The popular American press has ridiculed the participation of Ira Einhorn
over a long period of time in networking among scientists who are seriously
investigating the applications of new physics to understanding the UFO
phenomena, the physics of consciousness and potential covert military
applications thereof, new-energy technologies to replace nuclear and fossil
fuel power, advanced electromagnetic weaponry research, etc.
Especially in the recent press in Philadelphia over the last couple of years
Einhorn's participation in an email discussion list of Dr. Jack Sarfatti
has been demeaned by its reference as a "ufo" list.
Sarfatti is a longtime friend and associate of Einhorn who believes Ira was
framed for the murder of Holly Maddux and in the below recent post to his
advanced physics of consciousness research list he explains his recent
hypothesis on how and who framed Ira Einhorn.
Dan Smith is a close associate of CIA science chief Ron Pandolfi (sp?) and
regularly provokes spiritual/religious/physics interchanges on this list.
Most of below post is science related but Sarfatti's Einhorn hypothesis is
interesting because Dr. Sarfatti is usually very reserved in his judgements
and public release of anything speculative.
From: "Dr. Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@...
To: "Dan Smith" <dansmith@...
Cc: "Carol Rosin" <rosin@...
Subject: Re: Sarfatti & Co. intra-cosmic strategy
Date: Friday, September 08, 2000 9:43 AM
Reflections on "The Properties of Light" and Darkness.
Dan Smith wrote:
> >> Knowing about soul physics entails having the ability to engineer
> >> realities, along the lines of simulating worlds by networking large
> >> of central processing units, but in the case the CPUs are our own
> >> short, MJ-12 knows the folks who have access to and a detailed
> >> of the Universal Program.
> >What have you been smoking Dan? More to the point, I am pretty sure I
> >killed Holly Maddox and framed Ira Einhorn. I suspect it was Mayor Frank
> >and his Goon Death Squads from the Homicide Division of the Police
> Department in
> >Philadelphia in mid-70's. They killed a Philly news reporter dumped his
> body in
> >the river and several other people.Several of those cops went to prison
> >eventually. Ira really pissed Rizzo off by running against him for Mayor
> and a
> >few other things. See the movie "The Thin Blue Line" about newsman
> >Newman who got Pullitzer breaking Rizzo and the killer cops of the City
> >Brotherly Love that was run by the Mob back then. It was as bad as
> With apologies to Ira, the preceding change of subject has got to be
> a new record in non-sequitordom.
I know that. What I meant was that the Ira stuff is real and important while
your stuff here is fantastic nonsense. I had just made the Rizzo-Einhorn
connection in past few days. Justice for Ira Einhorn (Les Miserables) is
important than your fantasies about MJ 12 and The Visitors. I am not saying
12 and the Visitors were and are not real only that you are fantasing about
their omniscience in matter and mind. No one on this planet understands that
better than I do at the level of the physical explanation. If and when I see
something better I will know it and acknowledge it. This is not a matter of
but of Truth.
> The topic was soul physics. That the
> machinations of Frank Rizzo might be relevant to Ira is entirely possible,
> but that they are somehow relevant to soul physics surely boggles the
> Let us attempt to get this discussion back on track.
It's not hard to boggle your mind. :-)
> Your mind is balking. When you attempted to undertake soul physics, is it
> possible that you might have bitten off something much bigger than you
Dan I am not going to play your mind-control games. I have never met an idea
could not understand and improve on if I put my mind to it.
> You are beginning to understand why discretion about the realm of the
> mind and soul has been the better part of physics valor for all these
Hogwash. The simple fact is that we did not have the tools to think about it
properly until Bohm came along. Also Bohr's mysticism in physics has
progress for 75 years.
> But you correctly sense that if there is going to be a
> breakthrough in physics and cosmology we physicists are going to have to
> confront the challenge of the soul.
