Conference hydra::dejavu

Addendum:

	Generally, "psionics" refers to the type of operation that can
be amplified or generated electronically (the Hieronymous Machine, for
instance, used "eloptic radiation"; Reich's box used "orgone").

	Generally, "parapsychology" or "psi" refers to things generated
naturally (telepathy, telempathy, etc.).

	It will make things easier for all of us if we find and agree on
standard definitions.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	One of the most detailed follow-ups on this angle of psychic 
phenomena (option #1) is a book called, "The Awesome Lifeforce" by Joseph H.
Cater.  My interest in this subject went from mild curiousity to a driving
interest (Awesome interest).  I tried to get some feedback thru some other 
notes files (Books, Life, Astronomy, Geology, SciFi) but I didn't get any
replies other than one (where can i get the book reply).  Once I saw this file
started I felt atlast here's the right place for this note.

	"The Awesome Lifeforce" covers in detail option #1's view on nature.
It claims that there is no option #2 view and that it is all explainable.
He describes in detail the experiments and findings of Wilhelm Reich, Hubbard,
John Searl, Baron Carl Von Reichenbach, George De La Warr, Walter Russell, and
Oscar Brunler.  He goes thru an exhaustive proof of why Einstien was wrong,
how gravity really works, the Hollow Earth, the unified field, soft and hard
electron physics, orgon accumulators, cloud busters, conquering gravity and
the speed of light, and how the goverment has played a big role in covering
up the release of this information because of the threat it poses to big 
industry, and the conventional scientific community.

	Along with all this information he gives some practicle examples
of how to use this information to produce free electricity, gravity negating
machines, and many others.  I have yet to try any of these but plan to soon.

	I'd like to know if anyone else out there has read this and if they
have tried the experiments.  As far as finding the book, the only place I have
seen it is in a local health food store and once in Lauriette's book store in
burlington mall in the occult section.  If anyone would like the publishers
address and how to get a copy by mail please let me know either thru this 
notes file or by mail to:

		SNICKR::ARDINI

	Any responses would be great!

							Jorge'

I get a mite suspicious of "government coverup" hypotheses.  "Hollow earth"
theories are spurious, as any intermediate integral calculus or college-
level physics course can demonstrate (the potential inside a hollow sphere
is zero).  Also, is the "proof" of Einstein's "wrong"ness mathematical or
sophistic?  If the latter, Charles Fort did a much better job of it in the
1930s; if the former, how does it modify general or special Relativity?

Usually, if there's a tool that can _really_ be used, someone will.  If the
book appears only on shelves of occult and related stores, please don't
forget Sturgeon's Laws.  90% of _everything_ is junk.

I certainly don't derogate the possibility of Knowledge Outside What's
Known; however when someone intimates that his or her Revealed Truth is
being covered up by a coalition that would have to include all branches of
government, all industry, virtually all news media, all institutes of
higher education, and the enire scirntific community, then I wonder.  If
there's a plot that widespread, how could it possibly be kept secret?
Woodward & Bernstein would have a field day!

Best,

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	Charles Fort's books, "BOOK OF THE DAMNED", "LO", "NEW LANDS", and
"WILD TALENTS" are discussed and highlighted in "THE AWESOME LIFEFORCE".  
As far as the mathematical proff of "wrong"ness goes he claims that there
are no flaws in the algebra only in the basic assumptions.  I really wish you
would read it and then critique it's validity.

							Jorge'

As one who read and enjoyed all of Fort's books, my point merely was that 
it's easy to criticize a theory if you don't have to subject yourself
to mathematical rigor.

My concern about the book, which I have yet to run across, which in itself
is interesting, is that your description of its presumed important releva-
tions indicates that the only reason nobody much is making use of the poten-
tials described therein is because of some vast, and apparently international
conspiracy to keep us all from improving our lot (at the expense of vast
corporations, the government, etc.), which is *highly* unlikely.  If there's
a buck to be made, someone's going to make it, and anyone privy to something
that would undercut the competition wouldn't shelve it (if AMC could have
come out with a 150-mpg car, they wouldn't have had to go into partnership
with Renault, no matter what The Oil Companies might think, for instance); 
also, if a "secret" is that widespread, people would quickly exploit it for
personal use (example: the telephone cords on pay telephones are now encased
in tough metal because someone back in the 1950s working as a c-op student
at Ma Bell in New York figured how to ground the receiver to bypass the pay
(coin) requirement.  That spread throughout the school I attended within four
weeks of its introduction.). As Ben Franklin once said, "Three can keep a
secret if two of them are dead."  I believe it thoroughly!

