'It is one of the contradictions of our time that science, which is the source of power, and more particularly of governmental power, depends for its advancement upon an essentially anarchic state of mind in the investigator. The scientific state of mind is neither sceptical nor dogmatic. The sceptic holds that truth is undiscoverable, while the dogmatist holds that it is already discovered. ... Absence of finality is of the essence of the scientific spirit. The beliefs of the man of science are therefore tentative and undogmatic. But in so far as they result from his own researches, they are personal, not social. ... This conflict between the scientific spirit and the governmental use of science is likely ultimately to bring scientific progress to a standstill, since scientific technique will be increasingly used to instil orthodoxy and credulity.' – Bertrand Russell c. 1930
'It would carry us too far afield here to discuss how far the consciences of men of science may be able to get the upper hand of a trained and experienced governing class so as to insist upon such collective ideals as they are able to formulate, and how far a trained and experienced governing class may manoeuvre this medley of distressed and protesting intelligences into the position of a roster of mere "experts" available if called upon by the authorities, and otherwise out of consideration. The odds seem to me to be in favour of the latter possibility.' – H G Wells c. 1940
'There is a widespread belief that medical and biological research is very successful ... [M]any new drugs have been discovered and developed empirically, intensive care units...have been set up, new antibiotics have been found empirically and modified, transplantation...has become routine, cardiac surgery has become a major speciality, steroids have been used... [but] all these have been highly successful applications of simple technologies. ... [W]hat has been discovered about the genesis of cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia[?] ... remarkably little ... a large amount is known about what they do, but remarkably little about how they act ... [B]asic medical, biological and pharmacological research has not been successful because it has not addressed the fundamental problems and assumptions inherent in most of the techniques.'
– Harold Hillman c. 1995
EARLY LIFE (1935-)[Top]
As to Ivor's family, most of the detail is from Ivor's father Sydney Ernest Catt, who was in the RAF [Royal Air Force] in Singapore at Ivor's birth. Syd's autobiography, written c. 1974, was typed by Ivor into a computer, presumably from manuscript writings, over a number of years. It is online, as is a 1959 Straits Times advertisement about Singapore Municipal Debentures, the only other public record I could easily find about Syd. The autobiography is quite interesting, but for my taste agonising to read. It starts in 1898, notes novelties such as 'gramaphones', motor cars, radio, 'Tutankhamoon', and (later) TV, and retail changes, and jet planes. And chats with T E Lawrence ('of Arabia') after he changed his name to Shaw. Sydney had all but zero grasp of the British Empire, propaganda, and changes in the world. There's not the slightest inkling of Jewish control over the media: mass murders in Russia, the demonisation of Germany and Japan, the control over money, the effects of both the First and Second World Wars, the various media myths and lies. There is of course nothing unusual in this; there are many typically carefree simpletons. The second half of 'What a Life' deals mostly with meetings with his wife-to-be, always referred to as Enid M.; for example, how he boated with his copy of 1066 and All That, on a shared picnic, in an Egyptian boat, which sank. Aden and Palestine and Cyprus and Japan and Singapore put in appearances. Much of his account deals with social snubs and class issues and such things as officers as opposed to warrant officers, and the military liking for medals and ribbons: he seems to have preened himself on having 'married well'. He was a POW in Japan. He doesn't seem to have known that France declared war on Germany. There's an interesting uncomprehending description ('... led me to Middle Wallop, in Hampshire... the retiring age [for officers] had been cut from 55 to 47... a surfeit of lunatic senior officers...') of post-war Britain, in which everyone was supposed to recognise impoverishment, but the military, air, and naval establishments, flushed with victory over their vastly outgunned enemies, and probably unaware of the 'Fed' funding from the USA, saw no reason to cut back. Syd says almost nothing about Enid M. There's material on post-war Arizona, Los Angeles, and California. And on Ivor's departure to the USA.
Ivor (born in 1935) told me his mother was a mathematician, who had gained the highest-ever score in a mathematics exam. "She had an open scholarship.. it was like a totem and what did she achieve? Nothing! She had to go on.. first year of her next [PhD?] course.. she just walked out". Ivor said she simply lost interest one day and left her department. I don't think he learned much maths from her. [The 'Lubbock Prize' was a trust fund, presumably endowed by someone called Lubbock, for highest exam results in applied maths in her college, which must have been applied calculus in those days. Its value I imagine has been eroded to nothing by inflation]. Ivor had a suspicion of mathematics; he told me once how one of his teacher's eyes shone, when he told his class about the nine-point circle: Ivor felt he had to get outa there! Another example, which he told me, and which was in one of his books, was of some published physics paper; Ivor told the author he didn't understand it, and the paper's author said he didn't, either! He'd got a mathematician to dress up the paper. [This may have been a modified comment on Heaviside's work and Maxwell's equations]. However, Ivor's critical comments about mathematics did not develop far: he wrote a piece called 'maths addiction', at the level of what the '=' sign implies, and two signs of square roots, the 'sign of time' being negative because it takes time to get anywhere, and imaginary numbers not corresponding to real things. He disliked the use of sine curves (which can be similar to the idea of epicycles in pre-Copernican astronomy). He did not take criticism to the stratospheric level of identifying potential regions presently missing from mathematics, or the easier problems of querying mathematical techniques which are used simply because they have been discovered, but which may not work in some cases.
Some approximate dates and notes: 1947: Transistors were invented, relying on negative and positive charges trapped in thin alloys; these made valves/tubes obsolete, and electricity more controllable. In 1956, Nobel prizes were awarded for that work. 1950s: printed circuits were developed, and in 1958 integrated circuits, with small components formed on a substrate. Miniaturisation processes began, and are still continuing.
Here's my review of a book on the post-1945 British aircraft industry in Britain, and the different outlooks and attitudes, described in Empire of the Clouds. Similar stories apply in the British car industry and electronics. Most people, not of course only in Britain, had simply no overview whatever of world-wide events.
Anyway, aged 18, with his parents back in England, Ivor did National Service after the war in Germany for two or three years, then some time at Lucas, in Birmingham; then a degree in engineering at Cambridge (1956-1959); presumably including electronics as it then was. The computer industry was of course new, then; he worked about three years (1959-1962) in hardware design in Manchester, one of Britain's main centres for technology, at Ferranti, which later became part of ICL [Imperial Computers Limited}.
WORKING LIFE 1959-1971[Top] Logic circuits and Computers[Top]
Ivor moved to the USA (the 'Mecca', he described it) for a time in 1962, where he worked 'for 5 companies in 3 states' on logic circuits and computer peripheral design. This involved use of an expensive cathode-ray tube oscilloscope; what he did with it remains mysterious to me. But this part of Ivor's life was important to him; he continued to refer to USA his experiences for the rest of his life. As far as I can reconstruct (sources available if anyone's interested) his USA work was:
1964-1967: MOTOROLA, Phoenix: interconnecting 'very fast logic' 1966: His 'A High Speed Memory' published 1966: 'Time Loss Through Gating of Asynchronous Logic Signal Pulses' IEEE (This I think is his paper on 'the glitch', that 'attracted no attention', and which he thought may be his 'most important paper', and which 'has effectively disappeared') 1967:Crosstalk in Digital Systems published 1967-8: In charge of LSI group at SPERRY RAND in Norwalk, Connecticut and/or SPERRY SEMICONDUCTOR; division closed after about ten months. 1968-1971: offered a job in Dallas [BUNKER-RAMO?] '.. 256 computers assembled together.. the project could not possibly succeed. Any fool could see that..'
Ivor insisted for years that the computer industry was decadent. Bear in mind though that from (say) 1970 portable calculators existed—for the first ever time, press-button calculators appeared. So did quartz watches, displacing 'atomic clocks'. Some people flew to Hong Kong to buy these watches! It was obvious to everyone that things were moving.
Ivor was shocked or baffled by work practices in the computer industry in the USA; looking back, I'd say the US money system, dominated of course by Jews, wanted to waste money, since government debt paid interest on paper money to Jews, and because paper money enabled Jews to buy up media (including the new TV), and weapons, planes, nuclear installations (real or supposed), housing for rent, and other hugely expensive items. Erratic and implausible projects dominated, as noted by Ivor. The 'Cold War' with the Jewish-controlled USSR introduced a range of possibilities. There were desperate struggles by employees for money, 'feeding frenzies', which must have amused their controllers. These were not exactly the fault of employees, but magnified the moral deficiencies so characteristic of techies. In rather absurd contrast to his claims of industry decadence, Ivor wrote 'At least two of those fired turned out to be pretty lively deadwood, as they have since set up their own companies to do similar work and are now millionaires'.
With Freda, Ivor decided to leave the USA for Hertfordshire, England, with their children. He took up hardware design at CTL, Hemel Hempstead, 'a small, fast growing company.. the founder [I think Iann Barron].. hailed.. as a genius..' In 1971, his book The Catt Concept (this edited upload 1998, with his permission) was published in the USA. The UK edition followed, in 1972. The book was translated into several languages; he told me it sold 20,000 copies; and 20,000 in French translation. This book is in a similar tradition to pop sociology books such as The Managerial Revolution, The Organization Man, Gamesmanship, Parkinson's Law, Future Shock and The Peter Principle, but is very unusual in considering techie manoeuvres, rather than managers or market changes or bureaucrats. As far as I know, there are still very few books on the office politics of people offering narrow (or if you like deep) specialisms.
He began to consider himself a writer, and in 1973 published Computer Worship, the blurb of which described the computer industry as 'decadent, confused, and financially disastrous.' This book is disappointingly anecdotal, and taken largely from clippings from the computer press and general news. There's an entertaining chapter on eccentrics, which is amusing, but of course doesn't help in interpreting the situation. The final section, 'How computers work', is troubling: he has registers, presumably 8-bit, but doesn't seem to 'have the concept', as he would put it, of a processor unit or chip, where some combination of bits is treated as a coded instruction, not a number. He seems to rely on special circuitry to add, subtract, and perform other simple tasks.
Some science-related titles c. 1960s: 1958: Polanyi: Personal Knowledge - Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy 1962: Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions lumbered a generation with the subtly misleading word 'paradigm' and with searches for 'revolutions'.
1963: Karl Popper: Conjectures and Refutation 1967: G. Burniston Brown's unanswered paper What is Wrong with Relativity? 1972: Herbert Dingle's short book Science at the Crossroads recorded the shocks a writer on relativity experienced, when he developed doubts on that set of ideas.
The three books listed first greatly influenced Ivor's ideas of the history of science. I don't think he ever considered the possibility that the idealistic view of science (mutual free discussion and free publication, science as valued for its own sake, science as having no harmful effects) was itself a form of myth, aimed to extract exploitable work at minimum cost. He said in 1995 it was a 'myth that high technology had any harmful component', something which he said Greenpeace, anti-nuclear campaigners etc 'don't have the concept of'. Since huge numbers of people have died from technological attacks, this ideology is obviously short-sighted. There were severe limits to his scepticism: for example, he had no doubts about NASA and the 'moon landings'.
SELF EMPLOYED (1974-1984)[Top]
In England, Ivor worked as a contract engineer, with weaponry, and appears to have taken out a couple of patents. (I never saw these; patents are notoriously expensive to take out worldwide, let alone enforce).
From 1974-1981 (i.e. about age 39-46) he worked as a contract engineer with G.E.C. (i.e. hourly pay, something common with computer people then). He worked on weapons projects and 'defense electronics': Tigerfish, Stingray, Tornado, Nimrod digital signal processing; many of these projects never worked and were cancelled. If he's right, many never could have worked. And many of the contractors knew this, but carried on, in order to collect their pay.
Another date: 1982: Karl Popper: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Popper was not a scientist; writings like this were rare, as philosophers generally made little attempt to grapple with physics, except maybe on 'race' grounds—A J Ayer said 'I believe in the theory of relativity'. 1973-1990: On universities, and their failure to examine not just science but all important issues, see my review of History of Manchester University, 1973-1990
For some reason, it seemed natural to Ivor, and to millions of other techies, that such Jews as Arnold Weinstock of G.E.C. should have weapons involvement, and that Hermann Bondi should be Chief Scientific Advisor, supposedly overseeing weapons development (despite in Ivor's view not being competent).
On the Falklands, 1982, which was after his work in weapons, he said: none of the modern weapons worked; "No British designed torpedo since the war has worked." He told me in 1993 that he was told this in 1975. Ivor worked on Sting Ray; there was a story about documents leaked to the Russians—similar to the story of a duff Concorde design deliberately leaked to the Russians for the Tupolev. Even the Exocets didn't explode—the damage was caused by their unused fuel. The submarine that sunk the Belgrano used 50-year old torpedoes because the commander didn't trust the Tigerfish, on which Catt said he'd worked. He'd used two old torpedoes; the bulkheads had been left open by the incompetent Argentinians; if they'd been closed, it wouldn't have sunk, but would have limped home as a warning. Ivor said old ships had thick hulls, and needed old torpedoes, with big bangs, to get through them. I think his aim in all this was to show that Mary Kaldor in The Baroque Arsenal was right, that weapons are developed to the point where they don't work, i.e. that people like Catt, if they hadn't been suppressed, could have made progress, not like the current practitioners.
No doubt as a result of weapons cancellations, Ivor lectured at Lecturer Watford College on electrical engineering and computing up to 1984. He described education as being in a state of crisis. His boss, or one of them, wanted to sack Ivor, who said he responded by playing a careful game of strict adherence to the rules. Ivor was proud of his ability, or imagined ability, to outsmart people.
And at about this time, 1985 I think, the women's camps at Greenham Common base began, as a protest against cruise missiles. Ivor was asked to investigate alleged electromagnetic radiation attacks, and accepted because there were 'no expert women'; he had no high opinion of female expertise. His report was negative, though not in my view very clear on microwaves. I have come to doubt whether nuclear weapons ever worked; if so the women were lied to, and in effect used as pawns, part of 'controlled opposition', a sad story. Here's my review of a book on CND ('Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament') by Kate Hudson paid by the academic system as controlled opposition
Here are two reviews of books from that time: Christopher Evans's The Mighty Micro (1979; an attempt at futurology) and Peter Large's The Micro Revolution (1980; journalistic predictions). By 1980, home computers, powered by a single processor, with the under-rated but good BASIC computer language, and TV output, had been invented; the first generally usable ones, with a keyboard and software, included the Apple ][ and the IBM desktop, which was on sale by 1981. So was Clive Sinclair's ZX81, priced just below £100, plugged into a TV for its display. In view of the popular image of computers—damn great expensive things with flashing lights and big tape drives—these caused some stir, very slightly like the introduction of cheap personal aeroplanes might, had it ever happened. They certainly had a demystifying effect on computing; without them people might still be in awe of results from huge computers, which had been 'fed' data. Ivor did not predict these computers.
Ivor became interested in chip design; the 'Catt Spiral' was patented in 1972; I don't know the detail. A TV programme gets this wrong: the invention is presented as a way to avoid testing of individual chips (something which became automated). A wafer was supposed to test itself, with failed components being ignored, something different from testing individual 'chips'. But 'wafer scale integration' is supposed to mean some way of putting computer components onto a circle of silicon, probably rather difficult since different components, eg processors and memory and Input/Output controllers, would presumably need different treatments in manufacture. I was never able to get Ivor to state exactly what Clive Sinclair's Anamartic's 'wafer scale integration' chips would do, and why it would be better than manufacturing components separately. It occurs to me, from remarks Ivor made on his desperation to get contractual payments out of Anamartic, that the whole thing may have been set up as what people would now regard as a fraud.
[Ivor tried to introduce 'content addressable memory'. This apparently allowed an entire block of memory to state whether some configuration of bits occurred in one or more of its bytes. I could never get an example from him of what use this could be. However, there seem to have been frantic discussions on this point. Ivor in my view had a strange inability to see downsides. For example, he gave me a copy of his latest 'book', inkjet printed, on ordinary flimsy paper, with ink that ran when wet, and stapled together, but was surprised that someone who'd written a children's book in full colour didn't want him to publish it. Another example was a proposed lock, to open when its code numbers were tapped out by fingers, so the nuisance of carrying keys would be abolished. He didn't seem to realise the code might be detected by some listening device, or that people might well carry the code with them, or be forced to reveal it].
At this time, he fell out with his wife, or vice versa, something he compared with the events in a stage play, Toys in the Attic. His wife, who lectured in law, appears to have had no sympathy with his ambitions, disbelieved he would get money, thought another couple had patent rights, and divorced or separated from him. The financial consequences were severe, at least on Ivor; his mother's death saved him, bequeathing enough to buy a house in St Albans, near the northernmost part of the newish M25 ring road around London. These experiences (I can't vouch for their truth; the detail is taken from Ivor's writings on law, and women) prompted him to start investigating the legal system.
Ivor regarded his electromagnetic idea as his best work: it cannot be often that such hopes have been pinned on such slender support. After many attempts (at least eight separate taped interviews) I finally understood that he did not claim to have a new theory of electromagnetism and/or electricity. As he put it: 'The major contribution of Catt is Theory C, which does not exist.' What he claimed was that other people did not have a theory of electromagnetism and its workings.
This baffling formulation is explained in The Catt Anomaly, his inkjet booklet (1996, & expanded 2001). On page 25 of both versions he writes: 'If a band of Wallahs were to put out unremitting propaganda that they were all brilliant and revered mathematicians, but persistently failed to agree on the sum of 2 plus 2, then you would dismiss everything they said; even more so if, half of them giving the answer three and the other half five, they followed up by saying they were in agreement!' In other words, he believed he had obtained confirmation that experts could not agree on the answer to a simple problem.
He seems to have taken a number of years to arrive at that claim. In 1987 he had printed, as a hardback, Death of Electric Current, a collection of Wireless World letters and articles from 1978-1986, photoreproduced with minimal added explanatory material. In 1986, he found a statement by Heaviside, including the words 'we reverse this', suggesting magnetic fields generate current, rather than the other way round. (Both phenomena occur inseparably together). Death of Electric Current, as Ivor explained, is analogous to the passing of the idea of phlogiston. When oxygen was identified and combustion finally explained, the 'medieval fluid' of phlogiston was outdated. In a similar way, Ivor considered electric current, another 'medieval fluid', had been outdated by Catt. Even if there was no replacement theory to explain the various phenomena better.
In view of its importance to Ivor, we must examine the CATT ANOMALY in more detail. The following quotation seems to be dated 1987 (my notes); however, Ivor always used identical wording so perhaps the exact date isn't important.
When a battery is connected to a resistor via two parallel wires, a current flows which depends on the voltage of the battery and the resistance of the resistor. Also, electric charge appears on the surface of the wires, and we concentrate on the electric charge on the bottom wire. In the case of a 12 volt car battery and four ohm car headlight bulb, the electric current is three amps and the resulting power in the lamp is 36 watts.
Consider the case when the battery and lamp are connected by two very long parallel wires, their length being 300,000 kilometres. When the switch is closed, current will flow immediately into the front end of the wires, but the lamp will not light for the first second. A wave front travels forward between the wires at the speed of light, reaching the lamp after one second. This wave front comprises electric current, magnetic field, electric charge and electric field. Negative charge appears on the surface of the bottom wire. All of this is agreed by all experts.
Traditionally, when a TEM step (i.e. logic transition from low to high) travels through a vacuum from left to right, guided by two conductors (the signal line and the 0v line), there are four factors which make up the wave;
- electric current in the conductors
- magnetic field, or flux, surrounding the conductors
- electric charge on the surface of the conductors
- electric field, or flux, in the vacuum terminating on the charge.
The key to grasping the anomaly is to concentrate on the electric charge on the bottom conductor. The step advances one foot per nanosecond. [The 'one foot' oddity may have come from Grace Hopper: one billionth of 300,000 Km is .3 metres]. Extra negative charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor to terminate the new lines (tubes) of electric flux which appear between the top (signal) conductor and the bottom conductor.
Since 1982 the question has been: Where does this new charge come from?
Not from the upper conductor, because by definition, displacement current is not the flow of real charge. Not from somewhere to the left, because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.
This is nowhere near as straightforward as Ivor seems to imply when he says 'It is an elementary question about classical electrodynamics'. We have a pair of wires 300,000 km long; I think this is total length, not two wires each 300,000 km. The figure is evidently chosen to be the speed of light, in a vacuum, in one second. This parallel wire pair would go about four times round the equator, or halfway to the moon. Could a 12-volt car battery really light the bulb, since there's a huge elongated mass of wire with a huge surface area out there? Wouldn't the wire warm slightly? Another problem was Ivor's insistence on parallel wires: why not have a huge loop? Ivor just said "well, you're rejecting the two wire model which Heaviside used" without addressing the question. Another issue was the 'slab' of current: this may be OK as an approximation, but why should waves or electrons or whatever is assumed stay firmly together over huge distances? And couldn't electrons (or whatever) have drift motions, as with Brownian motion, to avoid the problem of how they can know what's ahead? There are plenty of other issues, including the speed of light in a vacuum, but I could never get Ivor to clarify them. But the point is that an approximation good enough for a short distance may well not apply over impractically large distances; or the theory may have been a mathematical model, never have been intended to be precisely correct. Perhaps the equations could be modified, in the same way Boyle's Law for gases was adjusted for temperature, compressibility, and other things.
I concluded that the experts hadn't read Ivor's question carefully, if at all. And probably concluded that their understanding was good enough; if Ivor had a better theory, let him produce it.
However, there's no question that Ivor believed the 'Catt Anomaly' or 'Catt Question' was an important topic, a critical issue, a 'deal breaker', a refutation, a genuine epoch-making breakthrough, showing the 'experts' were incompetent, presumably in every aspect of electromagnetism, on his disagreements-in-2-plus-2=4 analogy. For example he said:
'I here [in one of his letters] submit that the Catt Anomaly is the best honed case for testing the current state of the Scientific Reception System. If anyone in the evolving list disagrees, they should say so and 'resign' from the list. The effort is only justified if the case is the best to arise during this quarter-century.'
': Please bear in mind the Catt Anomaly and the broader Theory C. That structure has been honed down for many decades now, and will almost certainly be the best constructed piece of suppressed (or to be more accurate, ignored) scientific information. ... a researcher into suppression ... should keep it up front.'
'... I regard the Catt Anomaly as the best honed quantum of information to attempt to invade the Establishment with, following the ideas in the first column of your jan/feb89 article. Can ostracism succeed in such a case? I feel that this is an important experiment.'
His belief in the importance of his anomaly remained for the rest of his life. He had two colleagues who agreed, or seemed to agree, Davidson and Walton. Ivor used the same wording, diagrams, and phrases, for more than forty years; there are now some online videos. I don't think many people were convinced, but nobody seemed to reply, either. The Natural Philosophy Alliance made some space for him, but that organisation appears simply to be just another 'gatekeeper', and nothing came of all this. (A similar fake 'skeptic' site is metabunk.org, prepared to debunk minor and unimportant matters. Just to amuse myself I posted (Dec 2015) on debunking the atomic bomb myth at Hiroshima, which post of course was disallowed).
Ivor became interested in the possibilities of suppression of new science ideas, and spent years trying to find people with similar beliefs. Some were found from newspaper articles; some from books; some from informal networks of people from universities, or workplaces, or people with some common experience. He tended to avoid such non-science questions as the possible non-existence of Jesus. And some topics, such as military and civil service and medical science behaviour, are deliberately made difficult by official secrecy. We'll see below what happened.
Ivor proposed a multi-chip computer, an interesting idea in which a million or so processor chips would each be assigned its own RAM. There would have to be another, new, type of chip to control the RAM borders between each chip's RAM. The parallel processing would carry out computations of similar type at the same time, the result being 'about a million times faster than a Cray', the Cray being at the time the world's fastest computer. Ivor said it would need its own power station to provide enough electricity to work. His usual example, with several online references, was in controlling airspace around the world, the earth being divided into (say) individual square miles, each with a number of layers of air above it, presumably with allowance for hills and mountains.
I have no idea if this was ever seriously considered. The air traffic control systems now, as far as I know, are locally controlled from airports, each local aircraft being contacted individually, there being little interest in countries the other side of the world, or airspace empty of aircraft. Another possible use for a multiple-processor chip computer might be to process X-ray or MRI tomography, with (say) one processor per slice, giving real-time images. My impression is that, so far, processor chips have been speeded to such an extent, and with add-on processors for arithmetic and graphics, that they have kept up with demand. The earliest IBM desktop (1981; about 3 megahertz) being replaced by modern chips (say, by 2011, 3 gigahertz) a thousand times faster.
Knowledge, Philosophy, and the Real World[Top]
This is a digression on Ivor Catt on philosophy, notably philosophies on scientific topics, and psychology.
Ivor had a good grasp of the demarcation between theory and empiricism. He told me that someone he worked with was experimenting with MOS [metal oxide on silicon] technology, but thought he'd try metal nitrides. The product seemed unpromising. Completely by accident, a hefty current was passed through the chip, which was then found to have been modified to the new value. Thus the 'EAROM' [electrically alterable ROM] was invented. However, to get development money a theory was needed. Nobody had any idea how the thing worked. So they chose, perhaps by tossing a coin, between two different plausible theories, and received their money. He told me that none of the early computer designers had heard of Turing.