The problem is solved. The physical nature of mind, soul, consciousness and
their relation to matter is now solved by me and it is a rather simple
if you have the correct ontology. Stapp, Penrose, Duerr, Davies et-al do not
because they are infected with the Bohr-vonNeumann meme virus. You are
infected with your immaterialism nonsense. I was infected myself in
and Beyond" so a cure is possible. Everything you read in the popular books
the New Physics and Mysticism is pure hogwash. Nick Herbert's books, for
example, very well written, are perpetuating a complete fantasy, Capra's
Zukav's books, my good friend Fred Alan Wolf's books, Roger Penrose's books,
Stapp's books, Davies's books, Deepak's books, Ken Wilber's book on "Quantum
Questions", Murray Gell-Mann's books, David Deutsch - all of them simply
and not even wrong on the physics and metaphysics. There are good insights
peppered here and there in some of them of course. John Brockman has made a
fortune fooling the public- not that he knows any better of course. The
metaphysics abroad in the media today is not only wrong it is dangerously
and , in the name of The Real Truth, I am campaigning to correct the wrong
I helped to start with the book Space-Time and Beyond and my leadership of
Esalen Physics Consciousness Research Group in 1976 that was seminal in
catalyzing many popular books in the New Physics that have had a powerful
influence on opinion makers - much to my regret. Although I was with Bohm in
1971 at Birkbeck that was not an active time for him and his ideas with
did not mature enough until later with the publication of The Undivided
in 1993 - that was the turning point in my thought on matter, mind, soul and
"But it had also been Schrodinger who had convincingly argued that because
wave function is stubbornly smeared out over configuration space, the
space of all possible configurations of the particle until thye precise
of its collapse, it therefore resists all attempts to connect up with a
recognizably like our own. Faced with this intractability, formally known as
'measurement problem,' many of the luminaries of physics, from Bohr and
Heisenberg on down, took the radical step of denying the existence of an
independently existing physical world altogether, and, surprisingly, got
with it. In other, i.e. nonscientific contexts, the difference between those
are committed to an independently existing reality and those who are not is
roughly correlated with the distinction between the sane and the psychotic."
37-8 "The Properties of Light" by Rebecca Goldstein (Houghton Mifflin, NY
Rebecca is Shelly Goldstein's wife. He is a Bohmian at Rutger's. Rebecca is
Mac Arthur Fellow. Thanks to her editor Elaine Pfefferblit for calling me up
from New York to send me the book. I am glad to see I am not alone in this
battle. I am preparing a course
Physics in Modern Literature
Properties of Light : Rebecca Goldstein
Roger's Version: John Updike
Witches of Eastwick: John Updike
Techgnosis: Erik Davis
Bohemia: Herbert Gold
some plays by Tom Stoppard
> I do not quake at this challenge, but I
> suggest that we may want to contemplate a slight alteration in the
> intra-cosmic strategy of Sarfatti & Co. That is my job, is it not?
I don't know Dan, I might fire you for nonperformance. So far you are not
holding up your end of the contract .:-)
> Most of our physics colleagues who are venturing into the realm of mind
> soul physics are at least open to the possibility that the inclusion of
> in the physics equation may well necessitate our complete reinvention of
> physics from the top down.
I have told you. The problem has been solved on the qualitative
level and even beyond that I can compute important numbers that agree with
experiment. The problem is that my thinking is too far in advance of where
philosophically-minded physicists are stuck in the reality psychosis that
Rebecca aptly described above. This is still the Einstein-Bohr debate.
> They have a sufficient intuitive respect for the
> mind and soul that they are very skeptical that the renaming of a variable
> or the addition of a perturbation term, as you suggest, will make the
> slightest dent in the problem.
Another Red Herring. Nothing to do with anything. For you to reduce the
to a mere "renaming" is disinformation.
> Now Jack, you are welcome to the Pollyanna Chair of theoretical physics,
> let us not thereby forswear the occasional reality check.
> Reality Check #1:
> It is humans who invent rockets and not vice versa. If you know the
> of the soul, all the secrets of human invention and creativity will be
> contained therein, and will thereby potentially be at your disposal. In
> much as humans are able to intuit and deeply understand the truths of
> physics, to that same extent will the secret of the mind subsume all the
> secrets of physics and the universe.
Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, Goethe's Faust I add to my list of books for my
> Deliberations of this sort tend to weigh very heavily against the
> no-brainer, Darwinistic rationalizations for the existence of the mind and
> especially of the soul. Physicists of the soul, even including yourself,
> suppose that the laws of physics must have somehow anticipated the
> of the mind and soul. Such thinking is certainly in keeping with the
> already established spirit of Anthropics. The alternative of applying
> Darwinism to universes is a no-brainer and a dead-end for human
> The upshot is that reality is no accident. A creative, life-force must
> provide the ground of all being.
Post-quantum physics shows precisely what this Life-Force without force is.
bad you don't get it.
> Larry Crowell complains that the
> substitution of such a ground, in place of the tradition view of atoms
> swerving in the dark, spells the end of a reductionistic, atomistic
> He is right.
Larry is a bright kid, but he has big conceptual gaps in his physical
understanding. Also, like you, he does not even understand the most
ideas of what Bohm is talking about.
> We are now faced with the prospect that, if we wish to further
> advance our human understanding of the cosmos, we will have to take a more
> wholistic approach to the problem.
Pathetic Dan. Lame. Wake up and smell the coffee. Bohm did all that already.
> Shall we not then take a quick, orienting tour of the school of soul
> physics? Is anyone afraid of possibly learning something new and
CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE