Did Ira Einhorn really do it? RE: Skinwalker mention of me on p. 204-5
“Holly was murdered ~ 1977. Did Ira really do it?”
…Jack Sarfatti asks, in introducing this state of paranoia report
on the ufo issue, and why we need to be more fearful and
warmonger-like in our attitudes because “the space beings are
coming to get us so we better get bigger guns” argument of
our leading level-headed “theoretical physicists” onstar overdrive.
Just that this level of serious thought and fear is involved lends
credence to the arguments that Ira Einhorn was over his eyeballs
in secrets he still can’t talk about that could have gotten Holly killed
to shut him up, either for spreading fear, or for the truth behind
what portends it. In any case, the Judge’s contention that all this
is bull-pucky and fanciful and just basically smoke he thought Ira
was blowing in people’s faces, this below gives an overview of to
what level of seriousness that even smart people apparently took
deadly fantasies in the 70’s, evincing that Judge Mazzola don’t
know psychotronics from shinola.
“Ira Einhorn's version of the autopsy report that Kit Green
was alleged to have studied?”
--- Ira said that Kit Green as an MD did an independent autopsy
and found no blood, entered in a report somewhere but apparently
not allowed into the trial?
“Ira was well aware of the Hidden Valley data (Cob O Brien) discussed
in Skinwalker in mid 70's. Holly was murdered ~ 1977. Did Ira really do it?”
Letter to the Reader: “Prelude To Intimacy” by Ira Einhorn is in part an account of Einhorn's activities and the people he met while living in London, Ireland, the Arran Islands, Formentera, the Canaries (La Gomera) and St. Ives (North Cornwall), but also a reflection on his life and role in the exploration of altered states of consciousness and social transformation in the 1960s and 1970s. It includes many observations about the direction American and European culture has taken since those decades…
--David Williams 1/1/2006 5:50 PM
The answer is in the true nature of light, smart guy!
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@...]
To: [same list shown]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Skinwalker mention of me on p. 204-5
"In the summer of 2004 ... A brilliant but maverick physicist known to have extensive contacts in the intelligence community ... suggested"
I did not "suggest" I simply reported a bizarre story told to me at Nick Cook's Club in London on I think Thursday March 18, 2004 in the presence of Nick Cook and Grant Stapleton by a woman. I have her photograph BTW. She told us that Jacques Vallee told her the story. I contacted Kit Green, on the NIDS Board and a few others to try to find out if there was any truth to the story.
"that one or two NIDS staffers had been found murdered on the ranch .. that an unknown force had gutted the unnamed researchers and that this might be the beginning of an 'all out war with the extraterrestrials.' The physicist considered this to be a matter of national security, and he invoked a comparison to the alien invasion movie Independence Day..."
For the record, whilst perhaps no human NIDS people were murdered note that
1. The data in Skinwalker book clearly shows a LOW-INTENSITY WAR with ET is in progress. Only a fool would not come to that conclusion.
2. Holly Maddux was mutilated in the same way the cattle were and are - no blood - at least according to Ira Einhorn's version of the autopsy report that Kit Green was alleged to have studied?
3. Ira was well aware of the Hidden Valley data (Cob O Brien) discussed in Skinwalker in mid 70's. Holly was murdered ~ 1977. Did Ira really do it?
On Jan 1, 2006, at 1:11 PM, George Knapp wrote:
Ron and List,
I appreciate the feedback and am not ticked off at all. A healthy give-and-take about this material is welcome, even essential. The remark about the "intent" of the authors just hit a nerve because of comments elsewhere that the book is part of a disinformation scheme. The same rumblings were widely circulated after my newspaper articles about the ranch were published in 2002. Everyone on this list has heard the dark rumors about NIDS and its intentions. It's crap. NIDS did good work, important work, and the study of the Utah ranch was an honest and remarkable undertaking. No one is saying that it was flawless, but was there was no hidden agenda. The incidents in the book are reported accurately, if imperfectly. I'm no scientist, but it seems like this is the kind of project that science is supposed to tackle. Investigate the unexplained.
