the great filter.


For an amusing but serious summary of these issues see Bostrum’s essay "why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing"



Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project


10 mins · Like · Remove Preview


Jack Sarfatti On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:


From: Hal Puthoff 

Date: December 29, 2014 at 2:01:38 PM PST

To: lensman137@sbcglobal.net, 


Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !


Though overlooked by many, the recently declassified UK MOD report (so-called Condign Report, interestingly enough!), assembled in 2000 by the Defense Intelligence staff, though written to 'get out of the pubic UFO business,' has within its > 100 pages a number of gems of technical details, including an assessment EM frequencies hypothesized to possibly be involved in the Rendlesham Forest event. Available on the Internet from the UK National Archives - see below.




<< Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region


The Ministry of Defence has released this report in response to a Freedom of Information request and we are pleased to now make it available to a wider audience via the MOD Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. Where indicated information is withheld in accordance with Section 26 (Defence), Section 27 (International Relations) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Executive Summary

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 1

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 2

UAP in the UK Air Defence Region: Volume 3 >>


-----Original Message-----

From: Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net>

To: Creon Levit 


Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 3:19 pm

Subject: Re: The RAND Corporation on UFOs !


What about the testimony of Base Commander, Colonel Charles Halt, and all of the other airmen who were up close and personal witnesses to the highly strange events at Rendlesham forest? All the people involved in Rendlesham were reliable, extensively vetted RAF Bentwaters USAF security personnel — after all, this was a NATO nuclear weapons storage facility. They would never have attained those security positions if they weren’t exemplary soldiers. Unlike Roswell, where key witnesses weren’t interviewed until many years after the alleged incident, the majority of witnesses in the Rendlesham forest incident are alive and well. Halt maintains to this day that the object he and others observed at Rendlesham was extraterrestrial technology. Despite the apparent lack of physical and photographic evidence to that effect, we cannot discount all that important detailed and reliable eyewitness testimony. And it’s a safe bet that if any physical or photographic evidence was gathered, it has been sequestered deep within the black catacombs of the national security establishment. 


On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:43 AM, creon levit wrote:


Ok I'll read John's book too !-)


On Dec 28, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Colonel John Alexander wrote:


The evidence in favor of UFOs is simply overwhelming and I agree with Hal's comment on Bentwaters. In my book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities that is one of my top cases as it had physical evidence as well as veridical eyewitnesses. In addition, it was not a singular event. Like the Phoenix Lights and Gulf Breeze it recurred over long periods of time. That said, the ETH is only one hypothesis and may not be the best fit when all the evidence is considered. As I end my book, whatever it is (they are) the UFO phenomena are more complex than we ever imagined.



4 mins · Like


Jack Sarfatti On Dec 28, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:


My current guess is the same as that of the 50s AF generals; probably a small percentage of reports are caused by interstellar vessels. The rest would have mundane explanations and I'm also willing to entertain other explanations; perhaps a handful are some sort of "interdimensional" clouds of energy/organisms that occasionally show up. Some reports seem to indicate rather odd, amorphous shapes and lights, but others, such as those cited in the RAND report, do seem to clearly indicate mechanical craft.


I would consider "killer" proof to be recovery and verification of a physical artifact in the public domain:


1. A spacecraft or substantial component of a spacecraft (ie. large piece of wreckage with enough intact components and structure to indicate that it could not have come from any other type of aircraft).


2. An EBE (extraterrestrial biological entity). At least a more or less complete body that could not be mistaken for anything else. Preferably a living being who can talk to reporters, academics, government officials etc on camera.


3. Keep in mind the possibility that a mechanical artifact might also be a self aware AI that could talk to us. So, #3 is a combination of #1 and #2.


Now if we prove that we can generate and contain negative mass or negative energy density and go ahead to build a working warp drive or wormhole generator, such a human made artifact would be highly suggestive - you would probably be justified in making the leap of saying that UFOs are mechanical craft driven by this type of technology and so the AFC explanation is correct. However, in the absence of a physical artifact or being, either mechanical or biological, I feel that we must simply treat the AFC explanation for the small percentage of reports unexplainable by mundane reasons as a good one, but we can't be certain.


Given that FTL travel also necessarily implies possible time travel, some of the craft may be ours from our future light cone, or from civilizations that have become connected with us in some way in our future light cone. I treat this as a subset of the AFC hypothesis. Aliens need not be totally alien. How such back from the future interactions might play out we do not yet know - whether there is some chronological protection mechanism law of physics that makes consistent closed timelike curves (CTCs) or whether they are actually changing their past/our present.