Ivor was, in my view, less good on philosophical implications of physics. In the 1930s, it was a commonplace to say the ordinary world seems solid, but is full of holes. Our senses haven't evolved to distinguish individual atoms. If each atom has a nucleus and electrons, and the nucleus is relatively tiny, then this makes perfect sense. An electron may simply be a charge; our normal rules of sense don't apply. But Catt, and I think most electronic engineers, think of electrons as little balls. One of Ivor's pictures showed evenly-spaced balls, with legs, marching along at equal separations. His idea of a capacitor was a surface coated evenly by electrons, rather than something almost inconceivably complex, with three-dimensional swirls and half-formed structures packed, loosely or firmly, in assorted electrically-charged patterns. The vast numbers of the things, whatever they are, must be more like a waterfall or a huge heap of filings or droplets, or flocks of birds, separated, or not, by electric or magnetic or some other fields. But Ivor resolutely refused to consider philosophy; I tried to get him to read Russell's History of Western Philosophy, to at least induct him into official philosophy, and such things as irrationals, but he never would. He was wide open to such semantic arguments as atom in Greek means something that can't be cut. Therefore an atom can't be split! He spent time worrying over 'absolute truth': was a person certain to die from cyanide, or was there a low, but non-zero, probability of survival?
For history of science, he relied on people such as Kuhn and Popper. He had little awareness of the Galileo/ Kepler/ Newton development of theories of the solar system, which of course are regarded as one of the supreme achievements of science. There were disputes about 'action at a distance', which Newton appears to have avoided attempting to discuss. Ivor carried on these disputes, inconclusively. To my disappointment, he had no explanation for magnetism, surely a significant electromagnetic phenomenon, and example of action at a distance? He didn't have much awareness of the practicalities of the history of science: he made contemptuous fun of alchemists, who of course from the modern viewpoint, floundered around and incorporated a lot of strange material in their writings; but, looking back sympathetically, what else could they do? Nobody had worked out the periodic table, or identified elements; their equipment was laughable by modern standards; so of course they fumbled.
Another related region, exploited by people who think science is a form of religion, was theology. Many subjects have a 'theology' which co-exists with practical aspects. Ivor (a Quaker) read up on such subjects as Mithraism, Gnostics, the Vatican, Constantine, the split between Rome and Constantinople, Byzantium, the Cathars, and so on. It's typical of his circle that he made no attempt to investigate the Talmud, or the Khazar theory of the origins of modern Jewry. Ivor regarded the Fifth Solvay Conference of 1927 [in Brussels; on physics] as the equivalent of the Council of Nicaea: 'when modern physics became dogma'. Harold Hillman regards most of cell biology as 'theology', unsound material, divorced from most practical discoveries, which students are forced to study. Hillman invented the word 'parafraud' to cover cases in which science was perverted, not so much by fraud or faked results, but by failing to consider important issues: something like the deliberate use of both suggestio falsi and suppressio veri.
Theoretical types vs crude experimenters can easily become a status issue. "You're not allowed to be an experimenter and a theoretician; you have to be one or the other ... some people regard subjects as arranged from 'hard' to 'soft'.. if you ask schoolchildren, they always arrange them as a spectrum from 'hard', which is physics, chemistry, down to languages, history, and religion; maths isn't in it anywhere.. I call them 'brittle' not 'hard'; 'brittle' down to 'soft'... Heisenberg, Schröedinger, Bohr, Born [note the absence of Einstein].. those people eschewed experiment..."
I think Ivor was wrong there; 'hard' as used by most people means difficult, not accurate and precise. Ivor was interested in the class aspects of science, after noticing that many electronics men were working class. It often amused me that they were told they ought to like 'good music', and often enough their houses had recordings playing in the background. Ivor liked the expression 'hod carrier' (taken from Darwin) for those people who do what's thought of as simpler work than theory. He liked Basil Bernstein's Class, Codes and Control (1971) and interpreted Bernstein as 'Knowledge is property, with its own market value and trading relationships, to be administered and defended by those who are living off that body of knowledge', which is no doubt true in carefully-administered and examined monopolistic systems.
Finding Other Radicals (1991-)[Top]
According to my computer notes, this was Ivor's own short form, which suppressees in science in late 1991 were asked to complete, as a standardised way to show what had happened to them:–
1 Nationality: British. 2 Personal: professional credentials: M.A. cantab. Engineering 1959. 3 Nature of discovery: A capacitor is a transmission line. Classical Electromagnetic Theory's treatment of the capacitor is incompatible with its treatment of a transmission line. The problem centres on Displacement Current. [Note by RW: this was not in fact his claim; he must have substituted this, since he couldn't really claim he'd only found an inconsistency in electromagnetic theory] 4 Nature of suppression: (including whether historical or continuing today): Any attempt to publish that a capacitor is a transmission line, and mention Displacement Current in the same paper, is rejected for publication. This applies to all learned journals throughout the world, from 1978 to today. 5 Duration of suppression: 1978 to the present. Exception, a semi-learned journal Wireless World. e.g. dec78, mar79, july79. No one with accreditation in electromagnetic theory will comment in writing. [Prof. Bell (aug79) and Lecturer Joules Watt/Ken Smith (july87), who appear to comment in Wireless World, claim that they have not read or heard of Catt's theories. See "The Conquest of Thought", Electronics and Wireless World dec87, pp48, 54.] 6 Journals/Institutions/individuals responsible for/involved in suppression: Inst.Phys. (Broke contract to publish); Proc. IEE; New Scientist; Nature; Proc. IEEE; IEEE Trans.; many others. 7 End of suppression: It continues. 8 References: Wireless World dec78, mar79, july79 and later issues. (Particularly section split between sep84 and oct84; "Displacement current and the TEM wave".) 9 Source(s) and price incl p&p of five pages of further information: Articles and letters in almost every issue of Wireless World from 1978 to 1988. 10 Source(s) and price of more lengthy information: This can be itemised by class, 1 thru 8): "Death of Electric Current" by I Catt, available from him £12 post free. Other books by I Catt.
Unaware of most of the above, I contacted Ivor in 1991, by way of his publisher, after reading a remaindered copy of his book 'Computer Worship' and becoming curious about its ideas. He visited me and we got to know each other fairly well, up to the year 2000, after which I lost contact. I have probably 15 hours of audiotaped recorded talks with him, and others, made with a portable recorder. These are of course slightly hissy and noisy. Here's an example, transcribed from a phone talk in December 1991, of Ivor in a desperate mood:–
“ .. We think we'll eventually disclose it; but to whom? All these symposia, meetings, universities, laboratories, publications, but there's nothing there.. all these people, Catt, Hillman, West, perhaps they're missing the point.. there isn't anyone competent.. they're all scribes.. they're copying old texts.. But there are no priests! All there are are teachers.. I thought, well there are people who write the textbooks, but they don't.. they just copy from earlier textbooks.. We've come to the end of the age of enlightenment .. nothing has come from modern physics, no practical results.. science is the new circus to impress the masses.. I did A level calculus.. got very high marks.. but I didn't understand it at all.. You know what universities are like; you pick and choose parts of subjects; well, I said I'll do engineering, I want to do something different, I want to do all of the subject.. I got a two two, I got thrown out.. you get examined in those parts of the subjects that can be tested.. becomes professionalised.. you get people with firsts who think, well, I must understand it.. but they're uneasy about it.. if I'd been a careerist I'd have picked just those subjects I'd have been good at.. Theocharis said to me it's refreshing to meet somebody who knows the difference between a description and a theory.. They're like lorry drivers, it's like the difference between lorry drivers and highway engineers.. they don't know there's a subject there.. so there isn't suppression; how can they suppress anything?.. if you write to a bus driver about new engines, a bus driver won't have a world view about new engines.. If they don't know theories exist, if they don't have the concept of a theory.. they just know a description.. if they don't know there are ideas, how can they talk about them? .. they keep telling me the structure of what you're saying is wrong.. but there isn't a structure.. The world's like say 500 BC, not the Greeks, Vikings or somebody like that. We're like a couple of Vikings talking about theories, wondering why doesn't anyone answer these letters? But there isn't anyone, there are just scribes, there aren't any priests.. You can do things empirically.. like Marconi.. that's how computer chips developed; I was there, I know.. it was just development work.. it's like computer architecture; that's not theory based either.. ”
At the time we met, he was just divorced, or perhaps separated; he said he'd had a house worth £250,000, and had also bought the house next door; both financed by Clive Sinclair, before he went bust. His wife got a lot, and his son got even more, leaving Catt with debts of £80,000, he said, and considerable bitterness. I found out later he'd inherited money on his mother's death: "My parents' money saved my bacon". He added his wife still had correspondence of Heaviside's which he was concerned about. It transpired that she lectured in law.
In this way, he met head-on the strange processes of family law; he decided that Britain 'has no functioning legal system'. This incredible claim naturally won him few sympathisers: if anything, he meant the legal system is both corrupt and excessively powerful. He said the courts don't follow their own procedures, and in fact don't even know what the procedures are supposed to be, and the have no procedure for acting where there's perjury in divorce cases by people like his wife, who (he said) falsely claimed he'd been violent. 'Ousters' illustrate much of what he meant. So does the idea that it is impossible to enforce contracts in this country through the courts.
He said men are now divesting themselves of all assets before divorce; and in about 2000 the system would be dead, because there'd be so many single men they could form a political party which would change the system. He looked forward to a time when courts in Britain would be simply ignored, replaced by court decisions from France or the European Union.
Ivor had a micro-theory of power to describe what happens, blaming women as a group: in graduates of his age-group, feminists got together, and said things like "Of course, we can't live on his salary." They won't do the simple arithmetic; they don't realise the aristocracy and so on pay for private education by their grandparents.. you can't afford to put three children through private school with an ordinary salary, say 15 to 30 thousand range.. but if you say that, they'd just say that proves you don't love them.." And: "Of course they're only interested in work.. when you have to work; they insist on you hanging curtains at two in the morning.. you have to have rest.." I thought he meant that if these women worked, they felt it gave them a hold over the family income, which I compared to the Liberal Party holding the balance in a hung Parliament; he smiled as he grasped this, but didn't confirm what I'd said. At any rate, he maintained that sudden great financial success...
A play by Lilian Helmann, 'Toys in the Attic', is me, he said; I assumed at first he meant Helmann had based it on him, but this wasn't the case. [March 1993:] ... this play is about an inventor who's destroyed by his wife and daughter: he had to be a failure, he had $100,000 in his pockets.. they fixed it so he was robbed.. When he [Ivor] was about to sign a contract with Clive Sinclair for £500,000, he said, they called in a psychologist, who was there till early in the morning. He was mad; people don't sign contracts like that. He had to have ruined everything he touched. Catt couldn't throw him out, since he didn't want to produce evidence of violent tendencies. So they ensured he signed early; if they had waited he'd have got a million, he said.
In his own words: An extremely vicious divorce was only one of a number of catastrophes which hit me all at once, and was by no means the worst of them. ... However, the three people who were attacking me the most (perjured affidavits making different false criminal charges against me) failed to unite, which is one of the reasons why I survived. They continually warred with each other as well, although I was by far the major target. All the most serious criminal and civil charges except three were made against me in sworn affidavit, all false, by three separate people. The reason why seven people, independently of each other ... launched different attacks on me was that not only had I rapidly become very wealthy, but it was also very glamorous. Clive Sinclair hyped me above even himself. This, including my ownership of two adjacent houses, each worth £250,000, made me a sitting duck. The resentment and viciousness was without limit and without ethical, legal or other restraint, on the part of every one of those nearest to me except one. With a corrupt and destructive legal fabric, it is difficult to understand why I survived ... without emotional scar. ... It was a terrifying time, lasting some years. The most frightening was the mad shrink, Bryan Robinson, who kept getting invited into my home by my then wife. He kept after me for years, desperate to drug me. Down at Greenham Common, where I was technical adviser to the women demonstrators; when I told the top woman there that there was a crazy shrink in St. Albans who was desperate to drug me, she said, "Is it Bryan Robinson?" He was notorious. However, my wife had a posse of three shrinks after me, including Anthony Clare; not just Robinson. At the same time, a number of other disasters befel me ...
... destroys a marriage just as the reverse, poverty, does. However, when I asked why women should be that silly, he didn't come up with a good argument.
Ivor joined organisations such as Families Need Fathers: he published Ill Eagle which largely consisted of extracts from absurd legal decisions, taken from the 'quality press'. There are some copies online: Internet can be dated from (say) 1997, and his paper copies to the membership were supplemented by on-line editions. Ivor had no idea of the Jewish part in disrupting and damaging Britain and elsewhere. Even if he had, it's unlikely the other members would—Families Need Fathers shows no awareness of the constant anti-family pushes from Jews. Other Jewish issues, such as promotion of homosexuality and the hidden problems of child-abuse, lurked in the background. So these micro-organisations floundered, unable to fix on a policy or strategy to achieve it.