Hi George. Sorry that my comment seemed so abrasive. Let me try to restate it in a way that we can both live with.
I don't understand from the book what happened to the three broken cameras. Even if there was nothing on the tape of the forth camera at the proper time index, certainly those involved would have continued to check the tapes until they found the bit where the cameras were broken. Even if they recorded something invisible breaking them, they should have recorded the cameras breaking. It wasn't clear to me what the forth camera recorded and it seemed odd that this very dramatic incident wasn't described in great detail. Stepping past such drama made me wonder whether there wasn't a very simple explanation that we were not told. Did a branch blow in during a storm and smash the entire assembly? Did the wind blow them off the pole? We're left wondering because this is not made explicit. This is not a moral indictment of the writers. It's just a question I'd like to see answered.
---I'm going to defer to Colm Kelleher on this point. I have never seen the videotape from the camera incident, so my answers to your questions would be second hand. Still, I'll take this stab at it. The cameras were attached to telephone poles. The poles were in the middle of a pasture. There is no possibility that tree branches caused the damage since there are no trees within 50 yards of the poles. The cameras operated 24 hours a day, but the resolution is not that great. If, say, a chimpanzee has climbed the pole and ripped the guts out of the camera, the other cameras would probably have captured the activity on tape. But from what I know about the video, no person or animal can be seen on the tape. To my knowledge, the tape is too fuzzy to pick out the wires being ripped out. Colm told me that video enhancement techniques were used at a later date and that tiny pinpricks of light were seen buzzing around the mangled camera. It occurs to me that if enhanced video could pick out tiny lights, it should also be abl to see the gaffers tape as it was being ripped from the pole. Again, we will have to hear from Colm on this one. It' s a good question.
As to the writers, George, you did a very, very good job. The whole research team did. It's easy for someone like me to sit back in his cozy bedroom and complain that so-and-so didn't use a taser on the wookies. Lets think a moment about what this entails. Bigfoot, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, Skinwalker, whatever, can apparently run at fifty miles per hour, turn near invisible, knock a man off his feet with a howl of rage, read a man's thoughts, project his own thoughts into the mind of another (lets come back to this), and rip an appendage off a steer with it's bare hands. I'm not so sure I'd be all that aggressive were I in the field.
---Similar thoughts ran through my head during my first few visits to the property, especially the time when I was plopped down on a plastic chair in the middle homestead, in near-total darkness, and was offered up as bait. I wanted to see sometihng but was not entirely disappointed by the fact that nothing came out of the darkness to surgically remove an eye or an ear.
As to the thought projection; I'd like to know better what the experience was like on p. 131. Let me cite the event so it's clear:
". . .Then all of a sudden, It's got me. " he yelled. "It's saying, "We are watching you."
Now, the form of this language is as a report, not a complete lack of control. The person is apparently reporting his experience as he is having it, and still quite lucid. So this can't be called "possession" in the sense of a complete loss of volition, or can it? What did this guy say about his experience after the fact? Does he claim that he was on the receiving end of a message? Then why the claim "It's got me"? Does he claim he was being controlled? Then why the report "It's saying. . ."? I wish we could hear about this from the guy it happened to.
Good questions, but I really have to take a pass. It's understandably sensitive and I don't want to speculate. Hopefully, Colm will get a few moments of free time and give us some insight.
No matter my complaints I'm still recommending Skinwalker as the very best book of its genre, whatever that is.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti<mailto:sarfatti@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Skinwalker
On Jan 1, 2006, at 5:46 AM, George Knapp wrote:
First off, happy New Year to all on this list.
Second, I appreciate Ron's thoughtful observations, questions, and suggestions. It's especially gratifying to learn that he agrees the material in the book is worthy of serious consideration, even though it is admittedly difficult to reach any hard conclusions about what any of this means.
