Date:   4/15/2014 12:04:44 PM ( 10 y ago)
Hits:   2,871
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2166646

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Paul LaViolette Interview with John B Wells
http://caravantomidnight.com
Ep. 40 – John B. Wells welcomes astronomer Paul LaViolette to the Bridge of the Ark for a real Super Nova of a program.

John B Wells: Now let me just state the writings of Paul LaViolette:
Subquantum Kinetics, Genesis of the Cosmos, Earth Under Fire, Decoding the Message of the Pulsars, Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Galactic Superwaves & Their Impact on the Earth, (Edited) A Systems View of Man by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy.

Paul, this is an amazing body of work, so tell us about yourself & what led you to become so deeply immersed in these studies that resulted in these many books that you have written.

Paul LaViolette: Well, I've always been interested in science from the time I've been very young. And I guess, it was sort of like I ended up getting fed up with what they were teaching in physics at John Hopkins. It didn't seem to offer the kind of world view that I was looking for. I guess you'd say there was... I ended up having a sort of inner experience that redirected my path, coming up with a view of the universe, sort of, existence in general. And I started to develop my own physics at that point, which has now come to be called Subquantum Kinetics & its really gone along since then.

I was tuned into the inner levels. So, there were synchronicities happening in my life. There was guidance of some sort. I found I could see patterns in things that other physicists or astronomers weren't seeing, and they [these patterns I was seeing] usually ended up being correct, data would come out later that would support what I had published.

I guess I'm unorthodox in my approach, in that I also look at ancient writings for information from myths & legends. I'm interdisciplinary. I study General System Theory which is very interdisciplinary - its a field of science that goes into all fields - viewing whether its a society, or living organism, or business, you can view them as systems.

So, this has taken me into all sorts of areas. I've even written in thought formation - a new theory on how the mind creates thoughts, on biological evolution - how the first cells emerged in the pre-biotic ocean, extraterrestrial communication, advance space propulsion. So, I don't put boundaries on areas that are normally considered taboo to alot of scientists. I'm just curious, I want to see if there is any merit. If there is, then why not talk about it?

John B: Well, I'll tell you what grabs me, you know, at the pedestrian level - you hear people talking about free energy, they just know that it exists. We hear alot of chatter about Tesla, and we have alot of discussions about electromagnetism. It seems to be as Obi Wan Kenobi said in Star Wars - it penetrates us, it surrounds us, it binds the universe together. I'm all the way into a conversation with a couple brain doctors, and I ask Dr Jonathan Fellus: "Well then, what is consciousness?" And he paused & said: "It is an electromagnetic phenomenon." And, oh boy, that set me off, we just got rolling on that stuff.

So, do you mind if we get into anti-gravity propulsion first? You know, there are so many sightings of these UFOs. And alot of people think that's too woo-woo. But at this point, my view of the world/galaxy/universe is that these things are real. Talk about a phenomena... they're amazing, & they come into many forms, some of are metallic, some of them appear to be these light orbs, and they perform all these wonderful things, and I know somebody on this planet knows what these things are & knows what their origin is.

But to go back to something that you can talk to us about, that you have already wrapped you mind around... What is the nature of anti-gravity propulsion. I mean, in the broad-strokes it could be a black powder bottle-rocket, that's anti-gravity propulsion, but I don't think that is what you mean.

Paul LaViolette: Or against gravity, yeah. Well probably, a better word for it would be: field propulsion... the idea of using fields to propel spacecraft. Other words are used, its called "non propellant-less propulsion." In other words, a rocket would be creating a propellant out its back in order to move forward, and that's all accepted by physics because of Newton's 3rd law - 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction' - so physicists can understand that. But there are some more exotic types of propulsion like Electrogravitics, where you're able to modify gravity around a vehicle that's totally not predicted by general relativity or any theory of standard physics.

And these devices actually challenge the current view. And so, it threatens the whole paradigm & it tends to be opposed. They don't allow these ideas to be published in scientific journals & physics journals. So basically, the standard view keeps us locked in the older technology like rockets & jets.

And these newer ideas are developed, meanwhile, in secret by the military, who sort of like the fact that they're not explained by physics because it then helps to keep them secret... cuz nobody would believe that they exist. But there's many technologies, many approaches, for what you would call anti-gravity or field propulsion, its not just one. And in my book I study about, maybe, five or six.

You want me to go through a few of these?

John B: Absolutely.