However, they collected information on secret courts, the flow of money as decided by legal teams to other legal teams, the officials who made decisions and their lack of qualifications.
Some dates:– 1974 William Summerlin was exposed for his felt-tip pen 'skin transplant' from a black to a white mouse. Well-publicised research fraud. 1977, ... 1991: The Politics of the Judiciary, by J.A.G. Griffith, looked at lawyers and judges, but only from the traditional 'left' vs 'right' perspective. 1986 M. Gold A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal it Caused on the contamination of cell cultures, world-wide, by 'Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer cells. A U.S. agency, supposedly supplying genuine specimen cells of all types to researchers, instead supplied junk. An enormously important work on modern scientific fraud. 1986 Alexander Kohn False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine. Kohn is/was a virologist, He seems to have missed AIDS. 1991 Birdwood's The Longest Hatred [I put this online 2000] 1993 Kent bookshop selling mail order 'white nationalist' material attacked; part of the long drawn-out Jewish campaign for their Holocaust fraud 1993, August I sent a letter, written by Ivor, about his anomaly, to Pepper, who replied; Ivor maintains it was the only reply he ever got. 1993Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research, edited by Stephen Lock & Frank Wells, and including Bob Slutsky as 'one of the most prolific fraudsters in the history of cardiac research'. (Anjan Banerjee was another faker). Highly thought of by many medical researchers, but not by Harold Hillman on account of its failure to consider fundamentals 1993, 1994 Martin J. Walker's Dirty Medicine. 'Science, big business, and the assault on natural health care'. Not a very satisfactory book, since he lacks detailed knowledge of the defective techniques used in biology, and is laughably ignorant of Jewish influences; but his style is probably typical of times where there is a lot of doubt over professional ethics. He is hard-working. Here is Martin J Walker's website. 1996The Hook and the Sting by Ivor Catt, based on information from legal researcher Robin Gay, attributing the 'non-functioning legal system' to Denning, and to 'feminazis', was self-published by Ivor. Note the date: Internet was still in its infancy 1996-7 "They are all bastards. They pull up the ladder after them. They're like squids—they shoot out clouds of stuff.." & [What is an 'idea'?] "An idea is something new... it colonises an area.. after it, nothing is the same.." c. 1999 Ivor had the idea of 'Permaweb', which he tried to propose to the British Library as permanent storage of websites and web information, including (for example) autobiographies and epitaphs. This seems similar to archive.org except it's wider and voluntary—people or organisations would pay to upload their material. His suggestion was ignored, suppressed, or denied. It hasn't occurred to Ivor that many websites may have material which governments or elites have no desire to be stored permanently. I believe the British Library now has a system in which they select which sites to store...
He showed me a letter he'd just written to an AIDS researcher, on of a team, prompted by a Guardian headline of Aug 15th 1991: 'AIDS 160 years ago', with a list of questions, including one on polio injections triggering AIDS in HIV victims; he was awaiting a reply. Since he'd contacted Louis Pascal in January this year, 8 months earlier say, this suggests a slow response.
['.. contributions to resolving the AIDS problem.. I felt sure such people would have been suppressed.. because of my knowledge of the Scientific Reception System. Brian Martin replied that he.. knew of Louis Pascal.. I had told a number of associates that I was sure that the cure for AIDS would be suppressed.. torture .. subject the discoverer to' etc. In fact, Pascal's work only concerned the original genesis of AIDS in Africa, and offered no 'cure'.
- Catt predicted "from my knowledge of the way the system works" there'd be an AIDS 'blockage'; can you imagine what it's like not to be able to save billions of lives? LOUIS PASCAL NEW YORK. April 1991 paper] had a theory he'd been trying to publish for 6 years: experimental live polio vaccines were tested on Africans from Belgian Congo, these vaccines being made from monkeys in which SIV was endemic; the livers of the monkeys were used, and after filtration to remove bacteria, but which left any other viruses in the vaccine, injecting into humans allowed mutation into related HIV. That's what he said; this of course doesn't imply the man has a cure! Catt said I was welcome to see Pascal's work, though it's very long: 60 pages he said once. He told me Pascal had found a publisher, who'd then changed its mind and 'broken him up'. December 1991: Catt says Brian Martin will print a couple of hundred copies, and send them to addresses supplied by Catt and others. Disagreements over Pascal's paper seem to have disrupted an embryonic organisation, CAFAS.
April 1992 Neville Hodgkinson first AIDS piece Sunday Times (under Andrew Neil)
He looked at 'AIDS', which he correctly identified as a fraud. 1985: Eva Snead, a medical writer from San Antonio, Texas, wrote a series of articles for "alternative" medical journals arguing that monkey virus contamination of polio vaccines could be the explanation for Aids. But she was little heeded. She already enjoyed pariah status among many other doctors, as a result of having her physician's licence withdrawn by Texas medical authorities following her involvement in a vociferous campaign opposing the fluoridisation of local drinking water. Bryan Ellison and Duesberg??
Collecting Science Suppressees and Commentators[Top]
Ivor Catt's list of collected names of suppressees in about 1995 and commentators; these were people whom Ivor thought might become allies. (This is a bit of a jumble, accurately resembling the reality of the mixture of people. NB: My summaries may be only approximately right):–
Halton 'Chip' Arp The 'red shift' skeptic, an astronomer who found stars with the wrong shift for their supposed distances. He was sacked, or at least not allowed back into his observatory. 1983 was the 'first non-cosmological red shift discovery' by Arp I could find, in New Scientist. More or less by chance I saw a lecture by Arp in London, in 2000, and recorded comments by him: this is a tape recording I made.. Arp published e.g. A Catalogue of Southern Peculiar Galaxies and Associations - Volume I Positions and Descriptions, Volume II Selected Photographs. Ivor did not have much to do with Arp, partly because he didn't know if Arp was trying to rejoin the 'mainstream' or was a genuine rebel.
Hiram Caton In 1983 Derek Freeman had published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth which (in effect) said Mead (1901-1978) was a fraud, her South Sea Island free love paradise being invented or passed off; she for example didn't know the language, and spent only six weeks there. This ought to have caused a huge shock throughout anthropology. In fact, even as late as 2006 Caton was reviewing books on Amazon and muffling this point. Mead was part of the immense fraud of Boas and his Jewish pseudo-science, with many others, including the self-renamed 'Ashley Montagu' (Israel Ehrenberg). Caton appears to be a Jewish apologist, who omits secret Jewish activity. For example, he described the USSR as 'socialist', something impossible to anyone with a grasp of the issues. I recall he mentioned Sidney Hook, a New York Jewish 'thinker'. Caton, judging by Amazon review comments, seems to have no idea about the claims of Alfred Russel Wallace to have originated the theory of evolution; he seemed not to realise that the long infancy of human beings made some sort of anti-infanticide mechanism essential.
He took a view on AIDS taken from Duesberg, reasonably enough, but his own book, The AIDS Mirage, was not much above the level of gossip: By 1988 I had concluded that AIDS was not a disease entity, that the CDC definition of AIDS was diagnostic codswallop, and that there was no compelling evidence that HIV causes immunosuppression. Peter Duesberg sent a bucket of papers that I closely studied. In a letter of December 8, 1992, I wrote him of a view I formed four years previous: "Your initial article on the HIV model seemed to me one of the finest scientific criticisms I have read... ever. The 1991 article in Proceedings and the use of drugs article are of the same quality."
Some of my notes on
Hiram Caton on AIDS
Caton wrote two articles in 1988 which impressed Catt, but no permanent regard developed, as was perhaps predictable. Harold Hillman visited Caton, and remarked (in effect) that the South Sea islands as a sex paradise for males seemed to have been adopted in practice by Caton, who he said (I think) was living with some young non-white woman. Caton was exquisitely superficial; his attempts to explain world histories, and characters such as Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci, Pascal and E O Wilson (selected at random) are perfect examples of failure to deepen and enrich knowledge; instead he repeated others' works with added verbal packaging. He was 'Head of the School of Applied Ethics at Griffith University' in Australia, which 'ranks in the top 3 percent of universities globally', or so some people seem to believe.
David Chalmers In North London. Had views on the gravitational constant, G, and problems with its dimensions; denied circular polarisation of light; and had some explanation for the two slit experiment with light. I sent Chalmers a copy of a tape of Prof Basil Hiley, on quantum physics; probably garbage, and also one of Phil Holland talking alternative stuff. Chalmers claimed to be able to work out the construction of nuclei from the components & to be able to predict the properties of an isotope. Hard to assess...
Bernie Cohen, Prof. of Electronics. I never found out what claims he was making; maybe something to do with strategies for digital processes, such as multiple attempts to phone the same number.
Malcolm Davidson and Dr. D. S. Walton. Co-published "Digital Hardware Design", in 1979 with Catt. I could never find what this book had that they considered novel.
Dr Sam Falle of Leeds: Ivor told me he 'made a prediction which was blocked for 10 years'. And mathematical modelling, e.g. of gas; 'his department has a, or the, leading model of spread of fire.' And wars: he sounded to me a sub-Lewis Fry Richardson character. 'Sam Falle points out  that the vast majority of ... science students in the UK are in any case foreign, and the foreign proportion is rising. He equates this with the increasing employment, first of slaves and then of foreign mercenaries in the Roman Legions, shortly before the Roman Empire collapsed. Falle sees a similarity between the role of the engineer today and the soldier of yore. ..'
John Ferguson, southern England, seems to be the author of The Religions of the Roman Empire (1970) who in turn recommended T. R. Glover's The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (1920). (The Roman Empire is quite often used to test rather crude historical hypotheses, I suppose because of its remoteness in time, and the fact that most people have heard of it and have views on it).
Harold Hillman Had a medical theory about cell structures: he thinks most of these are, in fact, artifacts, caused by the process of slicing with a microtome. This is what I gathered from Ivor Catt; in fact, Hillman's a critic of many techniques used in cell biology research, including electron microscopy applied to soft tissue, and biochemistry conducted without control experiments; Hillman says there's been no progress in medical research—apparent contrary examples are mere improvements in technology. As regards ethics, Hillman thinks any colleague of reasonable status who writes, should get an answer, as a sort of Hippocratic principle.
Harold Hillman had a lot of influence on me, though not on biologists, biochemists, and medical people: a few weeks before writing this piece, and incidentally a victim of stroke, he told me he still has no school or group of followers. My website has a huge amount on this man Harold Hillman: Biology. Without Ivor, I doubt I would ever have contacted Harold. He regarded himself as Jewish, and we fell out after my awareness that the 'Holocaust' was fraudulent. He was not very impressed with other science dissidents: "It's such hard work being a dissident.. most of them want to join the establishment.. if their work's accepted they forget all the others.. they're only interested if they think they can help them..."
Harold on How academic dissidents fail to co-operate
Eugen Hockenjos then in north London. Interested in legal questions of divorced fathers without child access.
Walter Philip 'Phil' Holland was something like the physics equivalent of Hillman. He had a theory of 'Nendorecs', 'Nuclei with an Equal Number of Degrees of Order Resonating in an Electron Cloud Boundary' which he tried to apply to compounds, and also living things and towns. This wasn't convincing to me. More interesting seemed his grasp of things like triple points—he had a new theory about clouds, phases of water, and the weather. My website has this: How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?. The sections on 'superfluid helium', and 'myth of speed of light as a limit', are easy to understand and well worth reading. Phil was not skeptical about moon landings, or Auschwitz, or Christianity; and he disbelieved in Darwin, but also Einstein. He worked all his life at Windscale/ Sellafield, but as yet I haven't tried to get him to help decipher 'nuclear power'.
Heinz Lipschutz, a pilot in Wales, (now dead) wrote Confessions of a Frustrated Inventor in March 1988, which included lengthy mention of his U-plane, which he first patented 35 years before. He re-surfaced in The Independent in May 1991. Now, the technical journals announce it as an exciting new idea in submarines! So far, there is no [known] activity whatsoever in Britain. The U-plane goes down—or may go down—to the sea floor. Lipschutz inventions included a two-stroke engine with double the power-to-weight ratio. He claimed to have approached Marconi before the Second World War with ideas for aircraft guidance, with no response; he claimed more planes were lost trying to find their way home than due to German attack. This is a telephone chat between Lipschutz and myself Lipschutz on U planes (i.e. underwater airplane style craft) recorded in May 1996. The second half is his account of inertial navigation of bombers; Lipschutz thought many pilot deaths could have been saved (and many German deaths increased).