If I ever run into the book, I'll read it and critique it for you.  I don't
reject it out of hand, but on the basis of those credentials you mentioned,
I'll have to treat it with some care.

By the way: since I haven't read it, a question -- does the author seriously
believe in the Hollow Earth theory?  If so, go no farther.  If pressed, I
will gladly supply you with either algebraec or calculus demonstrations on
why there would be no gravity within a hollow spheroid of any sort of low
eccentricity, either privately or in this notefile.

Or if you prefer, I'll gladly refer you to the appropriate texts.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	I find all your comments extremely interesting and complete.  And I
am so glad that you will concider reading the material.  As far as your 
questions about the Hollow Earth are concerned, istead of trying to relay
the author's interpertation thru my words I copied the chapter on it and 
mailed it to you thru the DEC mail system.  I hope your mailstop info is
correct in ELF.  I will say that the nature of gravity plays the biggest role
in his description of the Hollow Earth and for that info I will have to send
you the chapter on it.  Please let me know if and when you get it.

						Thanks,
						Jorge'

Jorge' kindly sent me sections of the book.  My [LONG] critique follows:


I have read pages the frst few chapters of AWESOME LIFE FORCE and can say 
without equivocation, it's not worth taking seriously.  The author makes 
misstatements, misunderstands simple mechanisms, and sets up straw men to 
"demolish" with something that's supposed to be logic.

An overall comment:  To do full justice to the author's misunderstandings 
and/or misrepresentation, nearly every page would require several pages 
of rebuttal.  In order to keep this within bounds, I'll be forced to hit 
high spots, though I wish I had the time to do this point-by-point. (Even 
at that, this will be long.)

First of all, he suggests at the outset that much of the manned 
spaceflight activity was reported fraudulently: that the Moon's gravity 
is about the same as the earth's; that it has a comparable atmosphere; 
that the Apollo lunar capsules used nonrocket (space drive) propulsion 
system, which NASA had for years; that the planets are hollow; and that 
gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon.   Having worked on the Apollo 
Project, I know damned well that rocket technology was the only propul
sion method used throughout the mission.  And the sweat put into creating 
more favorable mass ratios -- the millions of man-hours involved -- were 
not just a crazy smokescreen to Keep The Public In The Dark.

On the moon's gravity, he explains all by misunderstanding the kinetics 
of a man in a full spacesuit jumping; the astronomer Robert Richardson 
wrote an excellent article in _Analog_ on "The Physics of a Track Meet" 
to show what jumping, running, and pole-vaulting activities would be like 
on different planets.

His "proofs" of the existence of a lunar atmosphere (it *does* have a 
very slight one, but less dense than most "vacuums" produced on earth) 
are specious, and a demonstration on one of the later Apollo flights, to 
"vindicate" Galileo, where an astronaut (Shepard?) dropped a rock and a 
feather to demonstrate that they fall at the same speed in a vacuum, he 
conveniently ignores.

His bald statement that gravity effects are electromagnetic waves is 
incorrect and provably so.  If it lies in/between the radar-infrared 
band, tuning of some high-frequency generators would have revealed it to 
electronic technician who wouldn't necessarily be in the Pay of the 
Government.

Moreover, on page 16, he cites John W. Campbell as hearing of someone 
witnessing an antigravity demonstration and editorializing about it in 
_Analog_ and then editorializing about it; apparently backing down after 
presumed Government pressure.  I was reading (and writing for!) _Analog_ 
in some of those days, and can set that claim straight.  Campbell 
periodically went off on "kicks": first, it was General Semantics 
(precipitated by a story by A. E. van Vogt, called _The World of 
Null-A_), and his interest lasted for several years.  Then, it was 
Dianetics (after the first article on the subject appeared in his 
magazine, then _Astounding Science Fiction_, written by L. on Hubbard).  
Then, it was the "Hieronymous Machine," a "psionic" device.  Then, it was 
The Dean Drive, which was supposed to be an antigravity device.  However, 
what the author of AWESOME LIFE FORCE didn't tell you was that the Dean 
Drive wasn't involved _at all_ with electromagnetic radiation; it 
concerned off-center weights being accelerated at changing rates.  
Campbell's _first_ editorial on the subject indicated that the motivating 
source for the drive was an electric drill (used as a motor).  Rather 
than one editorial, he kept it up for well over a year, with both 
follow-up editorials and articles on the subject.  He even browbeat a few 
of his authors into writing Dean-Drive type stories.  The last prson to 
be intimidatd by the Government was John Campbell!  (For your informa
tion, a story appearing in a wartime issue of _Astounding_ *did* 
precipitate a Government investigation: it seems one of the characters in 
the story had to disarm a nuclear bomb -- in sufficient detail to cause 
the investigation, since the Manhattan Project was still fabricating its 
first Trinity bomb.)  You can check all this out by looking at _Analog_s 
from about 1961 through 1963.

