Over the years
the physics community has become increasingly dogmatic, ostracizing
anyone who espouses theories different from the dyed-in-the-wool
antiquated concepts that it "sanctifies." Einstein's
theories of special and general relativity, despite their flaws,
are faithfully revered as is Einstein himself, his poster-sized
image frequently adorning the offices of university physics theologians
and their faithful followers. I have nothing against Einstein.
I greatly respect the man and his work. But, heaven
help any free thinking physicist who might point out these flaws
or dare to challenge aspects of the relativistic paradigm. It
is tantamount to professional suicide.
In his article entitled "Screwball" published in the January 2001 issue of Playboy Magazine, American Physical Society spokesperson Robert Park underhandedly tries to smear alternative energy technology by spreading his usual lies. At the end of his article, he repeatedly twists the truth, repeating distortions that he presented earlier in his internet "news" gossip column ("What's New") which attempts to publicly diseminate his outmoded views. He states,
Here he tries to make
his readers think that I have a blind belief in this subject,
like someone who throws reason to the wind. In actual fact,
I have no such fixation on cold fusion. I will admit that
I am interested in the field and I do feel it is a very important
area of research like many other areas of science. As for
my approach to science, whether it is a novel theory that is
in a new area being explored, or well accepted dogma of the sort
that Park espouses, I try to maintain a detached perspective.
Unlike Robert Park, I try not to let any preconceived notions
blind my views about the world.
Here Park spreads
more lies. In fact, I have never said anything about the
B-2 using technology that was reverse-engineered from a crashed
flying saucer. The paper I wrote, which is published in
the book Electrogravitics
Systems, suggests that the B-2 utilizes electrogravitic
technology for controlling gravity, or what could be termed "antigravity
technology." But my paper traces the origin of the
B-2's technology to Townsend Brown, an eminent scientist and
inventor who was born in the U.S.A, not on some other star system.
The paper shows that disclosed features of the B-2 conform
closely to ideas published in Brown's 1962 electrokinetics patent.
The book also contains a formerly classified military intelligence
report that I had obtained from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
that describes how in the 1950's leading aerospace companies
were aggressively experimenting with Brown's technology. I
acknowledge that my theories about the B-2's exotic propulsion
system are tentative to the extent that I have no first hand
experience of the plane's classified construction. This
is well understood by people who read my paper. So if Park
wishes to use the word belief here, in the context of blind,
religious belief, he is willfully misleading the public.
Again, this is inaccurate.
I did not narrowly focus on cold fusion. In my letter
to the EEOC I stated that I was convinced that I was dismissed
from the PTO because of my unconventional beliefs in cold fusion
and other technologies as well as because of my beliefs related
to novel scientific theories I held and novel theories I published
in my books and on my website. Then I argued that "discrimination
against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of
discrimination on the basis of religion." From this
standpoint I was arguing that all scientific beliefs should
be under civil rights protection, e.g., as protected religious
belief, including the dogmas that Park so fervently espouses.
Park's statement that the EEOC has ruled that "cold fusion is a religion" is again misleading. Obviously, he tries with twisted logic to infer "the EEOC says its religion, therefore we were right all along, cold fusion is a religion!" Let's get something clear; the only one who is saying that cold fusion is a religion is Robert Park. Here of course he tries to create the impression that people interested in cold fusion research have a blind belief in the subject much like religious fundamentalists. But if he is looking for religiously fundamentalist beliefs in physics, he need look no further than his own. After all Park has been publicly accused of "suppressing information that conflicts with his foregone conclusion." This sounds like blind belief to me; doesn't it to you? As for the EEOC decision, they stated that the complainant (I, Paul LaViolette), "claims he was terminated and denied the opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold fusion beliefs." But note there is a difference between saying that one's religion "embodies ones cold fusion beliefs" and saying that "cold fusion is a religion." As I stated to the Washington Post, there is a connection between my scientific beliefs and my very deep religious feelings. But this does not mean that my scientific beliefs are themselves a rigid and cult-like religion. As I have stated, I ascribe to the scientific method of holding theories in a condition of tentativeness and checking their validity against observation. Also I practice the Socratic method of questioning the validity of my own views just as I question the validity of those that the American Physical Society so staunchly advocates.
In the news item "ET PHONE Lawyer" printed in their February 2001 issue, Smart Money magazine quips:
Actually, I never
claimed that my work about pulsar signals being of possible alien
intelligence origin had anything to do with my firing from the
PTO. The other items (cold fusion, and the zodiac), yes.
But alien radio signals? No. My book The Talk of the Galaxy,
which presents evidence that pulsar beacons may be of artificial
origin, was not published until the spring of 2000, a whole year
after I had already left the Patent Office.
In his October 2000 article in the Arizona Employment Law Letter entitled "Is belief in UFOs a protected activity?" Troy Foster is also a bit off the mark in reporting the facts of my case. He writes:
This is wrong. I do not have an obsessive belief in cold fusion, and the EEOC never said that I did.
No, I never contended that I was fired because
of my "beliefs in the paranormal." I contended
that I was fired because of my unconventional scientific beliefs.
"Unconventional" is not synonymous with "paranormal."
Indeed, the EEOC did not make a specific determination about beliefs in UFOs and related paranormal phenomena. But these were not mentioned in my case, unless Foster is willing to consider the B-2 bomber a UFO. Whether or not one wishes to consider the B-2 as being "unidentified," it certainly is not of extraterrestrial origin. Perhaps the EEOC ruling could help someone who claims he has been fired because of his interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena. But that would be another case, not mine.
In their November 30, 2000 article entitled "Crisis in the Workplace" the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) wrote:
This is incorrect.
I do not have an "obsessive belief" in the validity
of cold fusion, and the EEOC never said that I did. As
I have explained above, I maintain a detached view with respect
to all scientific observations and theories, including cold fusion.
By stating that I have an obsessive belief in cold fusion,
the Star Tribune incorrectly infers that I throw reason
to the wind and have a blind allegiance to a particular point
of view. I find their allegation highly offensive.
Here the paper implies that "cold fusion" is indeed bogus and that it is a good thing that LaViolette wasn't examining patents on technologies that physicists believe is bogus. (What a relief!) Instead of claiming that I have an obsessive belief in cold fusion, perhaps that the author of this article should investigate whether physicists have an obsessive belief that cold fusion is bogus. Hundreds of scientists have published articles and given papers reporting positive results with cold fusion experiments. Moreover, the 1989 MIT study which is one of three studies that the news media and DOE so frequently cite to denounce cold fusion has, in fact, been found to favor cold fusion. As Dr. Eugene Mallove has shown in Issue 24 of Infinite Energy magazine (March 1999), the physicists involved in that MIT study blatantly falsified their test data so that it would indicate a negative result for cold fusion. These scientists must have had an obsessive belief that cold fusion is bogus considering that they would go to this extreme. But even after the data falsification scandal was made public, physicists and DOE administrators continued to blindly believe that the MIT study had negative results on cold fusion. So you tell me, who are the ones with the obsessive belief? Incidentally, the other two frequently cited studies, done at Caltech and at Harwell, have also been shown to favor cold fusion when their data is properly and competently analyzed.