2 mins · Edited · Like


Jack Sarfatti On Dec 27, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Robert Addinall wrote:


They did quite a good job IMO.


1. Cocteau's estimate of how many highly advanced civilizations may exist in the galaxy was very good and almost exactly how I've tried to articulate the problem at times. I'll probably now use this as a reference. I was surprised at the estimate of 100 million advanced civilizations/average spacing of 10 light years between advanced civilizations. My estimates tended to be an order or two of magnitude lower, but his methodology seems solid even ~45 years later. Of course we now know for certain that most, if not almost all, stars do develop planetary systems, but observing earth sized planets is difficult, so we're still not sure how abundant they are. We do know that a fair number of stars appear to have planets too close or too far to be in a habitable zone, but even that is already taken into account by Cocteau; he estimates 1000 million sun-like stars out of 100 billion stars and drops the number with planets in acceptable orbits to somewhere around 600 million.


Interestingly recent observations and computer models seem to suggest that binary and trinary star systems can have planets in stable orbits around each star, so long as the stars orbit a common barycenter at a sufficient distance; indeed some studies claim to have detected planets circling the two main Alpha Centauri stars (the third smaller star would circle the whole system outside of the two local systems). So perhaps Cocteau's estimate is even conservative.


To get ~10 LY average spacing we should expect civilizations in at least two of the following three systems with reasonably sun-like stars: Epsilon Eridani (though it's probably too young), Tau Ceti and Alpha Centauri. To maintain the spacing places like Gleise 86 would probably have to be inhabited too. So, either there should be loads of activity out there, or else: (a) correctly sized planets in habitable zones are very infrequent for some reason we don't yet understand; (b) for some reason we don't yet understand life fails to get started or to evolve beyond relatively small, simple forms; (c) civilizations tend to destroy themselves.


I keep an open mind but in the absence of data all I can say is that my instincts suggest that (a), (b), and (c) are wrong, which should mean that Cocteau's methodology holds and that there is a lot going on around the galaxy.


2. Another point where we now have a bit more to go on - the old light speed limit discussion further down in the paper. We now have the Thorne wormhole and Alcubierre warp metrics and the associated requirement for negative energy or mass, and we also have the accelerating expansion of the universe, which suggests that negative energy does exist in the universe. This is much more than having no clue as to how interstellar travel might work. Possibly we've actually already figured out generally how it works, but not the details yet. Obviously we can't build anything like this until we know how to generate and control negative energy.


Things like Jack's idea about changing the flexibility of spacetime by changing the speed of light might be techniques that further augment FTL travel or reduce the negative energy requirement.

1 min · Like




On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:28 AM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:




There are two problems here. They are that either the document is fake or the document has any disinformation.




If disinformation is to be successful, it has to have some level of truth or honest information. 




This is a necessity for establishing credibility for the entire document. Whenever we got any Soviet disinformation, the problem was to find those pieces that had legitimate information for credibility.  The same is to be true if this is real in this document. Regardless, some real information needs to be established.


Personally I feel the document is a fake because there is no clear identification of a government organization. Government types like to make sure people know about where things are going or from where. That involves highly classified documents so you can refer back any questions or what points may cause problems.  I might have missed this but with a quick scan, I did not see such information...


I read the Einstein/Oppenheim meeting and are you implying it was a fake?  If you look at it, this looks like a precursor for what this country has performed with respect to treating UFOs and so on.  Einstein carries significant weight. If it is a fake, then it was well done! This information is similar to what Col. Corso said regarding early UFO activities so there is some correlations. The question is to find out the truth from the lies.


It would be interesting if there was any mention of UFOs in the Einstein papers. I doubt it. Same for John Archibald Wheeler’s papers because he switched to gravity research around 1952 at the peak of the flying saucer craze and he had top security clearance.


Regarding typographic comments, this does not fly for several reasons. Secretaries may have had errors in documents or if critical, the author could have made mistakes.  Remember we did not have WORD or files of documents to the point that people published whatever they could get out of the typewriter.


Finally, the issue about alien communications.  Appearently SETI does not work because aliens may not use electromagnetic communications moving at the speed of light.  If they go supposedly faster than the speed of light, the messages would be months or years after the events. The only possibilities is a torsion field as predicted by the Russians or gravity waves considering recent findings from Podkletnov... Oh, I forgot, it was all disinformation.  So is the Kosyrev star experiment or that jets leave a black hole where this is not particles from an accretion disk but from the black hole itself because of evaporation…


Gravity waves also move at c.