It means metric engineering technology is being used by parties unknown. If Shamans can do it they do it. That means a phase locking of a coherent mind field with the coherent phase of the vacuum that determines the local geometrodynamic curved tetrad field B.
In my current model
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2[(dtheta)(phi) - (theta)(dphi)]
dB = (hG/c^3)^1/2(dtheta)/\(dphi)
theta & phi are 2 vacuum Goldstone phases (that seems to be needed to fit NASA Pioneer Space Probe data)
Einstein's basic space-time differential invariant is of the form
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = (1 + B)(Flat Metric)(1 + B)
What happens in metric engineering is that there is a controlled phase modulation from a phase-lock. Let chi be the control phase modulation field that could be a mind field generated by the Shaman or UT etc.
theta -> theta + chi
phi -> phi + chi
The idea is very simple. It's 4D FM RADIO. Phase modulation in both space and time.
Hal Puthoff's and Bernie Haisch's ideas are completely inadequate. So is James Woodward's. Unfortunately Eric Davis buy them. You cannot do metric engineering with random stochastic electromagnetic fields. You must use coherent vacuum Higgs fields as explained by Lenny Susskind, professor of physics at Stanford in "Cosmic Landscape". Note the gravity generating Higgs field i.e. Planck Higgs field is not the same as the electroweak Higgs field that splits off from it at lower energy.
Planck Higgs field generates Einstein gravity at 10^19 Gev and it lowers the dark energy density. The leptons and quarks are still massless until expanding spatial geometrodynamical field cools to ~ few 100 Gev and the electroweak Higgs field splits off to give leptons and quarks their mass.
The origin of inertia is from the coherent vacuum electroweak Higgs field not from stochastic electromagnetic fields.
The questions and issues he raises are ones that the NIDS Science Advisory Board considered as well during the years when the field reports from the ranch were pouring in. Although I was allowed to read many of those reports, I was not a participant in the SAB discussions about the ongoing study, but I know that there were several vigorous debates within the organization about the ranch and about the direction the study should take. If the book leaves the impression that little thought was given to tactics and methodologies, it's the fault of the authors, because that is not the case at all. Some very smart people argued back and forth about questions just like the ones raised by Ron. There were differences of opinion about the best way to proceed and about the significance of the data that was gleaned by the team on the ground. I will leave it to others to evaluate whether mistakes were made, but from the viewpoint of an informed bystander, I can tell you that the scientists involved in this study approached this mystery with open minds and honest intentions. It wasn't a seat-of-the-pants effort by any means, although everyone who was involved would probably agree that different approaches may have led to different results. Anyone who has read the book will recognize that this particular mystery represents unexplored territory for scientists. There is no blueprint or manual to follow for something like this. As far as I know, there is no precedent for a long-term study of this nature. The reasons are obvious----1) there aren't many--if any--places in the world where phenomena like those described in the book pop up at the same place, in different forms, over such an extended period of time, and 2) there has never been an independent, privately sponsored operation like NIDS, which had the resources and expertise to take something like this on. I'm not blowing smoke up their butts when I say that the study was extraordinary. Is there a scientist on this list who would not amputate a digit or two to be able to participate in a study of this nature, one that is not constrained by the presumed interests of government grant-writers or university administrators? Seriously, this was a unique and fascinating undertaking. If mistakes were made, they weren't the result of any sinister intentions or hidden agendas. To my knowledge, everyone who had a say in the research had the same goal---to get answers to the questions that are banging around in the heads of everyone who is reading this.