M. Mahoney, University of Santa Barbara, described as 'a leading expert in suppression'. He seems to comment on peer-reviewed papers. A test-case was Peters & Ceci, who in 1982 tested the peer-review system by submitting almost identical articles to journals which had already published them, typically two years later, but with names and organisations changed, or with just the conclusions changed to something less supportive of expected outcomes. Few of these tricks were detected. (Note that some Internet sites now specialise in detecting plagiarism. And other sites specialise in rewrites so that a piece of text is disguised, for example by changing phrase order and inserting synonyms).
Joe Marsh, UMIST Archivist in the history of science.
Brian Martin, of the Dept. of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong (guess which country!) Author of Intellectual Suppression (1986; Links to entire book as a PDF file). Brian Martin also wrote the introduction (1991) to Louis Pascal's piece (below) claiming the origin of AIDS was a result of would-be oral polio vaccine in Africa in 1958-59, made from living monkeys' kidneys.
Ivor wrote: ... my extensive research into the Politics of Knowledge led me to write to Brian Martin in Australia that I believed that if one came up with a potentially major contribution towards the amelioration of the AIDS epidemic, one would be prevented from publishing it. Brian responded by saying that he knew such a man, Louis Pascal in New York ...' And there were others: In July 1985 an expert panel assembled by WHO [World Health Authority] decided the ... theory was not credible ... . In May 1987 Eva Snead, a San Antonio physician, announced on New York local radio the theory that contaminated live oral polio vaccine led to AIDS. [And 1988?] The independent decision by Herbert Ratner, M.D., specialist in preventive medicine, public health director of Oak Park, Illinois, to link OPV with AIDS, was blocked by The Lancet. ...
It's worth trying to tease out some of the fantastic complications here: that 'AIDS' actually existed, and had been proven to be caused by one virus, and had known effects; in fact, virology, certainly in 1984, was a highly suspect science, detection being only by indirect methods, some involving highly suspect electron microscopy work. It was not even certain that polio was caused by a virus, or that vaccination would work, if it was. However, as a money-making scheme, AIDS was highly successful. See below.
Brian Martin's work seems to have been mostly as an editor. Intellectual Suppression starts with a piece on Australian scientists and the 'Cold War', written by a 'journalist and film-maker', which shows no evidence of awareness that e.g. the AASW [Australian Association of Scientific Workers] was very likely a Jewish front. Anyway, it's clear Brian Martin had no methodology for detecting 'suppression'.
Kurt Metzer somehow was contacted by Ivor: I think in his earlier years he'd been named in some journalistic physics piece. He was German, worked with Pauli of the 1927 Solvay Conference, left 'Nazi Germany', and 'won an Exhibition to Trinity', but wasn't successful continuing physics. Lived in squalor, with mental life filled with bits of such people as Heisenberg and Schrödinger.
Bill Miller in Scotland was described by Ivor as 'my patron for three decades in the matter of Wafer Scale Intergation...' He was 'intrigued by the politics of fundamental scientific advance'.
Gordon Moran was first contacted after newspaper discussed his work in uncovering a piece of bogus art history in Siena, an equestrian portrait of highly questionable authenticity. His initial point of friction was the Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence, apparently an art research library which censored out his point of view. (Try searching for Guidoriccio or Guido Riccio). His book Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review and Scholarly Communications ($73.25 hardback, $39.50 paperback) was published in 1998. Perhaps ironically, the price suggests the book is intended for the library market.
Margaret Moss wrote to Ivor: "The relevance of exclusion diets and therapy with nutrients to chronic diseases is suppressed, as is the damage done by mercury in dental fillings, and mould toxins in combine harvest grain." Ivor seems not to have followed through here.
Louis Pascal: Ivor took great interest in What Happens When Science Goes Bad The Corruption of Science and the Origin of AIDS: A Study in Spontaneous Generation. Pascal had been told Kinshasa and Kigali were centres of the supposed pandemic. Pascal knew of the world's first mass polio vaccination campaign, more or less in the same areas. It was of course experimental. By 1987, he'd worked out his theory. After numerous turnings-down, it was published, or made available, in December 1991 by Brian Martin. (This was before the days of mass Internet). Harold Hillman made an edited version, but took out Pascal's rhetoric, something Pascal was very unhappy about.
Theo Theocharis took physics, at Imperial College in London, but became interested in philosophies of science, and the related sociologies and psychologies of physicists. He lived in squalor in a privately-rented flat, drawing social security, with a lodger paying expenses. Ivor liked him. Here are some topics, extracts and quotations:
• Shirley Williams in 1971 in The Times complained that increased science spending hadn't increased GNP. By 1986 there was a Save British Science campaign, with much agonising over 'cuts' in other countries, and so on. 'Nature' (15 Oct 1987 and/or 16 Feb 1993) published a letter complaining of the ludicrous nature of much of science, by Theocharis and M Psimopoulos, 'in the Department of Physics, Imperial College.' Well, they were 'in' the building. • Popper, Imre Lakatos, T S Kuhn, and Feyerabend were Theo's bêtes noires. However I don't think he understood the difference between falsifiability of a single observation, and falsifiability of a theory; and also he doesn't seem to have grasped Popper's objection to e.g. Freud was that it was 'irrefutable' in a different sense from other, testable, theories. He said excitedly but wrongly: "The earth is (approximately) a sphere" is not a scientific statement because it is not falsifiable. Theo also didn't like the idea that observations are fully theory-laden, and untheoretical items of observation simply do not exist. • His summary of the problems with modern science included: "Acausality, the dual nature of things, the speed of light is not constant with reference to an observer, and the principle of relativity itself". He listed amusing comparisons of theology with modern physics, without showing the comparisons were sound.. • Here's an example of his style from 'London Student Skeptics' (11 May 1992): In ordinary English (and I think in the original Latin) the term "error" denotes both the notion "slight inaccuracy" and the entirely different concept "complete incorrectness". ... 2500 years ago Epicharmus of Cos remarked that it is the letter and the number.. that separate us from other animals.. but [these] though of course essential are only a small fraction of the totality of factors that give us the possibility of becoming civilised.. There are also observacy, logicacy, analytacy, synthetacy, and.. significacy. The set of all these factors I refer to as epistemacy. [He explains literacy is knowledge of, familiarity with, letters, words, sentences, texts, language, grammar, syntax; and so on - observacy with the techniques of observation, mensuration, experimentation; .. analysis or resolution, the skill of breaking up a complex system into simple components.. synthetacy familiarity with the reverse process.. recombining, putting together again the constituent parts.. Significacy is the knowledge of the correct meaning, the precise essence, the true significance of words and phrases, symbols and equation, processes and operation, techniques and methods. ... • Theo noted the many clashes among scientists: I remember he handed me a photocopy of an obituary of either Michael Ventris (of Linear B) or his official rival. And he commented on Harrison winning his competition for a timepiece and having endless problems getting paid: the then-government didn't go to Oxbridge for a solution to the longitude issue! An 'amateur' is a lover of a subject; a professional does it 'for a fee'. • "[Theocharis] found in USSR, Stalin was anti-modern physics; then in about 1936 there was a sudden change.. the physicists all disappeared.. replaced by modern physicists. And he looked into the connection between anti-semitism and modern physics.." Probably this was connected to Jewish plans for uranium and the atom bomb hoax—but such ideas were ten to fifteen years in the future. • "Alexander killed more Greeks than Persians" he said, "but don't say that to any Greek!" I don't think he ever questioned that modern Greeks were descended from ancient Greeks, though this seems unlikely.
He disliked partisan histories; Greeks and Turks are taught different versions, with potentially catastrophic results. "Salonika (some connection with Thessalonika; 2nd city of Greece, NE of Athens, where Ataturk was born or at least 'came from'), had the biggest Jewish population of any city in the world in about 1900, being multicultural with Jews the greatest minority. Now, after the war of I think 1922, and Cyprus, young Greek nationalists want a war in the Aegean to recover Constantinople; and Theo thinks an agreement between Israel and Turkey, which survived e.g. the Gulf War possibly even strengthened, might be an attempt to recover several islands and Salonika."
Luca Turin a London University biophysicist trying to work out how the sense of smell operates. Catt knew him; my guess is as a result of an incident at the Pasteur Institute in France: according to Wikipedia, '[Luca] Turin and his colleague Nicole Ropert reported ... that they believed some of [Henri] Korn's research on neurotransmitters was based on fabricated results. ... he was told to find work outside France ...' Note that Harold Hillman's large-scale critiques includes neurotransmitters as a fake; on this basis alone it seems likely Luca Turin must have been right. And this case probably adds evidence to Jewish science frauds.
Bryan G. Wallace of Florida, author of The Farce of Physics (about 1990). Ivor wanted Wallace to answer two questions: the impedance of free space, and root mu over epsilon. I don't think he replied, or that they met. Some years later, The Farce of Physics was posted on Internet. I don't think it was ever revised.
A similar writer is/was Nevile Martin Gwynne. Click here for his article on Einstein and his history of disputes within the relativity 'community' in the English-speaking world.
Dave Walton, Co-author. Unfortunately in 1997 I found by phone-call that everything he said could have been scripted by Ivor; the phrasing etc and outdated technical references etc and stuff out of Kuhn more or less the same.
Other Collected Names of Suppressees and Commentators
Some from a list by J L Linsley Hood from about 1982, a previous generation of objectors; I've added others, something like twenty years more recent, since they roughly speaking belong together.
Harold Aspden of a journal "Speculations in Science....", controlled by Aspden et al, who gave a 'rude rejection' to a Catt piece. I never established what the point was of this journal.
Herbert Dingle (now dead) became mildly notorious when he changed his mind about relativity many years after contributing to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Robert Dunn Quaker (who 'served on Meeting for Sufferings for six years in the 1970s'.) Ivor was a Quaker, and from time to time attempted to interest Quakers in contentious issues. (Since writing this, I noted an interesting piece by Miles Mathis, showing the Fox, the founder of the Quakers, was probably a crypto-Jew).
Louis Essen according to Catt, the world's leader in time, at NPL [National Physical Laboratory] ".. I went to see him.. world famous.. FRS.. he made the first caesium clock or whatever.. he ought to be really sure of himself, he'll talk.. he panicked.. he told me he was weak on maths.. he'd got the mathematicians to work on it.. He said to me there was an error about the nature of time.. he thought they'd be thrilled.. the leading name in the world on measurement of time found an error! He had no idea there were problems in science.. the head of the NPL said don't associate this with us.. the Institute of Physics said they'd publish, he had galley proofs.. they never published..."
Paul Forman, Smithsonian Institution. Seems to be Forman, P. (1971) Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory, 1918-1927: adaptation of German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, 1-115. Probably part of the demonisation of Germany. after 1945 as 'anti-rational'.
C B Francksen electromagnetism commenter, I think
Michael Gross As to mercury in dental fillings. "Michael Gross told me that in dentistry they made the mistake of looking for ions not molecules (or vice versa) and so failed to find the Hg being emitted from the fillings. He finally heard of a researcher in the USA who was also suppressed, who put tooth fillings into sheep and then found Hg all over their bodies. When the profession said it came from somewhere else, he used an Hg isotope, yet still he was suppressed. Michael Gross said they were suppressing the info because of the threat of large scale lawsuits suing for damages, but finally, decades later, they gradually moved away from Hg because of the danger. (He knew the dentists were looking for the wrong thing for Hg because he came from another discipline). This of course is one of the causes of suppression; the entrenched mafia protect their ignorance and block information inflow from outside. In a perverse way, similarly, Runcorn justified rejection of plate tectonics on the grounds of lack of knowledge or emphasis by entrenched groups, but thought of it as merely unfortunate rather than insidious. He had no doubt that all parties were honest, earnest searchers after the truth."
Steven Hawking [not a 'suppressee'] "... I say that science was betrayed by 'modern physics'. However, there exists another division; between the Hawking coterie and the modern physics community. Mainstream modern physics withdraws from Hawking, who because of his professional position is the most credible of the meta-religious (from their point of view). .... Hawking is trying to ride both tigers; Modern Physics and Religious Modern Physics. Partly he does this because he is a macro-physicist (stars) and not a micro-physicist (quarks, strangeness). He would claim ignorance about the quark. This introduces another division in physics; the modern physics man being essentially a particle physics (micro) man, while Hawking talks about stars and big bang and so forth. ..."
W T Morris seems to have joined in the electromagnetism discussions
Professor Runcorn at Imperial College, on geology and plate tectonics [June 1994:] "... Runcorn had dual experience of suppression. I understood that Plate Tectonics, or as he terms it "continental drift", was ignored when first proposed around 1910. Then in the '40s Runcorn and his co-researcher in space physics brought their knowledge of magnetic fields in heavenly bodies to bear on the earth; found variations in the earth's magnetic field which was conclusive proof of continental drift; and published the idea a few decades late. Plate tectonics was then accepted after a delay of a few decades. He had also complained to Theocharis about the editor of Nature refusing to publish recent work of his.