Now to go back to other more meaningful activities...


Paul Murad

Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC






From: Ryan Wood <rwood@majesticdocuments.com>

To: 'Robert Addinall' <beowulfr@interlog.com>; 'JACK SARFATTI' <jacksarfatti@comcast.net>; 'IFPA GROUP-EUROPE' <ifpagroup@gmail.com> 


Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:45 PM

Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual -- REAL


If you think it might be disinformation of some sort, see my 10 page paper on this entire issue on majesticdocuments.com http://www.majesticdocuments.com/pdf/psywar.pdf


Or excerpted under authentication at www.specialoperationsmanual.com


WHY disinformation? Who are we trying to deceive? For what purpose? Scare the Russians in ’54?   If it were disinformation it is so good that the KGB would have decided to assign more assets to penetrate, Wright Patt, Area-51, Kirtland AFB, those people etc.  


After all the KGB ripped off the bomb secrets with ease.  Any logical military / political decision team would AVOID attracting attention to this matter.  So the notion of disinformation utterly FAILS.


We know SOM1-01 was printed with a hot lead printing press of the era according to author of the 1958 US Government Printing Office Style Manual. My father (Dr. Bob Wood) and I interviewed him in his home in Virginia, more than a decade ago. His read was that SOM1-01 is authentic because of the raised Z in the typography. The use of “screw driver” as two words and the capitalization of “First Aid” which is now first aid. Even the arrogance of the phrase “Central Intelligence” rather than Central Intelligence Agency suggested to him that the CIA involved. 


I can go on, but that’s not the point. Disinformation is not at all probable. Far more likely that it’s all real.  


Cheers Ryan


Ryan S. Wood


Majic Eyes Only – Earth’s Encounters With Extraterrestrial Technology


14004 Quail Ridge Drive

Broomfield, CO 80020

720-887-8171 (ph)






From: Robert Addinall [mailto:beowulfr@interlog.com] 

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:33 PM



Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS


I gave a couple of specific reactions, but as I said none of them positively confirm or deny on their own. Sometimes a manual will use superlatives repeatedly or spend a lot of time on vague generalities about the purpose of an organization which the people reading it should already know (for example, "very highest security" will not often appear since "highest security" already imparts the gravity of the situation in the context). Overall, Col. Alexander and others of us have a fair bit of experience with NATO nation military documents, so you get a sense of whether something smells off or not. Any determined disinformation attempt would do a decent job of forging a control page and initials/signatures of people who should have been there at the time, so again it's very difficult ‎to confirm or reject based on that.


I actually just finished writing another message about why I suspect that a lot of disinformation is out there about UFOs and will send it momentarily.


Incidentally I don't have any problem with you selling reproductions of MJ 12 documents; there is a market for it, and it's also valuable to see what disinformation is out there and to see if there are common threads or bits of good info that can be teased out.




From: Ryan Wood

Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 9:47 PM



Subject: RE: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?


If you think it’s a “fabrication and doesn’t ring true” then those comments are useless, it’s just speculation on your part.  


This is 1954 Top secret stuff…Why do even think you have a perspective on what would be true or not.


So now, I’ll give you some investigated facts. 


So the change control page has initials of JRT and EWL in it where those document control / MJ-12 control officers changed pages from ‘54 to ‘57. 


We know the manual came from Kirtland AFB UNIT KB-88, so I checked the phone book exhaustively for the JRT’s and EWL’s in 1955 and sure enough lt. JR Totten (JRT) and Col Edward Levine (EWL) both lived on base on Perimeter road.  Furthermore, our private detectives interviewed EWL’s family and they confirmed his “special” military service.


I could go on, but I think it’s just a waste of time.  Please give me specific reasons why you think it’s a fake.


Cheers Ryan


Ryan S. Wood


Majic Eyes Only – Earth’s Encounters With Extraterrestrial Technology


14004 Quail Ridge Drive

Broomfield, CO 80020

720-887-8171 (ph)



From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:jacksarfatti@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 3:41 PM

To: IFPA GROUP-EUROPE; rswood@majesticdocuments.com


Subject: Re: Majestic-12 Group Special Operations Manual - Website - BOGUS?


Right, but why is Ryan pushing this? Who really wrote it?



On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:


Yes it just doesn't ring true.