Paul LaViolette: Like one thing I discuss is the B-2 bomber. There was some things were leaked about how the B-2 bomber propulsion system works. And they were saying about how it charges the leading edge of its wings to a very high voltage & dumps the opposite charged ions out the back in its exhaust.

So, from what had been published by an inventor named [Thomas] Townsend Brown, he had come up with some patents on a similar technology back in the 50's, which he had approached the navy with, and done some demonstrations, and based on those patents you can pretty much reverse-engineer the B-2 bomber propulsion system, which is what I did in 1993, and also its a few chapters in my book, The Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion. By doing this, by charging the wing with very high voltages, they're able to create electric forces between the ions that are coming off the wing and the craft. And if you analyze how these forces act on the craft, you find that they end up pushing it forward. And this is actually over unity, kind of like the machines you were talking about - that they can produce more thrust than the amount of energy put into powering them. The B-2 has scoops on it that scoops up air & its able to actually shut off its engines, it has jet engines inside those scoops, at one point it can shut them off & just go on scooped air. What its doing is electrifying that air & using that like a Van de Graaff generator to generate high voltages. So, the field, the electricity, is then used to propel it, but then as its moving it scoops up the air to generate energy, so its like a self-perpetuating machine.

John B: This is Ex-tempt(sp?) technology right now?

Paul LaViolette: Well, they developed the B-2 in the 80's, but this is one area they've kept highly classified, except for this leak that came out. I would say, more easily understood technology, or else - less exotic technology, compared to others I analyze in the book. Like, there some technology - these triangular craft - these were developed, I believe, in a project called "Project Skyvault." And I became aware of this through somebody whose boss had worked for this project & had confided in them the experiences he had back in the 50's. And, as far as I know, my writing about it was the first time this came to light, publicly. Again, I reverse-engineered the technology because there was not a great amount of information that was given out.

But, based on an area known as Microwave Phase Conjugation, you can figure out how these beams are produced that are created on these craft and these are actually microwave beams that can come down & can exert a force on the ground & on the craft. So, its as if like these solid beams that the craft is standing on that supports it. And by manipulating those they can accelerate at a very high speed. They could even, for example, reverse it & cause a traction to pull something. And this has been technology since the 50's that they've been developing that.

John B: This is amazing, man! I've never even heard of stuff like this. I am just going to shut up. You just talk.

Paul LaViolette: Well, there was a report put out a British think tank organization called Aviation Studies & they put this out between 54 & 56, where they were talking about Electro-gravitics, and what they considered 'new' technology was going to revolutionize aerospace propulsion and they were circulating this to all the major defense aircraft companies. Companies like Boeing, Northrop, Grumman, Hiller, and so on. In fact, there was a whole list, it reads like a 'Who's Who' list of aircraft companies. They all were involved in this. And they were doing research in this back in the 50's. And this Aviation Studies group was actually critically involved in catalyzing the whole industry.

In fact there were a few articles that appeared in like Product Engineering & a few other magazines that were reporting the progress, at least, not in giving details, but, at least, acknowledging that this was going on. Even Northrop that developed the B-2, you found articles where they were testing the effect of putting high voltage charges on a wing. They had in those days the Northrop Flying Wing.

John B: Yes, I remember.

Paul LaViolette: But then, suddenly there was a blackout of the information around '59. You didn't hear any more mention of work being done in this area. It was sort of like the word went out from the government - "you're not to contact the media anymore about what you're doing." So, ever since then its all been out of sight & people sort of forgotten about those articles, even if they happen to have read them, you know its a long time in the past.

But the whole thing had gone so far. I mean, here we were decades with this technology & you hear stories like Gary McKinnon who was a computer hacker & managed to get into the files of the U.S. Space Command and found records of ship to ship transfers on fleets of ships that had officers they called "off-Earth officers" or "Extraterrestrial Assignments." And none of the names of these ships existed in navy files, they weren't naval vessels.

So, here you're given the impression of ships sort of like 'Star Trek' size, almost, flying around out there with whole crews on them. And we are totally kept in the dark. And then you hear stories about the sudden disappearance of a few trillion, what was it, during the situation that happened with the World Trade Center Twin Towers situation, then suddenly a few trillion went missing, around that time.

John B: Yeah

Paul LaViolette: And you wonder where does that money go? You know... And there's no investigation to look into these things. All the cost over-writes... you know, that money is going somewhere.

So, there's alot of secret programs that we're not told about, like building of tunnels underground for fall-out shelters. But fall-out from what? I mean, we're not having nuclear war threats, now... Could be something that is coming up that we will be talking about... lol.

John B: That's kind of what I am thinking, Paul. You know, we've heard of rumors for years, I mean... Maybe you've heard of John Lear, and some of the things his dad had invented the Lear-Jet, the eight-track tape player & all kinds of other things. And, John's got 150 something aircraft in his logbook that he's flown, and so forth. And some of the things he brought to the conversation were absolutely, not only, audacious but outrageous. And it made me wonder, "Come on man, please, are you serious about this stuff?" But, combined with what he had to say, and then somebody inside one of the services said, "Don't worry about it. The United States Air Force Space Command moves freely among the stars." And going back to these triangles... did you say that was operation sky ball?

Paul LaViolette: Sky Vault.

John B: Oh, Operation Sky Vault, sorry, let me correct that on my notes.

My own mother actually witnessed one of these things. She said that this bloody thing was enormous. I mean, my mother was the steadiest woman on Earth and she came to the door and said, and never spoke like this, "John, I just saw the damned-est thing."
And I said, "What?" And then she proceeds to describe how this thing is like.
Well, at the end of it, I said, "What do you mean "lights on its corners?"
And she said, "It was an enormous triangle & low." You could see the light from the highway lights reflecting off the bottom of it, just barely. And it made this low rumbling noise that you could really more feel than hear.
And I said, "Which way was it going?"
And she said, "Well, it was headed downtown, west."
And I said, "Towards Carswell Air Force Base."
And she said, "Well, yes, I suppose so."

Alright, well, then doing a comic book-esq 'cut-to-the-chase', the triangles are ours?

Paul LaViolette: Who knows, I would guess most of them, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some are extraterrestrial.

John B: Lol... You have no idea. I am just tingling with delight over this because you are just calmly stating this. Its like... okay, its time for me to say the 'word' again... wow!

Paul LaViolette: The thing I found convincing was when I started studying pulsars, and I finally realized that they cannot be understood as natural objects. There are something like 2600 now known throughout the galaxy.

The standard view by astronomers have is that these are neutron stars that are spinning around & have a beam of radiation that swings in our direction, but that can't explain the incredible complexity of the signals that they are transmitting. They are the most complex phenomena in astronomy & astronomers will admit that. And they still, as of today, have not be adequately explained with any kind of model.

Then I began noticing alignments, like for example, two of the most unusual pulsars are marking the closest supernova remnants to us, here: the Noah supernova remnant & the Crab supernova remnant. So why would it be that the most unusual pulsars are put right at these two that are practically at our doorstep, to call our attention to it. And then I noticed like another pulsar later was discovered and it aligns at a key geometric position in the galaxy that makes a geometric alignment with the galactic center is a point of reference for interstellar communication message. And so, with doing things like this, when you start seeing pi & phi ratios being transmitted to us both in the characteristics of pulsars & their geometric arrangements, you begin to realize that these are not natural objects. And my view is that the majority are beacons for interstellar travel, sort of like a GPS system out there, because they need some way to navigate. And that there's actually a federation of civilizations that do space travel out there. And we're not talking about rocket travel. I mean, these civilizations have the ability to travel, at least, close to the speed of light, if not faster. In fact, in my book, Secrets of Anti Gravity Propulsion, I give an example of one technology that we've developed that has the potential for going faster than the speed of light.

John B: Yes.

Paul: Its this Podkletnov's Experiment. Eugene Podkletnov lives in Finland, he developed a way of producing gravity impulses with high voltage electric shocks. He can create a gravity impulse that, in the higher powered ones, they can actually put a hole through a brick wall and dent a half inch steel plate and these pulses he's clocked at thousand times the speed of light using atomic clocks. Now that paper he hasn't published, but he has published one on experiments that he's proven that they go at least 64 times the speed of light.

John B: Oh, is that all? Lol...

Paul La Violette: Lol... If you combine these ideas... here you have pulses that travel thousands of times the speed of light and are able to exert gravitational forces on an object, because he is able to knock a bunch of books over at 2 kilometers away. They're actually able to create a beam of gravity waves.

Now, you put this as your propelation system & you could propel your craft to hundreds or thousands of times the speed of light, theoretically. I know its speculative, but I am just extrapolating from what we already know. Now, its not that far out. And we already know that Special Relativity does not work. You know, there's violations that have been published in scientific journals, like about signals being shown to go faster than the speed of light. And that's not just one technology, there's several technologies like that.

John B: Can you tell us who asserted the theory of Special Relativity?

Paul LaViolette: Okay, Special Relativity Theory is talking about that nothing can faster than the speed of light & that everything is relative...