When I actually listened to Runcorn, I was astonished to find that his lengthy monologue excluded the possibility that suppression exists in science. Unprompted, he went through a lengthy explanation as to why various specialist groups of various eras were justified in rejecting (which he totally confused with "suppressing") the idea of continental drift, until he came along with the convincing evidence. He further asserted that continental drift was widely discussed between 1910 and 1950, which was untrue. ..."
[Feb 1996]: Ivor told me with a big and repeating giggle-like laugh that Runcorn was hooked on freebies—lecturing to the Royal Society, back from a freebie. He was battered to death in an American hotel room on a freebie! [Laugh] Murdered in a hotel room in San Diego—that's what I get from all these scientists.. they're busy preparing papers for international conference next week, and next month they're taking their family to a free trip to Australia ...
Ulrich Schmidt, New Delhi, India. Seems to have studied physics in Germany, possibly around the time Solvay had fixed its form.
Federico Di Trocchio, Rome, Italy Author on 'heresies' in science; I believe a book was published by Di Trocchio, in Italian and/or Spanish, the title translated as Misunderstood Genius, on one or more of the people listed by Catt.
M G Wellard wrote about the work of James Clerk Maxwell
Colwyn Williamson, University of Swansea. Seems to have been involved in campaigning for academic freedom. Ivor Catt considered he in effect was only concerned with keeping official bodies of knowledge tidy, not with new unwelcomed material, although the Education Reform Act 1988 seems to guarantee it: "academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs"
Dr. J. Woodhouse, Dept. of Engineering, Cambridge, on the acoustics of violin strings. (He may, or may not, be connected with James Beament, who wrote on the myth of the Stradivarius, by which he meant the sound quality doesn't need the apparatus of varnish, glue, body shape, and so on).
2016 list of 6,000 Science Dissidents
Here's a list of 6,000 science dissidents in physics (not necessarily suppressees) compiled by Editions Assailly apparently from website information. There's no mention that I can find of nuclear physics; probably the compiler censored them! This gives some feeling for the typical boundaries of such people.
ICAF (International Conference on Academic Freedom)[Top]
H G Wells on the difficulties of co-operation (among whites?): 'What concerns us more directly here are those meetings and movements and discussions that occurred when the idea of the League of Nations was being shaped. These deliberations brought home to me the confused divergence of historical preoccupations among those taking part in them. Their minds were full of broken scraps of history, irrational political prejudices, impossible analogies. Everyone saw the idea from a different angle and seemed prepared to realise it by the hastiest of compromises. ... But the difficulty of producing these two reports opened my eyes to the enormous obstacles in the way of all volunteered co-operation. It seemed impossible to hold a team together. They differed upon endless points and they would not come together to hammer them out. They were all too intent upon what they considered more immediately important things. Our chief financial supporter deserted us to go off wool-gathering upon his own lines. He could not see what need there was for all this highbrow research. But we were all going off upon our own lines. We had already disintegrated before we were disregarded.'
Christian Schwabe (biochemist) tried to discredit evolutionary theory, relying on biochemical techniques, which 'proved' structures existed which couldn't have evolved. Schwabe naturally thought this disproves Darwinism. Instead, it's supporting evidence that the techniques are defective. Hillman could presumably have pointed this out, but didn't like to. This is my archived copy of his website. (He may have updated it)
Brian Martin (an American in Australia; see above).
AIDS dissidents including Louis Pascal and Hiram Caton, also Americans. See above.
Theo Theocharis, a dissident in physics. See above.
Gordon Moran. See below.
Halton Arp, revisionist astrophysicist, was discussed, but not contacted. See above.
Noam Chomsky, one of whose books was at that time being printed as a mass market paperback, was I think contacted. Apart from knowing very little about science, Chomsky would not be likely to be helpful for reasons discussed here Manufacturing Consent and The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Anyway; this came to nothing.
Conrad Russell, author of The English Civil War was involved with other group(s) at about the same time concerned with censorship. I know now he would not have been of any use, since he had no idea about science, and no idea about censorship: his main concern was that funding might be reduced for important books—like his.
Index on Censorship were approached in April 1993, according to my notes. This organisation is essentially political, with the function of ignoring evidence not liked by elite groups. Their aim is to publicise their opponents, not their own shortcomings: thus (e.g.) Iran can be accused of scandalous secrecy over nuclear issues, but Israel remains uncommented. Or US war crimes are ignored; any others are treated with presumably mock horror. And of course their science awareness must be close to zero.
Harold had tried to arrange a Conference on Academic Suppression in 1984. He could raise no 'funding' for it, and as far as I know it came to nothing. Later, he thought 'Academic Freedom' would be a better title. One problem was deciding who could join: perhaps an alternative refereeing system, replacing so-called peer review? Should such people be identified? Another problem was separating the politics of suppression from the actual substance at issue. (The issue of full-on censorship, for example in nuclear issues, is another problem; naturally, not addressed). And another was the difficulty of summing up each case: suppose people are unconvincing, poor talkers, or simply refuse to answer detailed questions? And what happens if a case is weak, or relies on hard-to-locate evidence? What happens if there are no experts? ['David Burnett, a senior pathologist, told me that "experts" in the virology field would panic over the LP theory because it spanned too many disciplines']
Ivor had grandiose plans: ' ... a conference ... should such money become available ...(but ... it would in my opinion be better spent otherwise). ... [S]uch a conference launches the matter, the published proceedings reinforce its place ... We need two tiers. First, a board, which has responsibility for statements made on behalf of ASAF. ... I think an individual board member should act on his own if he adjudges it reasonable; preferably by getting a "no answer means yes" from other board members; .. The level below the board will be on the notepaper of press releases etc but will not have approved actions in advance..'
Unsurprisingly, and with no money, this project failed.
'Freedom to Care' ('FtC') by contrast was successfully established, in 1992, I think by Hunt, Pink (whistleblower on psychiatric patients being beaten up), and Chapman, as a company limited by guarantee. It is now part of Netzkraft Movement which has 2,291 participants and is funded by Spix, which I assume is a German charitable money umbrella. Freedom to Care is a whistleblowers help group. Any science revisionism seems to have receded; replaced by falsification of records, thefts from patients, abuse by nurses, undeclared income.
Chris Chapman Excerpts from: 'Fraud at Leeds', Laboratory Practice,Volume 41 No. 11 & 12 pp 6, 10 / 36, 37. By Alex Crawford. 'In 24 years with Leeds General Infirmary, former top-grade biochemist Dr Chris Chapman built up an excellent reputation as an expert in immunoassay development. The kits he developed saved the National Health Service an estimated £2m. But, even after such a splendid record of achievement, Dr Chapman was made redundant in July, the day before his fiftieth birthday. It all began to go wrong for him in 1986, when his unit became part of the chemical pathology department, jointly managed by the Leeds Western Health Authority and Leeds University. Almost immediately, he came across the corrupt activities of acting head of department Dr Colin Toothill, who was using NHS resources to run a private lead-testing service and was channelling thousands of pounds into accounts that he controlled. Dr Chapman was so incensed that he reported this corruption to the internal auditor, who brought in the statutory auditor. After the corruption was investigated, he received the following letter, dated 14 October 1987, from Leeds Western Health Authority assistant treasurer (internal audit) Richard Sumpner: "... I should, therefore, like to thank you both personally and on behalf of the treasurer's department, and trust that under the new head of department you will enjoy better times." Unfortunately for Dr Chapman, better times did not come with the arrival of the new head of department, Professor John Whicher, and another top grade biochemist, Dr Ian Barnes. ...' Chapman had a particular loathing for Vincent Marks, though hew too naive to investigate Jewish links. He accumulated a huge collection of files—liable to happen in these cases. The events at Leeds were investigated at a high level, by Merlyn Rees, though his report seems to have been a whitewash. Unfortunately, Chapman died of cancer in 1998.
Geoff Hunt; background in philosophy of science and ethics. 'Director, European Centre for Professional Ethics, University of East London'.
Martin Lunn whistleblower in Addenbrookes Hospital, with doubts about experimental design of drug tests for schizophrenics. He left an 'untenable' situation, but received 'a considerable sum'.
Dr Dick van Steenis Dutch-ancestry GP who became interested in the medical effects of small particles in the air. Asthma, cancer, orimulsion written in co-operation with Dick van Steenis.
Harold Hillman see above for more. Harold was a leading light in 'Freedom to Care'.
Dr Michael Stack Dunne.Chalones were supposed to be chemicals emitted by organs to indicate their size; 'signalling' to explain how bits of the body remained the correct relative size. After lots of papers, the topic seemed to have been deemed wrong; no further papers appeared, but with no acknowledgement or comment that this had occurred. And a rapid cancer scan of chromosomes, but which wasn't a double-blind test.
Dr G Robert N Jones. Biochemist who said he's making progress in cancer; paradigm shift re its cause, involving mitochondria, "the powerhouse of the cell", and energy metabolism. [Harold Hillman did not accept this widespread idea of mitochondria]. In the mid-1970s Jones wrote to ICRF, Marie Curie etc, and wants to approach the Charity Commission. "I have a cheap treatment.. spend a bit of money on.. nutrients.." His DIY treatment is no longer on Internet.
'CAFAS' (Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards) founded I think in 2009 includes Chomsky and lists Founding Members as Michael Cohen, and Colwyn Williamson. Catt is not a member. Harold Hillman seems to be somewhat involved. It seems to be concerned mostly with education institutions. I wrote an unflattering comment which perhaps is hardly needed.
Barbara Banks Professor of Biochemistry, who crossed swords with Linus Pauling, challenging the whole idea of 'high energy bonds', still, at the time, and probably still now, accepted. She also had an ongoing medical negligence case, having been overdosed heavily, I think with an anaesthetic, and irreversibly harmed.
Michael Deans in London, W4 for many years, has this website. Science Uncoiled. Deans ran a Mensa coffee evening for years in his apartment, usually with few attendees. He studied for a biochemistry PhD, which was not awarded. In my view, he took over many current errors in biology, including mistakes about the cell wall, where he developed theories of membrane pumps, based, in my view, taken from Harold Hillman, on mistakes. He included metal ions in his theories, finding reasons why trace elements such as iodine, fluorine, vanadium, chromium, zinc, copper, selenium, magnesium, and many others, including, hypothetically, silver, do their respective things. He did not allow for the possibility that DNA must have evolved from simpler precursors. He had a numerological slant, in my view unfortunately. But there were tantalising possibilities:
'I propose the 5-hook theorem: The growth of 5-hooked cells is self-limiting, 6 or more hooks lead to unrestrained growth. (The presence of a 4-hook cell amongst the 5-hooks may be needed.) The proof of this theorem promises to be difficult (as was that of the 4-colour theorem in mapping).' (Deans's explanatory notes include: 2 Hooks - filaments; 3 Hooks - sheets; 4 Hooks - tubes; 5 hooks - organs of higher life-forms. 6 Hooks - Unlimited growth - cancer).
In early evolution, metal ions must have played an important part: Deans thought magnesium in chlorophyll was an earlyish development, enabling the sun's rays to convert CO2 and H2O into carbohydrate. But magnesium was, he thought, needed for motility. Hence at the start of evolution, some creatures could move but not photosynthesis, and others could photosynthesis but not move. Hence (maybe) there are no mammals or reptiles or birds that photosynthesise.
Norman Hossack is an inventor. I met him when he lived in London, my curiosity aroused by his idea of a light motor bike with a horizontal suspension. (The same design is ubiquitous in mountain bikes: it's entirely possible others had the same idea). Here's a link to Norman Hossack where I briefly summarise his bike design; he's now in the USA doing different work.
Roy Jennings worked at Post Office Research at Dollis Hill, then on cardiograms at Sussex University. Harry Rantzen told me "he hasn't had his results published since 1960s."
Gilbert Ling was/is a Chinese American, in my view politically naive, who developed similar theories to Harold Hillman. They communicated and met. Here is Gilbert Ling's own introduction to his cell hypothesis.
W A P ManserBritain in Balance - the Myth of Failure (1971, new or revised edition 1973). Interesting book on British economic policy; something I'd call 'revisionist', involving statistical problems in deriving simple measures, logical arguments about imports and exports, and the history of British government accounting and interventions, but of course nothing Jewish. Very detailed references to many authoritative books. 'Authoritative' in the traditional sense. And stunning examples at intervals: 'Half of all Britain's imports by weight are now oil'.
A J P Taylor is quoted on the cover as saying 'It is political dynamite, making nonsense of this country's economic policies over the last 40 years. The pundits greeted it with embarrassed silence.'