Ron made one comment that got under my skin. He questioned the "intent" of the authors because of what he perceived as a poor explanation of "the camera incident". If we didn't make things clear in the book, it's our own fault. I'm going to take a look at those pages and give it some thought. However, the implication that the confusion Ron felt might be the result of "intent" on the part of the co-authors is unfair and unfounded. I didn't get the sense that Ron was really pushing this point, only that it was a question that occurred to him, so I won't go overboard in my response except to say that he is dead wrong. Dr. Colm Kelleher is an honest man, a solid scientist, and a good guy. He put everything on the line to join NIDS---everything---and he spent thousands of hours out there in the darkness of the ranch, wallking the property until 4 or 5 in the morning, sometimes in temperatures below freezing, trying to interact with an intelligence that repeatedly displayed its mastery of the terrain, its ability to terrify humans, and its penchant for the occasional mutilation and/or incineration of other species. He was reluctant to participate in writing the book out of loyalty to his colleagues at NIDS and his concern for the "Gorman" family, so in my estimation, he had no agenda or "intent". I've known him for 7 or 8 years now and can say without any hesitation that he is a straight shooter. I'd like to believe that the same goes for me. Few people on this list have ever met me, but I'm known in my own community as a good journalist. My interest in unusual phenomena has caused me considerable grief, personally and professionally, but I have stuck my neck way, way out for a lot of years now because I'm convinced the subject matter deserves serious consideration by science and journalism. If there is another mainstream journalist in the country who has put more work into this area than I have over the last 20 years, I'd be amazed. I've made mistakes, of course, but to suggest that I have some agenda or that Colm has an unspecified "intent" is simply and factually incorrect. We wrote the book on our own, without any influence or guidelines from anyone except for our editor at Paraview. Only one person associated with NIDS even knew about the book until it was already written. Could the book be better than it is? Of course. I'd like to rewrite it tomorrow. And two weeks from now, I'd probably like to re-write it again. But whatever its shortcomings might be, they did not stem from any unspecified or suspicious "intent" on our part. For the time being, I suppose you will just have to take our word for it.
Ron questions whether the NIDS team was aggressive enough in its pursuit of the phenomena. In particular, he asks if this was a real "Hunt" or a passive observation effort. Good points. Good questions. I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of this right now, but in the days ahead, either Colm or myself will try to address this very valid matter. For now, let me say that these exact issues were debated within NIDS over many months. There were distinct disagreements within the organization about how the study should proceed and what kind of presence NIDS should have on the ranch. In other words, the decisions that were made about what direction the study should take were not casual afterthoughts or spontaneous whims. I'm reasonably confident that the principal players at NIDS have reconsidered and rethought their decisions about the ranch many many times, and are still being pondered by some even though NIDS itself is in hibernation. All I can tell you is that a group of highly intelligent people engaged in lengthy--and sometimes heated---discussions about these exact questions. In retrospect, there are things that probably would have been done differently. Maybe there will be an opportunity in the future to consider other approaches, but that probably depends on whether or not the presence at the ranch decides to re-emerge in a major way. At present, that isn't the case.
Thanks for the discussion and for giving the book a fair shake. It isn't perfect by any means, but it was an honest effort on our parts and the information that was collected during the study certainly seems to be important, even if we haven't yet figured out what it means.
On Jan 1, 2006, at 12:58 AM, RON STAHL wrote:
> Posted earlier on StarDrive:
> Wed Dec 14, 2005 13:50
> I was about eight years old when my family went to Kansas to visit
> with my grandparents on the farm. Farms are great fun. Climb the
> silo, duel with bullwhips and cattle prods, jump in the hay loft.
> After a day my twin brother and I were bored silly so Grampa took
> charge. He said he needed our help to count the cattle. He
> harnessed up a pair of prize Belgians, hooked them to an ancient
> buckboard wagon he'd restored himself and we set out to see how
> well the kids could count.
> Maybe an hour we were counting. He had several hundred head
> distributed over a handful of fields separated by wheat, his main
> crop. Two hundred, maybe three hundred we counted I don't remember.
> I do remember when he stopped the wagon, jumped out and after
> examining the cow on the ground, ordered us to stay where we were.
> Of course, we didn't listen and were both standing behind him
> before he finished the sentence.
> "What is it?" we asked in unison.
> If you've never been around farm folk, it's instructive to realize
> that everything they do, they do slowly. They get up before the sun
> and work constantly all day but everything in slow motion,
> including speech. So it was a bit shocking that the viking world
> war vet answered as quickly as he did.