If you go to the idea of the ether, which was an idea a bit over 100 years ago, that seems to fit the data & experiments better. There's alot of experiments that you can do to test relativity versus the ether theory. And they consistently seem to favor the ether theory. Its just that its not reported, alot of this work is not reported in the media, but has been published.

And so, somebody who is well-informed, who's open-minded to this, will know about this. In fact, the U.S. Government knows that relativity doesn't work cuz if they followed relativity theory, they wouldn't be able to coordinate all their satellites for their GPS system.

John B: Straighten me up on something, Paul. If Einstein's... well, his finding was that there is no universal time, there is only local time, some people say GPS relies on this. Is that not part of relativity? Cuz I don't want to be talking through... or talking about stuff, because I know very little about this...

Paul: As an example, with the GPS system these satellites are co-rotating with the Earth - sort of geostationary orbits. So as the Earth turns, these satellites are moving with us, around. And, if relativity was correct that would mean that you wouldn't need to correct for that rotation that is going on. If there is an ether, however, and those satellites are moving through an ether, it means that signals are going to go slower in one direction and faster in the other. In other words, they go faster in the direction that you are rotating and slower in the opposite direction.

And that's, in fact, as it turns out, its the second case is the one, they found, is how things work. And they have to put in corrections for that, and if they don't, they're not able to synchronize the GPS system to get accurate locations on the Earth. It might not be so important for your cell phone location, but the military requires very precise targeting. If they didn't have the proper software to synchronize these satellites, they might miss their target. So, they know very well that relativity doesn't work.

So they let the physicists teach their theories in the universities, which are unfortunately wrong. They, instead, use different theories for their own hardware that they're doing.

John B: Is there anything to suggest that the reason the universities continue to teach this stuff, which is wrong, is by design? Are they afraid that we're going to get too far ahead of ourselves, as far as releasing this kind of information into the scientific community to come?

Paul LaViolette: I don't think you need to think of any conspiracies that are going on. Its just that a science tends to want to self-perpetuates itself - the theories, anyway. The paradigm wants to self-perpetuate. Because, to make the jump to this different paradigm - the idea of ether, of free energy, of space propulsion, faster than light travel - its such a big jump that you basically have to scrap most of advanced physics. I mean, you can keep like Newtonian physics, but all the modern physics... even quantum mechanics is wrong. You can show it doesn't predict... like what 'black light' power has found, the idea of sub-ground-state orbits in the hydrogen atom & their causing electrons to jump down in hydrogen from water & getting power out of water. They're getting tens of kilowatts out of generators that are maybe a cubic foot in diameter.

They are even selling water heaters in Europe and in England based on Eccles patent. Eccles also had inferred about these sub-quantum orbits and got a patent on this idea. And these heaters produce about ten times more heat for heating your water than if you just used plain electricity.

John B: Wow, I never even heard of this stuff.

Paul: You know, the university administration they don't want to rock the boat, because what if they admitted, "Yeah, I'm sorry, you been paying fifty thousand a year to send your students to our school to study physics, but, yeah, we agree that these are wrong theories that we've been teaching them," its not going to go over so well with the parents.

John B: Oh so, its better, of course, ethically in their view, to just maintain the ignorance & not own up to the fact, well... that the greatest scientists on Earth thought the Earth was flat for so long. But uh...

Paul: They're very, very tolerant when it comes to the established view, or the "standard model," as its called. They feel that if there's something challenging it, they will either ignore it, or figure that there must be some way that can be explained so we don't have to give up the model. Its sort of a rationalization that goes on.

John B: Isn't that amazing that human beings are like this?
You would think that they'd be bouncing from one foot to the next in excitement over a new discovery, but its like, "Oh no! This would make up look like idiots if we let it out we were teaching the wrong stuff. We have to keep it secret"

Paul: Thomas Kuhn was a philosopher, he studied about scientific revolutions & he said that you get a revolution when the existing framework becomes so corrupted, unable to explain what you're seeing, that suddenly scientists defect to the new view & it all happens very suddenly. And I think we are ripe for this kind of change right now. And we need it, because if we can make the jump, our technology would totally change in a matter of years. In fact, it may be that technology would drive this change. Because, right now, I know of technologies - like you were saying - over unity devices, anti-gravity devices, being developed by inventors. And unfortunately, they are afraid to some extent - these people developing these types of technologies - because there is a tendency to suppress the technologies, governments secretly, on highly classified levels, either that or people behind the shadows & don't want to see these things come out to disturb the economic system, somehow manage to threaten or stop these technologies. But the thing is that they're coming out so fast now that I don't think they have the manpower to stop all of these. So, they're coming out anyway.

