The Real Reasons for
Dr. LaViolette's Blacklisting

   The physicists administering the Cornell physics archive have unfortunately set limits as to what they consider to be legitimate areas of scientific investigation.  Taboos for them might include subjects such as: experimental research on cold fusion, theoretical alternatives to the big bang theory, energy experiments seeming to challenge the First Law of Thermodynamics, technologies dealing with gravitational control, extraterrestrial communication, and the study of ancient myths and folklore (as conveyors of scientifically advanced information).
    It seems that if a scientist has published books or written papers describing work he has done in one of these areas, he runs the risk of being put on the archive's exclusion list.  In the case of Dr. LaViolette, one needs only to conduct an internet search to see that he has written papers and books that have dealt with a number of these "forbidden" subjects.*  Then, even though the paper he submits to the archive does not itself necessarily deal with any of these subjects, just the fact that he has dared to explore these "fringe" areas in past books and publications or on his website makes him a candidate for their blacklist.  In making their decision as to whether to allow a paper to be posted to the preprint archive, the archive moderator "thought police" do not appear to consider whether the paper is well written and thought out, but instead it appears that they look at who the person is who is writing it, what gossip is being said about them on the internet, and whether that person holds the same scientific paradigm views as their own.  Clearly, this is the case when scientists are prevented from posting their papers, even when these papers have already been accepted for journal publication or are advocated by Nobel Laureates.

   Most quantum jumps in science are made by creative, individualistic thinkers, who are not afraid to challenge mainstream beliefs.  It seems that the archive administrators seek to block such people from the archive and admit only those who are like themselves: highly specialized, of narrow focus, business-as-usual type scientists.  Not to say that the highly specialized individuals do not play an important role in science.  But, to exclude the more creative sector of academia, that of clear thinkers who do not wish to genuflect to antiquated party line physics doctrines, is a policy that borders on idiocy.

* For those interested in doing an internet search on Dr. LaViolette, be aware that some posted news articles contain blatant disinformation about him.  Here, in his own words, he corrects some of these erroneous statements:

  • I am not a "cold fusion devotee" as the Washington Post claims.  Cold fusion is not my religion.  Also I do not "believe in cold fusion," as Robert Park has claimed in Playboy magazine.  Also I do not have an "obsessive belief in the validity of 'cold fusion'," as implied by a Minneapolis newspaper.  I do keep an open mind on cold fusion, and consider its validity to be proven through the results of experiments.  I do have an ongoing interest in cold fusion because of its possible future potential as an alternative energy source.  I am also interested because I have developed a physics theory, "subquantum kinetics," whose now verified nuclear field predictions happen to provide a basis for understanding why cold fusion actually takes place.

  • I did not argue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission specifically "that belief in cold fusion should be treated as a protected religious belief," as Park claimed in his Playboy magazine interview.  Nor did the Commission "in effect rule that cold fusion is a religion."  I do hold the view that the physical world is an aspect of the spiritual and hence is sacred. Therefore I believe that all scientific investigation is a sacred endeavor and should be approached with humility and honesty.
  • Astrology is not my religion, as claimed by an internet tabloid operated by Microsoft Corporation.  A few of my books do discuss archaeoastronomical aspects of ancient myths and lores associated with the zodiac constellations, but certainly horoscope astrology is not my religion.  I know of no one who has astrology as their "religion."

  • I did not base my physics theory (subquantum kinetics) on natal astrology, as claimed by a Washington D.C. news tabloid.  To the contrary, subquantum kinetics is founded on well accepted systems theory concepts which I had applied to the field of physics.

  • I did not say that my scientific beliefs can't be separated from my religious beliefs, as misquoted by this tabloid.   Nor did I argue that my alleged belief in cold fusion constituted, or was somehow congruent with, my belief in a Supreme Being, again misquoted by this tabloid.

  • I did not take my job at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to "infiltrate the Patent Office" as part of a conspiracy to bring in ideas on "fringe science," as claimed by Science magazine, the Washington Post, and by Robert Park, spokesman for the American Physical Society.

  • Tom Valone did not "recruit" me to obtain my Patent Office examiner job as claimed by the Washington Post, Science magazine, and Robert Park.  I had no prior knowledge of any internet posting that patent examiner Valone may have circulated.

  • I did not issue any patents on cold fusion technology nor did I issue any patents on "dubious" technologies, as claimed by an internet tabloid operated by Microsoft Corporation.  A quick search of the PTO website lists the patents that I processed which are all on the fairly mundane technology of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

  • It is interesting that so much of the negative press against me fixates on the subject of cold fusion.  For those who have not heard, the Navy's Space Warfare Systems Center conducted a ten year investigation of "cold fusion" and determined that it is a real phenomenon.  Their 2002 report may be downloaded here.   As I mentioned earlier, cold fusion is not a main area of interest for me.  One reason that the physics establishment media has focused so much attention on this may be because in Spring of 1999 I did help the Integrity Research Institute publicize an alternative energy conference they were then organizing at the U.S. State Department, a conference that included one paper on cold fusion (which was to be delivered by Edmund Storms, one of the archive blacklistees).  I had merely mirrored on my website an announcement of that upcoming conference.  That was apparently enough to put fundamentalist physicists such as Robert Park on the warpath.  Angered by this, a State Department physicist speaking at the March 22, 1999 annual American Physical Society meeting denounced Tom Valone and his effort to put on this energy conference and said to the audience that he and "Robert Park would work to expose and purge anyone at the Patent Office who sympathizes with cold fusion." He then stated "Bob Park will sink his teeth into that one."  It is clear to whom he was referring.  At the time, Tom Valone and I were working at the PTO as patent examiners.  A FOIA request revealed that in the days that followed the Patent Office directors were showered with emails many of which cited or copied Parks derogatory website postings about us.  It may be that this vendetta continues even today through efforts to bar me from posting to

  • I have not stated that "the B-2 stealth bomber uses secret antigravity technology, reverse-engineered from a crashed flying saucer," as Robert Park claims in his Playboy magazine interview.  I have written a paper showing that the electrogravitic field propulsion concept described in a patent issued to U.S. inventor T. Townsend Brown anticipates many of the features disclosed to operate in the B-2 bomber.  But nowhere have I related this technology to "crashed flying saucers."

  • My conclusions on pulsars presented at the winter 2000 American Astronomical Society meeting were received favorably by a large number of astronomers with whom I spoke there, contrary to a tabloid quote of a Society "spokesman."  Also, contrary to allegations on the internet, my findings have received support from a large number of scientists, both in personal correspondence and in journal citations.  Of course, physics is a heterogeneous field; there is no one theory agreed to by everyone.  So, every theory has its dissenters.  One way of deciding whether a theory is valid is to see how many of its predictions have been verified.  My theories have had an exceptional verification track record.  See Predict.html and Predict2.html.

I hereby affirm that the above statements about my views, writings, and activities are true.

Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.
December 5, 2004

In brief, there is much garbage in print and on the internet that attempts to brand Dr. LaViolette as a crackpot.  Unfortunately there are many people including scientists who believe these cheap shots.  Much of this misinformation has originated from Robert Park, a Washington lobbyist and PR flack for the American Physical Society whose APS website postings routinely make fun of legitimate scientists whose ideas don't happen to fit his conceptual mold.  A Washington Post book review article about Park offers an accurate glimpse of some of the character assassinations he has carried out.

It is unfortunate that science and the media have come to be so vicious in their treatment of new thinkers.  If it is true that moderators of use such internet garbage to decide whether or not Dr. LaViolette should be blacklisted and prevented from posting papers, then science has indeed stooped to a very low ethical standard.