I met Manser twice, contacted him through Baring Bros, and the Institute of Economic Affairs, and did my best to interview him seriously. Nothing came of this, but his book is an interesting and highly unusual example of the emergence of an apparently revisionist book through personal concern.
Harry B. Rantzen author of Uncertainty in Nature and Communication (1968), a book I found by chance. Rantzen (in the IEE) was clearly competent in electronics and/or electrical engineering; he worked with the UN and the BBC, and was the father of Esther Rantzen, though his wife had little interest in his theories. His book was largely statistical, with his modified version of the Gaussian distribution. It supposedly dealt with 'pattern recognition'. In his calculations, Rantzen deduced that stability was implicit in a year of 365.3 revolutions; the tropopause was connected with 37.5 degrees latitude; the annual temperature cycle implied that 1/4 of 22 feet, i.e. 5'8", represented an important boundary—i.e. that height was about optimum for eyesight; and the moon's cycle round the earth. He had things to say about the populations of cities and social organisations. He designed a frequency-separated digital hearing aid. Despite a number of talks with him, I was never happy that his material was sound. Four stars because I think his material (I have some unpublished letters and notes) is worth a look.
G A Wells, Professor of German and author of many books on Jesus as a personage who never existed. The Jesus Legend (1996) at the time of investigating was his most recent book, though a booklet The Acts of the Apostles - A Historical Record? was published in 2000. I include him as an example of would-be scientific reassessment of Christianity.
Margaret Winfield, 1990 book, published in rather thin paperback by Social Audit, full title: 'Whistleblowing: Minding your own business - self-regulation and whistleblowing in British Companies'. On this subject, Catt had a photocopy of a magazine called The Scientist, Dec 14 1987, which included some short personal American, I think, stories of 'Whistle Blowing'; I didn't get a chance to read them. About this time, a new law was passed by Parliament on whistleblowing: as might be imagined it was complex, badly-written, and had large numbers of notes.
There were other names flickering on and off various people's radars. The following info may not be quite correct: Ivor Catt never paid serious attention to Hillman's opinions; others not followed up at all, as far as I know, include: Leslie Munro, who wrote on buildings and damp ground; Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College, famous for having a presentation on gyroscopes removed from the Royal Society's records; Anthony de Reuck (former editor of Nature, before Maddox); Professor Bryce-Smith on lead tetraethyl in petrol; insecticides, generally; Lynn Trainor, chief man at CERN, in a 1972 footnote to one of Ivor's books
British Law, notably family law; and Imposed Societal Changes[Top] 1976 Draconian amendments to the Race Relations Act of 1968 1985 Zündel's first trial 1988 Leuchter Report 1991Racism industry orthodoxy set out by CCETSW [Social Workers] 1991 USSR (Soviet Union) disbanded, to alleged surprise 1994 Macpherson Report (on Stephen Lawrence murder and British police) 1994 South Africa's first multirace elections 1997 Internet clearly functioning and destined to be important 1998 Kevin MacDonald Culture of Critique 2001 '9/11' First major Jewish fraud to be examined by independent Internet researchers 2005 Youtube starts. Important in spreading memes, some with science content; a few examples include NASA doubts, nuke skepticism starting the public unravelling of those myths (from about 2005), and race and IQ realism; e.g. just one example from Luke O'Farrell:– 2005Dr Strangeloathing How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews 2006Divided We Stand Jew-Blighted We Fall 2006Naming the Nigger Probing the Paki, Condemning the Kike [on crime promotion by Jews]
The official stories on AIDS, 9/11, nuclear science, the Second World War, NASA remain unchanged after decades. And new weird wrong orthodoxies, such as races not existing and IQs being unrelated to race, are possibly stronger then ever. Revisionism must seem, to many incurious people, non-existent. Let's try to summarise this chaotic point in world history. Most of the people listed above know that all is not well in the scientific world. Combined with a desperate job situation, I'd guess this will get worse, with (for example) job applicants claiming fake qualifications and publications, and colleges awarding absurdly high marks, and fake qualifications of the Third-World type; and all the rest.
In my view, they are less aware of other aspects of the world: electoral fraud is increasing, secretly-funded demonstrations are still reported as though they were spontaneous, secretly funded 'think-tanks' pour out endless garbage, and planned psy-ops such as 9/11 and crime gun outrages remain as routine as in the 1930s and 1960s. As an example, let me refer to Ivor's views: he had marital problems (including losing track of his children) and became interested in various men's movements. He was aware Stanko (Stankovitch?) was funded £3M for lightweight 'research', and that Judge Butler-Sloss didn't even follow legal procedure, and that policy was anti-family. He believed the EU legal system was less corrupt than the British, and looked forward to the day when he thought Britons would go to French courts and simply ignore local ones. He noticed TV and politics had a high proportion of homosexuals. He never commented on immigration, which I'd guess was taboo, and simply out of his frame of political reference. However, he did notice that there were 'Feminazis', though he seems to have replaced this word by 'radfems'.
Ivor had no theory on wars. In 1996 he told me about Ramsey Clark's International War Crimes Tribunal in 1992 (no doubt based on the tribunal on Vietnam attributed to Bertrand Russell) "on Iraq, which found US guilty! It's so different from the ordinary view, you keep pinching yourself, he's rabid!" Techies have a history of moral imbecility, with Americans possibly leading the entire world, and as long as this remains true the world is unstable. Far from being Wells's 'distressed and protesting intelligences', they show little sign of any humanity, though this may be as a result of following Jew leaders.
Let me quote more or less verbatim a Briton in October 2014:
Rule Britannia, Britons never never never shall be slaves? When are Britons going to awaken to the very real threat to the stability of their nation and the reality of the horrific legacy that they leaving future generations? Over the centuries, brave men and women have spilled rivers of blood fighting for the freedoms we nowadays take so much for granted. They fought and died in faraway lands so that their homeland would remain free from invasion by foreigners and their alien customs.
Since the end of WW2, our spineless, treacherous politicians, of all parties, have systematically destroyed the legacy those brave heroes left for us; they have allowed the invasion and colonisation of this once great land by creeds and cultures so at odds with our own, that those that died for our country would find it unrecognisable if they could return to modern day Britain.
Is this any way to treat their memory? Is this any way to treat our children's future? We, as Britons, have a duty to our future generations to preserve our country in good order for our children, their children and their children's children; but so far when the history of the second half of this century is written, we will be seen as the cowards that would not stand up to the tyranny of a bunch of traitors just six hundred and fifty strong; our parliament!
It will be said of us, that we stood idly by as a few greedy politicians gave our children's future away, stayed silent and allowed their freedoms to be eroded, and looked the other way whilst foreigners were given a free hand to take over and eventually rule this once proud nation.
We will be judged by our descendants, and compared unfavorably to our ancestors; they will wonder why, just a few years prior to our stewardship of this country, our parents were prepared to spill their last drop of blood in defence of these Islands, yet we had been cowed by silly little words like racist or bigot.
The passages in red are largely fantasy: Hitler wanted peace, faraway wars were not usually about homeland defence, the British government actually helped Stalin, the fighters were not spontaneous, but were given food, clothing, weapons and told what to do. The lesson seems to be that many people are sheep, who do what they're told—particularly when information is controlled so they know no better. It's plainly unrealistic to expect such rather ordinary people to burrow into the foundations of science for a critical examination, when even people who have nominally spent years studying science make no attempt to order their thoughts. The unifying theory of Jews and the Fed and their unlimited free 'money', the liking for debt because the interest from governments is enormous, the funding of information and legal control, and the hatred of whites, and the liking for killing 'goyim' and destroying 'goy' achievements, are certainly out of the range of Ivor and many others—here are my 'Joff' sites notes. His reasoning was unsophisticated: there was a Jew in the next bed in hospital; therefore, presumably, GULags never existed and Jews don't control the media. And hypotheses as varied as fluoridation of water as a deliberate anti-goyim act, and ruined education as another variety of the same thing, are not yet within these people's ken. Let's hope younger people do better.
OFFICIAL SCIENCE: PROF SIR DAVID KING FRS One example. Ten pages or so of 'The Percival Lecture, University of Manchester, 22nd Oct 2003'. King was 'appointed as the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor and Head of the Office of Science and Technology in October 2000.' Their capitals. He is or was a Professor of Physical Chemistry. 'His role involves overseeing science advice across HM Government' etc. He 'reports directly to the Prime Minister' [Blair, remember, the corrupt poseur par excellence, along with his Jewish handlers: Lord Cashpoint, the immigration fanatics such as 'Jack Straw'. It wouldn't surprise me, judging from his record, if King is another Jew, just following orders]. It's worth quoting a bit of the spiel: '.. I am responsible... for the quality of scientific advice within government and for advising on the Government's science and technology policy. Additionally I have to ensure that science policy issues are co-ordinated within Government. The tough bit of the job is that Government Departments are silos. Many of you will be familiar with university departments and empires within those. It is not very different in Government. ... my job is trans-Departmental and I sit above all that and go into different Government Departments with a very broad remit. I am Head of the Office of Science and Technology, which consists of around 120 civil servants at the moment. ... Currently there are seven Research Councils and ... the Arts and Humanities Research Board will become the eighth .. in April 2005. .. for the first time, one body [will fund] all of research in our higher education institutes. ...' (There's more; maybe some other time...; just add a few acronyms and capitalised titles). King claims to 'focus on' openness, honesty, and transparency. One motive nominally at least is to attract young people to study science, engineering, medicine, and technology.
I'll briefly summarise King's comments on what he regards as important then-recent issues. (1) The 2001 Foot and Mouth 'epidemic'; (2) Genetically Modified foods which 'have to be treated on a case-by-case basis'; (3) Floods, the coast, and climate change ('one of the biggest issues facing us today', and including the 'hockey stick' diagram; and (4) energy—King was 'pressing for a National Energy Research Centre' and an 'International Thermonuclear Experimental reactor'. King (not a biologist) seems to have had no doubts about slaughter. Interestingly, he says nothing about the BSE issue and the question of insecticides, notably the effects of nerve toxins on cattle. A huge issue which damaged the 'national herd' and was never properly investigated, despite a 'public enquiry'. King seems to be passive observer of materials fed to him; he shows not the slightest grasp of feeble computer models and suspect data from millennia back. Meanwhile, biological techniques are error-prone, people are slow-poisoned by fluoride salts, and the nuclear issues are uninvestigated.
OFFICIAL SCIENCE: PUBLIC MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES [Added December 2016]. A few new items in Ivor Catt's website draw attention to the Wellcome Foundation (known for the AIDS fraud, and for support for fake biology research—see Harold Hillman passim,) and part of the Wellcome Foundation's role in control of the Natural History Museum in London, and the Science Museum. Catt is puzzled that they still peddle the 'Climate Change' mythology, as it's not a drug-related issue. I don't know the detail of the way artefacts (and their destruction or concealment) and ideas for exhibitions are controlled; no doubt it's complex and underhand. According to Catt, the Science Museum now has a shrine to Einstein. The British Library has its own propagandist statuary and icons: for example Anne Frank, and 'William Shakespeare'. The National Portrait Gallery has a painting of J K Rowling, at her solitary café table. The Imperial War Museums (northern and southern) are both shrines to Jewish propaganda, including for example myths about the 'Holocaust', lies about US power after the Second World War and its genocides, and of course nuclear frauds. This sort of thing seems unknown to Catt. Many of these science people are (or were) gullible about the British media, citing things like the BBC, Guardian, Independent, and Sunday Times as though they are genuine news sources. However, they saw through the alleged science media: I have never seen a single mention of the New Scientist, apart from a comment by Catt on Maddox, an editor; and by Harold Hillman, who told me that an article he'd written for New Scientist, which was set up for him to proof-read, was pulled when a manufacturer of electron microscopes stated it would cancel all its advertisements. LOYALTY TO EVIDENCE: a short note on the difficulties[Top]
Here's a story: video of Richard Dawkins in a 'British' mixed-race school, stated to be religious. Dawkins asks the class (or possibly a carefully-picked polite subset) if they believed evidence should outweigh religious affiliation. Not one thought so, to Dawkins' bemusement. None of them had a clue about evolution. Here's another: Bertrand Russell in a black-and-white filmed interview says children, and people generally, should substitute 'loyalty to evidence' for other belief systems or outlooks.
Neither of these worthies seems to understand that 'evidence' may be difficult to collect and interpret. For example, an allegedly ancient fragment of bone may be unearthed in Africa, and be given a date of death, and identification by species. How can a novice possibly be certain about these inferences? The evidence is not, in fact, evident. It can be amusing, or painful, watching publicity for propagandist material being pushed, usually of course by Jews at the present day. Consider for example the 'temperature of the earth'. Every part of the earth has a different temperature, and temperatures fluctuate with shade, clouds, wind. Jews want a climate fraud, and, in the traditional and probably genetic absence of honesty, have invented assorted nonsense. Dawkins thinks it's irrational to fear living in Africa: he ignores the evidence. Russell believed Jews were always innocent: he ignored the evidence. In both cases, by 'evidence' they mean official views which they accepted without checking.