John B: I like that.

Paul LaViolette: And that's the way its going to happen. The change will come because they can't handle the change that is happening so fast. You know, with the internet people are able to communicate ideas instantly. Without the internet, this couldn't have happened. That's one thing to thank the internet for.

John B: You know, without the internet we couldn't be having this conversation. If you notice, there's virtually no delay between when I speak & you respond.

Paul LaViolette: In fact the internet works very much like the human mind. The way when you do a Google search on something, and you're looking for something to match the words you've put in, and it pulls up all sorts of things that have similar words, that's how the mind retrieves memory.

So, in a way, you can think of the internet as the super brain.

John B: Well, that's true. You only have to go to your browser search bar & you type in a few letters & if you click it, it'll go: "Is it any of these?"
"Yeah, its that one as a matter of fact." Oh yeah, it really does look like the human mind. I'm just afraid it will turn into Roddenberry's borg. Someone recently asserted that you seldom gain anything of benefit without gaining something that is negative.

Wasn't it the Michelson–Morley experiment where they tried to prove the existence of an ether wind? And, then they gave up because they decided no...

Paul LaViolette: Well, they got a 'no result.' And alot of people afterwards said, 'So, the no result was taken as implying that relativity was correct, that there was no ether wind. But then, some researchers said, 'Well, the problem was that they did the experiment underground, and the ether underground is sort of entrained with the Earth's rotation. So you really don't have an ether wind. To do the experiment properly you have to get above ground. So, there was another fellow that repeated the experiment above ground & did get some results.

But then there's been so many other experiments that have been done since then, including the Sagnac experiment that have gone in favor of the ether view, rather than relativity.

John B: Do we think that the ether wind is made up of... well, is the ether wind a massive electromagnetic field that moves?

Paul: Ether... What is the ether? Its below the level of waves, electromagnetic waves, below the level of particles, its the sea, the ocean in which all particles exist. In other words, particles are waves within this ether ocean.

And the Sub-Quantum Kinetics Theory that I've developed views this ether in some ways like the Star Wars idea of the forest. Because its not an inert ether, like the 19th century ether, but its one that is organic & its reacting. Its more like the reactions that go on in your body that are chemical reactions that are going on & things diffusing from one place to another.

So, in this ether, space sort of interacts with itself, its like one part of space is able to take account, in a way, other parts of space. And this was the idea that Whitehead had, the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. He's considered one of the main figures in Process Philosophy, viewing the world in terms of process.

And so this is a distinctive aspect of this ether theory that I've developed is that its based on this idea of process, that there's continual etheric reactions going on below the quantum level. And so, you can think that we're in a matrix, so to speak, like the idea of the Matrix in the movie, but the real reality is not here, its the ether - the etheric level. And to understand the ether, you have to go to higher dimensions. And the idea of etheric reactions causing transmutations into & out of our universe. And so, we're like in this river of process, of change, and that's where our sense of time comes from because we're able to have things change as a result of this etheric current, so to speak, that is going on. And this changes the whole game, because that means that the universe... the physical universe is what system's theorists call an "open system." Its one where its boundaries as permeable. You have inputs & outputs, just like an organic organism.

John B: That's what I was thinking - its alive!

Paul LaViolette: Whereas physicists have viewed the system as a "closed system," they've considered the universe as a closed system. And that's why they are always against ideas like free energy, because that breaks their laws. Because in only in open systems can you have energy come into being spontaneously in the physical universe, or the opposite - or have energy disappear.

So, like the red shift that they were interpreting as the expansion of the universe, that was an incorrect interpretation, in my view. The red shift is due to energy being lost.

And photons traveling from other galaxies, that's an actual a loss of energy, which violates one of the laws of physics. But, in an open system you're allowed to do that. And so, in this view, the universe isn't expanding, its stationary, and you have this what's called 'tired light effect.' And you can have particles continually materializing in space. You don't have a big bang, in this view. The sun & stars are continually growing, as is the Earth. Part of the reason why we have earthquakes is because the Earth is very slowly expanding, its growing, very very slowly, but it is. And so, in a way, the Earth is alive.

Most of the energy that goes into the geothermal energy that causes volcanoes, most of that can be traced to energy that is actually created inside the Earth. I've had to coin a whole new word for this - call it "Genic energy," where a photon will actually increase its energy over time.