> "What's that?"
> He shook his head. "No one knows."
> Apparently there had already been a great deal of discussion. He
> pointed out that the incisions were sharp and clean, nothing like
> what a predator would do. There was no blood. There was also no
> sign of the missing body parts. Milton ushered us back into the
> wagon and headed for the farmhouse. I didn't understand for years
> why Grampa was suddenly so scared. He was being confronted by the
> unknown and perhaps even the pneumana.
> Skinwalker is a great read. It was especially enjoyable for me
> since I had this early childhood experience. The book is well
> written though certainly there is room for improvement. I'm
> recommending it though, I want to take a couple minutes to list my
> First of all, there are specific questions the book raises and then
> refuses to answer. How is it that one camera was watching three
> others which were destroyed and the first camera did not have this
> on tape? They say they checked at the proper time index but
> obviously, since they didn't find what they were after they would
> have checked the rest of the tape. The authors fail to explain what
> happened and this raises questions about authorial intent.
> Likewise, near the end of the book we're given reasons to question
> Ellen's apprehension of reality. She should have been given an MMPI
> (as should the entire discovery team). Why are questions of
> character raised and not answered? Finally, there is no resolution.
> The ranch should be under continuing surveillance but we're not
> told this. What's up with that?
> The biggest single issue to me is that this team was not really
> "hunting" at all. The authors are wise to admit they were foolish
> to approach the issue as they did instead of as hunters. In hopes
> that the future will spawn others to actually hunt the unknown, let
> me leave a handful of suggestions:
> Use tiny, motion or IR sensing, wireless, photovoltaic powered and
> camouflaged cameras, mounted well above line of sight--at least
> fifteen feet up. Boost the signal with relays to a secure station
> off site and record everything that passes. Use old fashioned trip
> wires and select places to cause footprints. The entire project was
> too passive. Be more proactive and create opportunities. After the
> first few trickster scenes by the dog pens, it should have been
> obvious that wetting the ground by them, mounting cameras and the
> like would have been useful. Taking DNA off the broken locks and
> latches would likewise have been helpful. Once you create a center
> locus of activity, it is foolish to let slip the opportunity this
> Very few successful hunters are passive. Even those who sit all day
> in a tree stand have scouted an area thoroughly and placed the
> stand by a game trail, near water, etc. Skinwalker makes no mention
> of ever having entered the woods which is the most obvious place to
> look for something intending to remain hidden.
> Use bicycles. Electronics can go dead, horses can spook but wheels
> always go round and round. Many hunters use mountain bikes.
> Carry tranquilizer rifles and pistols. Relying on non-lethal force
> removes much of the question of whether to shoot and bullets
> obviously don't work. Dart pistols are convenient to carry, rifles
> have much longer range and there are some higher tech weapons that
> ionize the air with UV lasers and then send an electric charge to
> target hundreds of feet away. If it's real, it will probably be
> stunned by a couple hundred thousand volts.
> I have no idea what Skinwalkers are but I would not be surprised
> that they use their own remote viewing. One could take every
> precaution and never outwit them. Still, what chance has any
> hunter? I personally favor the "mountain ghost" a.k.a. the
> Roosevelt 's Elk. These powerful members of the deer family are not
> like most deer. They are faster and more sure footed than almost
> any other North American game. Their peripheral vision meets about
> ten feet behind their head so yes, they literally see 360 degrees
> at once. They can smell a man on the next mountain. They can direct
> their great serving spoon sized ears to scan independently or
> together and they know all the sounds a tranquil environ ought
> make. The truth is, it's a wonder that anyone ever takes such a
> creature home for dinner. Yet, we do, despite the odds. This is the
> attitude a hunter must have if he is ever to identify the Skinwalker.