LIST OF LATER ADDITIONS[Top] Nuclear Weapons and Power Revisionism. Click the link for the saved copy of a forum which was live from March 2011 to March 2012, set up by Jesse Waugh. There are some insertions in red, as new information or new interpretations have emerged. Most of the contributors were anonymous.
Jesse Waugh's initial move in this field was a short 2008 video, published on Youtube, and withdrawn; it was copied with some annotations to my Rerevisionist Youtube site. (Click right to watch the video). As far as I'm aware, the leading originator of nuke criticism was Roger Desjardins, of Canada, though there must have been other voices, presumably kept hushed. Unfortunately, Desjardins seems to have never discussed his motives and methods, and his impact.
Frank McManusSalt in Human Nutrition with special reference to the chloride ion from sodium chloride (mostly 2013-2014, on this website). A counter to the campaign to reduce salt in food. Frank, I think as a result of his own experiences eating salt, collected media beliefs about salt, and tracked down evidence that these memes were wrong. He contacted a number of websites who rejected his piece.
Psychology: Jews and critique; Jordan Peterson example of naivete Psychology is a perfect example of an incomplete science, incomplete because of ignorance of the way the brain operates. It's tempting to say psychology (and psychiatry—including medical training) are unscientific, but in fact there is an empirical element: presumably a person with a large number of contacts with selected deviant people would be likely to be more competent than a person without. Psychology is at a stage something like Baconian philosophy of science, looking at numerous specimens, except that, now, other sciences allow experimentation of the effects of drugs, effects of violence, effects of propaganda and 'education'. 'Critique' refers to the domination of Jews in the US 'academic' world from the 1920s, with their systematic distortions. I select Jordan Peterson (Professor in Canada) as an example of the limitations of official psychology under Jewish influence. He's taken the line of what could be called 'humanist' or 'creative' or 'non-technical' psychology, which of course includes Freud. Peterson's reading list includes Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Dostoievsky and a Holocaust apologist with a non-Jewish name, and a book on the 'rape of Nanking'. He seems not to have heard of Solzhenitsyn, or another authors on atrocities with Jewish involvement, or of systematic propaganda lies. He takes absurdly lightweight computerised stuff such as 'IAT' seriously (a keypress questionnaire typically used to look at race, perceived distinctions between religions, and so on, in each case with no consideration of underlying fact). Important Remark: Peterson says, of low-IQ people: Conservatives say they should work harder. Liberals say all people are the same. Peterson doesn't say Jews want low-IQ people in other countries.
These notes might, I hope, be helpful, especially to those people who are unsure what to do about personal findings of corruption and deceit.
• Most of the people involved in revisionist work are oldish males, with some supply of money. • Realistically, few women are involved in serious research into underlying principles and assumptions; it's too difficult and there may be seriously vicious attacks. • A back-of-an-envelope scribbled list of names gave me the result that only about one in six alternative types is likely to come up with much. • There are often two types of revisionist: (1) Experts in some field(s), who have developed conflicting ideas from their one-time colleagues; Harold Hillman is a perfect example. And (2) Outsiders from the field(s), who bring some new perceptual scheme to bear on the topic, such as David Percy, who examined NASA photographs in detail and found them wanting. Another variety of outsiders are persons who do work which others should have done: David Irving being a perfect example. Experts often retain baggage more or less by habit: I've just watched a video of Tetyana Obukhanych, a critic of vaccination, who I think retains a lot of spurious virological beliefs. Outsiders may have a hard time being taken seriously: NASA photograph/ film critics illustrate the point. • Sources: Collecting your own documents (published books, papers, leaflets, clippings, videos; your own notes of meetings and recordings) can give you a helpfully solid background. • Don't assume friends, colleagues, correspondents, emailers will always be open-minded. They may believe in Jesus, the flat earth, Auschwitz, 9/11 as Arabic, Jewish blood as not evolved, J F Kennedy as the same person as Jimmy Carter. • Remember the 'technique of suspended judgment'. If you aren't fairly sure, or haven't looked at the evidence, don't form a snap judgment. •
Expect laziness. For example, the BBC is obviously solid with corruption; and it's existed almost a century. And yet not one single person has come up with a sound critique. I put Birdwood's leaflet on Internet: nobody else bothered. Not one single officially religious person—vicar, bishop, or for that matter Imam—has made any attempt to set out the truth about Talmudic stuff. I haven't found any economics department that's listed huge Jewish financial frauds. Superfluid helium crits on the lines of Phil Holland ought to have been published years ago. Hans Eysenck (diagram, right) seems to have developed theories based on a few simplish ideas—conditioning, extraversion—but had a defensive, dull expositional style which helped him to be ignored. And so on. • Expect uselessness: Quakers have a pacifist ideology, and when I happened to be in Ambleside I spoke to a man who I was told founded the Bradford Peace Studies Institute, or some similar name. By that time I wasn't surprised to find he would not publicise or take an interest in US war crimes. The Natural Physics Alliance would do nothing about nuclear skepticism; it's obvious to anyone interested in the topic that they are useless, though whether that is their inherent nature, or needed to retain money, I couldn't say. • Expect greed. Funding will change the nature of organisations. Watch for possible legal hassles. • Expect dishonesty. For example, birth defects caused by American chemicals are still not fully detailed in reference books on poisons, as far as I know. • Expect violent conflicts in some circumstances. For example, Dalton (of the atomic theory) and Humphry Davy detested each other, at least according to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. (Adam Hart-Davis: '.. Dalton went to The Royal Institution, but he and Humphry Davy hated one another on sight..') Karl Pearson and R A Fisher, both pioneers in statistics theory, detested each other. The biochemists Hugh Sinclair and Hans Krebs had a 'personality clash', outlined by Horrobin of Efamol. There's not much point in being judgmental: a person who may gain worldwide, lifetime and beyond, reputation has few clear guidelines to etiquette or ethics. • Watch for 'Vested Interests': people supposedly qualified in social services, or in unions, when face to face with evil, often cannot cut the mustard. Muslim and Jewish sex abuses; journalists that refuse to mention race murders against whites, or war crimes against Palestinians; people who instinctively tell lies, and deflect questions; phoney charities evading their nominal work ... All these things are commonplace. • Try to write and speak clearly, without inserting suspect matter. If you say it's a myth that high technology has any harmful component, you're obviously wrong. If you say US soldiers using remote weapons are brave, you're wrong. If you make silly generalisations such as 'all men are rapists', 'there has always been corruption', 'gays are wonderful', you're weakening your case. Avoid newspaper and advertising language, which isn't usually concerned with truth. Ludicrous, and therefore unconvincing, exaggeration, and unevidenced stuff, are what Jews do: TV News has a 'crisis' or 'increasing impatience with xxx' or whatever; try not to write 'the legal system is crumbling' or 'twentieth century science has to be written off.' Most people don't know that language can be used is a plain explanatory sense: they have been fed slogans, and biases, and words as things to react to ('atheist', 'fascist', 'Communist', 'racist'), without analysis, all their lives. • Try to see other viewpoints, however unreasonable and unpleasant and counter-intuitive they may seem. Most people simply cannot understand that weak teachers have an interest in teaching nothing important, and in remedial teaching. Most people can't understand that the present money system means its controllers want government debt because they make future earnings from it. There's an alleged Chinese proverb that the best government is unnoticed by the people; it would seem that the worst government is also unnoticed. In present-day science, there are possibilities for fraud and rivalry between groups, laboratories, entire industries and countries. I don't think anyone in the 1930s could have predicted that a fraud on the scale of NASA could ever exist. Meta-revisionism will no doubt emerge from the different streams of revisionism. • Watch for logical extensions to what you're saying; be like a chess player, pace up and down and work out replies. Jews and fluoride? Economics of fluorine and fluoride? Actual effects of fluoride?—are Jews responsible for damaging goyim by fluoride poisoning? Jews and poor education? Jews and ownership of houses for rent? Do Jews force immigration into white countries only; if so, why? Black death? Jesuits? IRA a fake? Did whole societies perish in the USSR? Has the push for women having custody of children been another Jewish move, so that (just an example) 'Alex Jones' will lose everything if he divorces? • Watch, now and then, for mysteries: here's a site listing suspicious deaths of scientists. Note how many of the deaths are in industries reasonably suspected of fraud: nuclear weapons, nuclear power, AIDS, climate, Ebola, vaccination, space, weapons. An older book by Tony Collins & Stephen Arkell, Open Verdict describes mysterious deaths in the defence industry. • If you find someone whose views seem odd, but interesting, listen carefully and try not be get annoyed. Make notes, check you've understood by rewording, and if the person seems right, you may be on to something. If there seems to be an endless regress of information (for example, in biochemistry) you may be unable to go deeply enough. Tread carefully and try to list questions you feel are not answered properly. • It may be worthwhile putting tracer lies in your own material: in the same way that phonebooks can have false names, roadmaps can have fake details, history books can have fake incidents, directories can have fake entries, answers to questions can include errors, image files can have steganographic data inserted. • Revisionism can apply anywhere. I found a 1966 Cornell University book (by A. Kira) on rethinking the design of 'bathroom' equipment. This must count as 'revisionism'. Norman Lockyer, an astronomer, was ridiculed for years for his idea that stonehenge's design was related to the seasons. • Use Internet. There's a lot out there, including complete copies of books. It's often better to get pdf files of books, which are less easy to censor and manipulate, something that has been known. Be cautious but (if this is any help!) not too cautious. • Try to take a long and deep view. It's possible leadership in science will pass from the west, because of corruption. Could China or India take over, by using brain power rather than expensive equipment? The case of Gilbert Ling, of Chinese origin though living in the USA, suggests this is possible. What results might be expected from technology, in war? Are genetics or races what will determine the future? If people get money from some undesirable work, such as bad education leading to 'remedial' work, will those people want to improve? • Try to co-operate with people with similar interests. And compare what you find with people with other interests, who may suggest parallels or contrasts. • When a subject veers off into the swamps of lies and deceit, researchers might find useful material from times before the paths diverged.
A perfect example is Alfred Russel Wallace, probably the genuine inventor/ discoverer of the theory of evolution, whose writings therefore deserve a revival.
Another example, perhaps less stellar, is Lewis Fry Richardson, who wrote on 'socionomy', my word for his attempts to apply mathematics, including calculus, to human affairs, such as wars. Interesting, though he said nothing much on power struggles and their net effects, including topics around quantification of power, resources and money.
Another name from the past is D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson , who applied minimal mathematics to the form of living things and their growth.
Antoine Béchamp is highly thought of in France. For various reasons, notably language, knowledge islands often develop by country or state. Béchamp is a good example of a thinker not much known elsewhere. I haven't paid much attention to Béchamp personally. But it's clear that emailing and machine translation provide easy routes to such investigations, far easier than in pre-Internet times.
Roger Desjardins of Canada, who played some part in nuclear revisionism, but may, or may not, have taken material from other sources: I simply don't know. He, or someone at his email addresses, regards me as a 'scumbag', and he may have reached a plateau from which he will never scale new heights.
Peter Duesberg famous for having been demoted by Berkeley from virology professor to running an annual picnic, is a perfect example of an insider whistle-blower.
Rudy Stanko published The Score in 1986, on Jews destroying his Texas beef empire. Such books are an important part of the evidence as to how Jews operate in the USA.
Ezra Pound is an author (1885-1972) in the tradition of the non-Jewish USA. As intelligent people become Jew-aware, such authors will be rediscovered.
• You'll need persistence and you'll need to be thick-skinned. If you're unable to be forceful on occasion, you may not be cut out for revisionism. • Don't assume big names are necessarily too busy for discussion. Some may like to talk over their views.
My star rating is a personal guess at the likely usefulness or novelty of the work of the starred person.
Pioneering revisionist. This doesn't mean everything is correct, but there are considerable amounts of new work.
Good, suggestive revisionist: possibly narrower or more difficult to understand.
Interesting and largely novel, but perhaps including too many current mistakes, or with too many omissions.I was out of touch, for money reasons, for about a dozen years with most of the people here. I hope I haven't misrepresented them! The starting pistol for this piece was the news that Ivor was seriously ill. He's now recovering (I'm told from a brain abscess) and therefore can read something like an obituary of himself!
Top of Page First complete upload 2014-10-29. A few corrections/additions 2016-12-24. Two science revision youtube links and a few more additions 2017-01-22