Back in 1980, I called up JPL, based on my theory, I said, "Well, my theory indicates that your masers signals should be blue-shifting when they come back from your spacecraft, have you seen these?"
He said, "No, we haven't thought of looking."

At that time they were just interested in the maser signals for detecting gravity wave. So, anyway, I guess they must have forgotten about my call, and then about, oh, the early 90's, they started noticing that the maser signals were blue-shifting from their spacecraft when they got out past Jupiter. And then they finally published a paper on it in 1998. And they called it "the Pioneer Effect."

I don't know if you've heard of this effect?

John B: No, I have not.

Paul: They were theorizing that it was due to a mysterious force pushing the spacecraft toward the Sun. But what they were finding - the signals were being blue-shifted & the amount that they found in their blue-shift was what I had predicted. And I had published that way back in 1985, thirteen years before they published their results.

So 'that' I consider a confirmation, and this is part of the Genic energy theory. And its just not one thing, its so many pieces of evidence point towards this, that the universe is basically violating the first law of thermal dynamics. Its generating energy spontaneously out of the ether.

John B: Its generating things spontaneously out of the ether.

Paul LaViolette: Matter & energy. In the case of the Sun, about 85 percent is fusion, okay, you can use standard theory there, but about 15 percent is genic. In the less massive stars, like red dwarfs, its 100 percent is genic. In the core of our galaxy - 100 percent - the super massive core that they call "black hole", but you can never get black holes formed if you admit this.

John B: This is exciting stuff.

Paul: Hawking is on the right path. He was denying now the existence of black holes. He says light can escape, but he has a little way further to go before he gets to this view.

John B: And who is this?

Paul: Stephen Hawking. He's now back-peddling.

John B: Please, as Sherlock Holmes would say, "Prey continue your most singular narration." I mean, this is really exciting stuff. I mean, you are validating things that people... they couldn't prove it, but they sense that these things existed. I mean, you're getting into all kinds of realms, here. Its such a delight... Isn't it a delight for you to sail in waters this deep? I mean, doesn't it just keep you in a state of excitement all the time, or is it more sobering?

Paul LaViolette: No, I mean you have your thrills along the way when you make this discoveries. I mean, it does give you a rush, lol.

John B: Can we see your paper that you published in '85 about the blue-shift?

Paul: Yeah. In this journal - the International Journal of General Systems.

John B: The International Journal of General Systems.

Paul: It was... I'm thinking that it was my paper three where I was dealing with the cosmology & I was talking about Genic energy. I think it was paper three, yeah. I give this experiment as an example of sending a maser signal to a spacecraft out near Jupiter & sending it back. And I said if the theory is correct, that maser signal should be a billion-billion times, oh okay, one part in a billion-billion little more energetic. So we're talking about a very small amount that you could never observe in a laboratory experiment. That's why you do the experiment out in space to be able to at least see it. Even though its so small, it makes a huge difference when you're trying to explain what's happening inside a star. Because you have so much energy there, that even a very small fraction of an amount ends up producing a huge amount of energy.

With this you can explain a supernova explosion that physicists have been puzzled - where does the energy come from to produce a supernova explosion. Because in their theory, the star has exhausted all its energy and that's why its collapsing. So the question is: where does the energy come from? And that's where they start sort of... improvising ad hoc ideas, but with Genic energy idea you see that as the star collapses Genic energy is going to skyrocket because it has to do with the depth of your gravity well. In this physics, gravity wells generates what's called 'super-critical' conditions. And the more super-critical that the ether is, the more energy amplifying it tends to be, so to speak.

Its just like if you think of it as a nuclear reactor. They use the term 'super-critical' in a nuclear reactor when they pull out the fuel rods and the thing can go into an explosive mode like a Chernobyl happened. The sub-critical mode, the reaction dampens out. And that would be with what would be happening in space with photons losing energy.

So, the whole thing is a big paradigm shift, as you can kind of get the feeling. Even force, you have to view force differently. You view force more like a things migrate in the ether. If you think of a chemical wave in the ether, but you're dealing at an etheric level. So we take examples of what we see in chemistry, what's called a 'chemical wave', which is just a 'reaction diffusion wave' as its called that moves through a reactive solution by these reactions & diffusions going on. Its not a mechanical phenomenon. So if you can take that down to the etheric level, you're no longer dealing with mechanical forces, your dealing with these etheric reactions & diffusions.

A force then creates a force by destabilization of the particle's waveform and it responds to that by moving, and so its a new approach to understanding force.