Of course it depends on the writers and editors, but military manuals from NATO countries usually avoid use of superlatives like "very." The writing doesn't ring true.


Also, a lot of the content is actually somewhat vague, dressed up a bit to appear specific. Again, this can be a problem with real manuals, but it's a warning sign.


We also know, generally, that the MJ-12 conspiracy stuff is smack in the middle ‎of all the disinformation that floats around on this topic.


Taking all the clues together it just smells like a fabrication.


Certain accurate details may have been inserted in it, which is common with disinformation, but overall it's still misdirection.


On Jan 2, 2015, at 1:12 PM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <ifpagroup@gmail.com> wrote:


Yes Jack, I concur ......

Pure disinformation... 

This is BS for mass UFO distraction from the real things.




On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 9:44 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:

Colonel John Alexander thinks the manual is bogus.


On Jan 2, 2015, at 10:08 AM, IFPA GROUP-EUROPE <ifpagroup@gmail.com> wrote:


Jack et al ..

Here are links to PDF of the "Manual"








On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@comcast.net> wrote:

comments on this?





  1. @JackSarfatti superconducting metamaterial

    Reply to @JackSarfatti 
    Image will appear as a link
  2. @JackSarfatti I envisioned such a material for low power warp drive in my 11-1-11 @DARPA @NASA Orlando talk @100YSS


John Cramer's paper in Jim Woodward's Starship book
Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Cramer continues: “The propulsion effects observed so far are quite small, but not so small as to be useless … because of the G-in-denominator and their strong frequency dependence, the inertial transients can in principle produce very large propulsion forces. … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out …” That is precisely, what the good flying saucer evidence suggests. “ … the most interesting inertial transient … is the ‘second term,’ which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives.” OK, here is the crux of Woodward’s conjectures that are beyond the fringe of mainstream physics today. For a long time I have wrestled with this. It seems obviously crackpot, so how can John Cramer take it seriously. Also Woodward is not a crackpot. So what was I missing? As Richard Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in the late 1960’s. “What you cannot calculate yourself, you do not understand.” I saw a lot of nonsense about the reduction of inertial mass from the material binding energy, but of course, that really is nonsense, since it would destroy the material. Then it struck me. Analogous to Lenny Susskind’s “horizon complementarity” in his world hologram model, it all depends on who is looking. For example in the Alcubierre toy model for warp drive, Alice inside the warp bubble is not moving at all. More precisely, Alice is on a local timelike weightless zero g-force geodesic in her local tensor curvature field. In contrast, Bob outside the warp bubble of the starship “sees” superluminal speed of the starship. Similarly, in horizon complementarity, Bob far away from the black hole’s surface horizon never sees weightless Alice freely fall into the black hole on her radially inward timelike geodesic. Indeed, Alice’s image will appear to Bob to spread out all over the surface of the black hole. There is also the issue of a redshift.[i] Alice, however, will not feel anything unusual at the horizon if the classical equivalence principle[ii] is correct. – unless there is a firewall. Therefore, the apparent change in the inertia of the starship should only be seen by the external observer outside the warp bubble. Everything should appear quite normal inside the warp bubble. More precisely it is the nonlocal Mach screening factor C that changes not the intrinsic local inertia from the Higgs-Goldstone coherent vacuum superconductor field plus the confined real quarks in the virtual gluon/quark-antiquark plasma of SU3 quantum chromodynamics.[iii]

    [i] The gravity redshift only should apply for static LNIF emitters, for example, excited atoms of essentially fixed position (static equilibrium) in the Sun or emitters fixed in the Harvard tower etc.. Therefore, photons emitted by LIF electrons falling through the black hole surface horizon should not redshift if the equivalence principle is correct. A locally coincident static LNIF in the gravity curvature field outside the horizon will redshift.

    [ii] Special relativity works in a LIF.

    [iii] P = CmV = 4-momentum of center of mass of starship seen by external observer

    F = DP/ds = CDP/ds + PdC/ds Newton’s 2nd law of motion

    D/ds is the covariant derivative relative to the starships invariant proper time along its local worldline

    F = external real 4-force on starship’s center of mass

    The Woodward propellantless propulsion term is PdC/ds as far as I can make sense of his proposal. Propellantless propulsion corresponds to F = 0. 

    In contrast, the observer inside the warp bubble sees C = 1 and dC/dt = 0.


My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory. For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
  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

If you could with small power (as in my DARPA-NASA paper) and at a distance manipulate the curvature field around an enemy ship for example you could crush it.