The author tries to buttress some of his ideas anecdotally; he claims The 
Government, in the form of CIA agents, suppressed an antigravity device 
developed by someone he knows.  If the CIA (or whoever) was _that_ 
pervasive, how did the book ever get published?

However, once he states categorically that gravity effects are produced 
by electromagnetic radiation, he uses that "fact" to "prove" some of his 
other assertions: check his text.  

>From the evidence presented in this chapter, it can be safely concluded 
>there has been a coordinated effort by officialdom to suppress all of 
>the facts discovered during the space program that are a threat to 
>dogmas promulgated by institutions of "higher learning" in regard to the 
>laws of physics and cosmology.

Why would the government even want to do so?  The author clearly 
demonstrates a hostility to what he calls "academic science"; who knows 
why?  Note:

> ... none of their reported findings concerning the other planets will 
>deviate significantly from the old textbook versions.  For example, 
>Mars will continue to have atmospheric and climatic conditions too 
>severe to support life as we know it and Venud will always have 
>sulphuric acid clouds and a sureace temperature of about 800o F.

*Until the space program,* the "old textbooks" had far different pictures 
of _all_ the planets.  Venus was thought to have a relatively earthlike 
atmosphere and the clouds were thought to be water vapor.  Mars' 
atmosphere was thought to be more dense than it is now, Mercury was 
thought to rotate once every 88 days, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune were 
thought *not* to have rings, etc.  If NASA, the CIA, Richard Nixon, or 
The Oil Conglomerates were interesting in preserving "old textbook" views 
of the planets, none of that information would have been available.  
Check a copy of a 1950 textbook on astronomy and compare it to the 
latest, and you'll see the differences.

His whole discussion of relativity shows he really doesn't understand it 
at all.  But notice his tone: "The actual reason .. should have been 
apparent to even the most obtuse physicist."  "By now, it should be ... 
apparent to the reader, assuming he or she is not a doublethinking member 
of the scientific community ...."  "Once again, Einstein demonstrated a 
mental prowess that was less than acute."  "Integrity has continually 
been proven not to be one of the scientific community's most redeeming 
qualities."  "Once again, the integrity of the scientific community is 
called to question."  "Einstein has had his detractors even in the 
scientific community.  Amazingly, none either inside or outside this 
distinguished body has ever put his finger on the real flaws of this 
concept.  Yet ... the contradictions and infantile logic have been 
apparent for many decades."

Here speaks the fanatic.  The scientific community isn't a homogenous 
body.  There are investigations being performed worldwide by many 
countries, and if things were as evident and "commonsense" as the author 
claims, even if the CIA (!) clamped down on American investigators, could 
they do so throughout the world?  On both sides of the Iron Curtain?  In 
the Third World? 

The definition of someone who claims that there's an organized conspiracy 
to Hide Facts that he alone knows, who claims that he's smarter than 
Newton, Einstein, and Kepler, is a "crank."

On the basis of what I've read, you've got a classic case here.

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

 Incidentally, slightly off subject, the sugestion that Einsteinian relativity 
 precludes speeds greater than that of light is not true.  "Modern Science" is 
 actively seeking particles (tachyons) that have a speed greater than that  of 
 light.
 
 A more  accurate  statement  is  that  a  body  of  non-zero rest mass cannot 
 accelerate continuously from a speed less than  that  of  light  to  a  speed 
 greater  than  that of light,  (since as it approaches the speed of light its 
 mass approaches infinity).
       
 /. Ian .\

re .8: The tachyon business was discussed at some length in NOTES:SF; I tend
to have a very open mind to the concept.  A way to reach superluminal speeds
might be through a mechanism analogous to a tunnelling (as in diode) or a
jump (as in quntum).