John B: I'm just trying soak-in as much as I can. This is amazing. Nobody talks about this stuff, except you.

Paul LaViolette: Its not taught in schools, and you'd have to read my books or download some of my papers.

John B: Where can we get your books?

Paul: etheric.com or Amazon, in stores The Sub-Quantum Kinetics book I self-publish and its in its 4th edition, now. All the other books are published by Inter-traditions, and they're fairly well distributed around.

John B: Well, this is beyond anything that I've had a conversation about. It really is.

Paul: Well, I see this as a physics of the future. Because its been made so many predictions that have been verified now. There are something like over twelve predictions. And these are predictions that I wrote, published, had no idea how they'd turn out later. And, then what happened later was confirmed predictions. So, its had a track-record better than general relativity, for example.

And you see evidence of the physics in ancient writing, too. I mean, this is not the first time that we're discovering this physics. Its a science that they knew about in ancient times. You can see it symbolically or metaphorically encoded in certain creation myths. Even the i-ching, the idea of ying & yang.

I get into that aspect in my other book, Genesis of the Cosmos. I analyze quite a few - the ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek, ancient Mesopotamia, and creation myths. It sort of opens your eyes, there, I mean about the history of the human race. Because it makes you wonder how did those early civilizations come about this physics. Because we needed some advanced instruments to be able to develop it. Even to know that particles are waves. And yet they knew that. They code that in myths.

John B: Isn't that amazing. They coded it in myths.

Paul: Symbolically encoded it.
The whole idea of heaven & Earth separating, its in the Bible, Genesis. You find that in the ancient myths, like the ancient Egyptian myths of sky separating from Earth... Geb & Nut, they symbolize them as gods. That's exactly what happens when a neutron emerges out of the ether, out of empty space... well, you can't say its empty because there's an ether there.

But, basically, you have a vibration in space, or a zero point energy, and if you get a big enough pulse of energy it will cause this separation of the X & Y components of the ether - the yin & yang - and produce a particle, a neutron in this case. And we've actually, now, in the last four years, we've modeled the equations, and you can see actual computer simulations of the reaction system to prove this happens.

John B: You know in some of those ancient Chinese...

I know this is really pedestrian compared to what you're talking about... but I can't remember which writing it was but it seems like it was a king & queen or prince & princess kind of story, but they were described as being together before the moon was hung in the sky.

Let me just ask you this:
What do you make of the moon?
I've heard everything from its hollow and they set something off & it made a ringing sound when they tried to explode something on it, or if they struck it, or they did something to it...
Lear said there are people living on the dark side of it
some of the astronauts that were actually there said, "Oh no, we saw their ships. And they were big & they were menacing, too." And somebody else said...
When someone called back to mission control & said, "Yes, there is a Santa Claus." That was coded for, "yes, there is a UFO & its sitting over there & its looking at us."

Hey, what do you make of all this, Paul?

Paul LaViolette: I think there's alot of truth to that.

Once you understand how its possible to develop these ships,
with very little energy can lift off the Earth. I mean, we're doing it the hard way with rockets... very expensive, too. What's the price for one space shuttle launching? Its in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Whereas, you build one of these, they're re-useable. And you don't have any fuel costs.

John B: The guys at Exxon are not going to like that.

Paul LaViolette: Yeah, well you know, its big business, you know, alot of people earning money, making these fuel inefficient... or energy inefficient methods of rocket propulsion. But once you have these types of vehicles, there's nothing that keeps you on Earth, necessarily, you can put colonies on the dark side of the Moon, Mars, you know.

John B: Is it... oh, I don't want to get silly, because you are a rational man, you're a scientist, and a researcher, you're not a woo-woo guy, but do you have an opinion as to whether we have already, to whatever degree, colonized extraterrestrial-ly?

Paul: You mean outside our solar system?

John B: Well, not necessarily outside the solar system, but just off this planet?

Paul: In my book I discuss some things people had told me. One fellow who told me about Project Sky Vault also mentioned about an experience where he was with the... it was called... uh... a kind of... uh... sort of like a branch of the military, sort of like... uh... anyway, they had an interview with a number of generals who were telling them, they said "Any questions you have we will answer."

And, somebody asked whether there were UFOs, and he said, Yes, we've been watching them & we have outposts out past... what did he say... Saturn, around Saturn, that far out. And this was in the early 60s. So, you know, this was at a time when we were just announcing satellites to be put around Mercury's orbit, you know, and they had stuff way out there. So yeah, the military doesn't say all of what they do, you know, they're usually way... years ahead of where NASA is.