On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Ron S wrote:

. . ."there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see."

Well except that when we see something make what appears an impossible turn in the sky generating hundreds or thousands of gees, the only way we have to explain that is that those inside and the craft itself are experiencing no acceleration, meaning they're on a time-like geodesic in a warp ship.  The only way we know of nulling these sorts of gee forces is to not generate them at all, which is what warp does.

Exactly my point.

The skies are full of evidence of warp ships.  We just need to build them for ourselves.

Yes. By Jove, I think Ron S has finally understood what I have been saying although I don't think Paul Murad and some others have gotten it yet.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Adam C wrote:
Precisely. Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud contain a huge terrain for ETIs to use. Even if they have warp there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

"Bushnell, DM. (LARC-A)"  wrote:

  Unless they are hiding out in this solar system somewhere they pretty much MUST have FTL capability.......Reverse Engineering anyone?

On 9/30/12 4:26 PM, "Adam  wrote:

Not yet convinced the machine Ufos have warp. Insufficient data.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
The WMD effect would be the ability to manipulate the fabric of space evolving in time with small applied power even if warp bubble is standing still above say a nuke missile site. Imagine the controlling intelligence inside the saucer decides to expand the boundary of the bubble.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Adam C wrote:

Hi Angelo
Anything moving fast enough is more powerful than nukes from kinetic energy alone. Modern warheads have energy densities equivalent to a speed of 3000 km/s - thus everything faster is more potent than nukes.

However speed is distance so the acceleration track is very long for realistic accelerations.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Angelo wrote:
I find this point really crucial. Can a warp drive be turned into a weapon of mass destruction? If yes, how destructive can it be? More than a nuclear bomb?


   Da: Mike.L  
 Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 19:06
 Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012
The problem with this, from the point of view of any government, is that putting a space drive in the hands of an average person means putting WMD into the hands of the lowest common denominator. Anybody with a gripe against any government, corporation, or person will be able to turn an affordable space drive propelled object into a hypervelocity ballistic weapon to attack that which they hate/fear/despise. This is of course intolerable to any government that wishes to act in a way that will upset anybody, i.e. all of them. If someones space drive technology proves truly a breakthru and is so revolutionary that it will make space travel affordable to the average person, you can pretty much guarantee that it, and anybody that knows the details of how it works will be erased/classified/killed or discredited by the powers that be with as much energy as they can muster.

So OF COURSE a government backed 100 year starship group is going to say that "Travel to the stars will be difficult and expensive. It will take decades of time, GW of power, kg of mass-energy and trillions of dollars…interstellar travel will always be difficult and expensive, but it can no longer be considered impossible." and they will continue saying this even as the government seizes working space drives and sends out their own missions. So long as Earth is the only known habitable world, the planet will remain a pressure cooker that those in power will cling to power over. Jack Sarfatti's masters in the intelligence community, in particular (Hi guys!).

They need options to give to people. Places for disaffected humanity to go in a diaspora. When we advance our astronomical science enough to spot habitable earthlike worlds around nearby star systems, then I am convinced that, if space drives are achievable, they will only be made available to the public once there are places for the public to go to get away from earth's authoritarians without feeling the need to return to wreak relativistic vengance upon the planet that birthed them and the tyrants that sent them into exile....

Mike L


A website means nothing. It's the funding that counts. I never heard of this group.
Mae Jemison has a lot of fund-raising clout in the Democratic Party. Mae can call up Bill Clinton, Obama's top people etc.
If Obama gets re-elected she has a very good chance of raising big private $.
How effective that will be in terms of technological development is another story of course because her tech people are afraid of the UFO flying saucer issue even though some of them worked on it in the past with Joe Firmage and Robert Bigelow.
In any case, all bets are off until the POTUS election is over.
It's clear that the Star Ship effort will split into parallel competing efforts. This is a good thing.

On Sep 30, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Angelo wrote:


regarding Mae Jemison's institute "the Way", it seems that there is already a brand new interstellar research institute:



Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 8:52
Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012


In a related vein, Mike L. put me on to an article about the recent 100YSS meeting where in an interview with Mae Jemison, she allowed that maybe the 100YSS operation was not the ideal way to actually get work done on the starship project. . . .  She's tinkering with the idea of another operation (she calls "the way") as the thing that actually tries to get something done.  My sense is that that isn't what the creators of the 100YSS project had in mind. . . .  But we'll see.  :-)

Have a good what's left of the weekend,

Jim Woodward