The problem is that to do justice to the extent of the author's lak of under-
standing of the phenomena he is "explaining" would take a book many times
longer than his.

The irritating thing is that *possibly* one or two of the phenomena he speaks
of might be anamolous to current science (none jumps out to bite me, but within
a book, it can't be all inaccurate), however, his explanation of the mechanism
might be off base:

You can describe the (night) sky and Solar System as gecentric or heliocentric.
A geocentric model, *while factually incorrect*, makes a lot of sense in Celes-
tial Navigation (try to navigate using a heliocentric model and see how far
you get).  To an ancient mariner, the incorrect model is the "right" one.

If the author has stumbled onto some phenomenon, his preconceptions might
get in the way of good research.  I have suggested to try his experiments
(if possible), and if any results seem to take place, (1) check to make
sure they are as perceived, and then if they are, (2), investigate why
they work with the least number of preconceptions

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
      I'll lay you 10 to 1 that this author is also a member of the
     "Union of Concerned 'Scientists'" !   
    
      (How did he leave out PYRAMID POWER?  And is he really Steven
    King in disguise?)

	    The Union of Concerned Scientists, as far as I know, don't
	deal with these matters at all.  If you just wanted to sling
	mud at them, this isn't the file for it.
			<_Jym_>

	Why is it not possible for a government to cover up certain facts?

    In the case of free electricity from the ground or whatever, obviously
    if it worked in commercial quantities the government would sell it, not
    hide it.
	In the case of say anti gravity fields or whatever, obviously some
    pimple faced college kid is bound to find out about it, and before
    long every college would be writing papers on it, unless the government
    has the resources to watch every independant laboritory.
	In the case of hollow earth, as mentioned before it is possible to
    dis-prove this with all sorts of maths.  Also remember that geologists
    have been bouncing earthquates through our core, as well as moving
    continants about (including buring them in one place, and making them
    re-appear in the bottom of the pacific.

	But how about less obvoius things such as UFO's (A bit off the
    subject of the notes file, but more people know more about them).
    All the government(s) have to do is create silly green man stories,
    which are obviously fake, and if done properly, any real stories
    (if there are any) are put into the silly story category.
	Back to psycic matters, all the government has to do is throw
    in a few well placed fake spoon benders, and instantly there are
    skeptics in the population.  Once this has started, they don't have
    to do much more to keep it going, there will also be individuals
    who will fake anything if they can get some money out of it.
	One day population psychology may have developed to the stage
    that the government could convince us that it is impossible for
    a human to walk on only two legs, who knows?

	-- Robert.  Neither a confimed skeptic or believer.

RE: 20.12

I have seen suggestions that some of the more questionable stories coming
out of the USSR, both in sources like Pravda and in supposedly scientific
papers might be part of a deliberate "dis-information" campaign to hide the
"serious" work going on there.  I don't find this suggestion far-fetched,
but I withhold judgment. 

As far as a similar program on the part of the US government -- I doubt it
strongly. 

It's not that I trust in the benevolence of our government.  Its just that
I honestly don't think that they have their act together on the issue to
mount such a large-scale operation and keep it secret. 

Besides, I don't think they would have to -- for the same reason that the
process can sustain itself, it is self-starting.  There are more than
enough creative frauds to do "their" work for them, so why bother? 

This, of course, does not mean that I don't think that there aren't
individual projects going, and that there aren't "covers" put out for what
they are actually doing.  I just don't think that they are particularly
organized about it.  I think that someone in say the Dept. of Ag. is busy
doing a study of dowsing entitled something like "Novel Aquifer Location
Techniques", while someone in the Department of Interior is doing a
separate dowsing project called "DVDP -- the Deep Vein Detection Project",
while someone in the DOD is doing a dowsing study entitled "Project Sirius"
(why project Sirius?  Because it was on the list of approved names for DOD
projects). 

<<NOTE: All of the previous projects are, to the best of my knowledge,
completely fictitious -- lets not get any rumors started over a "for
instance">> 

Now if I *was* a government agent trying to cover up the existence of
"paranormal" phenomena, what I probably would do to get the most leverage
out of the available frauds, would be to encourage the creation of groups
like CSICOP. 

Either technique or both together might make the basis for an interesting
science fiction story.  Steve are you listening? 

				Topher