John B: Outposts beyond Saturn. I don't suppose they mentioned whether they were manned?

Paul: Well, in those days there were satellites. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they have something manned out that way, you know.

John B: There was something docked at the ISS, and it was a very sleek-looking spacecraft, but of course, things can be doctored so easily, now with... I mean, Photoshop is just the beginning. You don't really know whether you can believe what you are seeing. And then there was an emanation of light from the surface of Mars. And I think it was something like UFO Skeptic, or something like this said, 'No, it was probably an atomic particle that struck the lens." Or something like that, and caused it to look like there was a light up there. But it does, in fact, look like there was a light.

Paul: Oh, you may be referring to the Russian probe that was going by one of the moons of Mars, Phobos. And the last thing before it went blank was what looked like a laser flash from Phobos. Which almost makes you wonder whether there was somebody there defending their territory. Whether it was one of our bases, or somebody from another planet... who knows.

John B: Yeah. It says here in this report from RT.com, "After a recent photograph of Mars ignited speculation that the red planet was home to intelligent life, NASA has come out with several explanations for the mysterious light captured by the agency's Rover. On April 3rd, Curiosity managed to take a picture with it right-hand navigation camera seemed to show a beacon of light emanating from the planet's surface. Unfortunately, because excited about the possibility of discovering alien life forms, NASA poured some cold water on the idea." And, NASA imaging scientist, Justin Mackey, said in the Houston Chronicle, "One possibility is the light is a glint from rock surface reflecting the Sun. When the images were taken each day, the Sun was in the same direction as the bright spot, West-Northwest from the Rover & relatively low in the sky."

So, maybe that's that. But there seems to be alot of junk scattered around the surface of that planet, and it doesn't really look like its naturally occurring. But, you know... Oh well.

Well, you know, for people in my demographic, we grew up in that & you, too, you grew up in that era of science & wonder & discovery & exploration - all those things. And there were these wonderful black & white movies that came on, where, you know, guys in these really sleek looking jets, were breaking the sound barrier or experiencing real problems when they went out into space. I mean there were programs like Men into Space, Science Fiction Theater & the Outer Limits. And then Roddenbury's Star Trek & all, it just pulled and it seems like, I don't know... It just seems like we've...

I hate to say this, but it seems that we've sort of... we've sort of blown it... so far. Even in as much as recognizing & appreciating the artifacts that we continue to discover here on our own planet. Its sort of like... "ah! we've evolved mentally to the point that the Earth is 'old hat', now, we're looking towards space." I mean is there anyway to prove... I mean I've just seen photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics - from the Grand Canyon, suggesting that the Egyptians got more around alot more than anybody ever suspected. Of course, all of this on the 'down-low' & you look at this... and, I don't mean to be rough, here, but if you look at this M0R0NIC mainstream news media & you would think that it would be just be filled with things that would stimulate young & old, alike. And get that juice - those moments of excitement & joy of discovering something important & new. But it all just seems so suppressed. I mean, I applaud you for just carrying on with your work, & staying away from television. That's probably my biggest problem - too much of it.

Paul LaViolette: It's not easy. I do get alot of, you know, rejection of papers. Whereas, the average physicist might get something published in 6 months, I would have to... it would take me over a year, and in some cases 8 years. Like one paper when I disproved the 'Big Bang' theory, it took me 8 years to get it published.

John B: So, the "Big Bang theory is done... as far as your...

Paul LaViolette: Yeah, I consider it like 'a dead man walking'. It seems to perpetuate. Its sort of like they ignore the evidence against it. And they keep talking about, when really it was dis-proven a long time ago.

John B: Is that right?
You know, I'm not a bonafide scientist, but I never bought the 'Big Bang' theory, I just thought... "You know, please, this is just... 'well that's why all these celestial bodies & groups of celestial bodies, that's why they're all swirling... because of a big explosion...' ... Explosion? ...in space? And it made these? ...I'm ...No, I'm not buying it." And I had nothing to base that opinion on, I just had my feelings on it, I just felt it & rejected it.

And, as it turns out, a bonafide scientist has just validated my gut feeling about these things.

Paul LaViolette: Well, you were on the right track when you had your feelings about it.

John B: Paul, let's just take a... you know what, that's probably been the fastest hour, that's been the fastest hour I've experienced maybe to date, let's just take five minutes, stretch our legs, freshen your cup of tea, and we'll resume with Paul LaViolette... WOW!!!




(please do not reply to this post - to be continued)

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2166646