> The Skinwalker Orbs
> Wed Dec 14, 2005 22:28
> ". . .This was easily the best view they had ever had of the
> elusive blue orbs. They watched, fascinated, as the object hung in
> the air, apparently defying the laws of gravity. The exterior of
> the orb was a clear, hard shell not unlike glass. It was maybe two
> or three times the size of a baseball. And inside the glasslike
> exterior, moved a swirling, intensely blue substance. It seemed to
> Tom like a liquid beginning to boil, a nearly bubbling incandescent
> blue fluid. He could hear a faint crackling sound from the object
> like static electricity sometimes makes."
> pg. 79
> On pp. 133-4 the orbs are smaller, blood red but seem to function
> identically. Lets focus on this a moment.
> Both sets of orbs have these qualities in common:
> They are guided by intelligence. These are NOT ball lightning.
> They exhibit complete mastery over movement--perfect anti-gravity
> They generate light across their entire surface. Not an ideal
> surveillance tool.
> Additionally, we have the description of the larger blue orbs that
> below the transparent exterior the fluid moved in a "swirling"
> motion. This is what caught my attention most.
> In Moray B. King's intriguing work "Quest For Zero Point Energy:
> Engineering Principles For "Free Energy", King takes a chapter to
> describe "Dual Vortex Forms: The Key to a Large Zero-Point Energy
> Coherence" . These greatly resemble the descriptions in Skinwalker
> of the blue orbs.
King's description is too vague. The empirical data is noted but not
> Why make any craft spherical? Why make it glow? Why make it
> obvious? Their use seems to imply a childlike and malevolent mind,
> like someone using an R/C motorboat to run down geese on a lake.
> (One of my neighbors did this once. I can promise you he will never
> do it again.) My question is, has this observation given us
> valuable information about construction of anti-gravity vehicles?
> Why would they emit light? Are these children's toys
> or does the mechanism require a transparent enclosure? Later in the
> book, the Skinwalker authors assume that the orb is responsible for
> the energy weapon killing of their three dogs. That was not my take
> on the earlier description. It seems much more likely to me that
> the orb was used to lure the dogs into the woods and out of sight
> of the family where someone or something else killed the dogs.
> There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the orbs had more
> powers than they demonstrated.
> I think it's much more likely that these are children's toys and
> the operator was standing in the woods. Children, playing with anti-
Nasty kids. Interesting suggestion.
> The blasts were circular on the three dogs which means the weapon
> was fired from above. Up in a tree where they had already found and
> shot at least one creature. This was payback. The paralyzing fear
> Tom and Ellen felt did not come from the orb. It came from the
> orb's operator who had decided do do something completely evil.
> This was all written two weeks ago. A couple hours after I posted
> it on StarDrive I realized that I had convoluted the facts. The
> event reported with the creature shot out of the tree was AFTER the
> event with the blue orb and the dogs killed, not before. This has
> serious significance. Obviously, whatever turned the dogs into
> greasy spots was not acting in recompense. This was something more
> Long story short: I have always had a love affair with dogs.
> Really good dogs trained really well. Kill my dogs and I'm aiming
> the biggest, baddest gun I have at you. This is understandable
> when we see it in Skinwalker.
I agree. These are nasty predators not at all what Joe Firmage, Dan
Smith, Stephen Greer are presenting as the "Magi" as Sweet Angels
etc. This is bloody war with something we do not yet understand.
> There is no reason to assume there is more than one type creature
> observed in Skinwalker. I don't buy the wolf story. I'm guessing
> the "cat eyes' spotted in the tree have nothing to do with cats.
> The creature was a Wookie (bigfoot, yeti), standing in a tree to
> maintain line of sight on the ranch. Their job was to watch those
> who would interfere with their designs (we're watching you!) with a
> Stargate. The globe did not retreat from the flashlight. It
> retreated from what it did not know but could have been a gun in
> her hand. I'm guessing the whole episode was a Wookie in a tree,
> using a remote controlled globe to lure away the dogs and create a
> distraction while the Stargate was open.
> You all know I'm seldom so dramatic (except with my hero's
> Charlemagne and Mike Griffin). There's something real here.
Yes it's real - unlike the Serpo tale.