Talk:Bernard Haisch/Archive 1

2093:, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line. I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself. I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes. However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant. He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant). I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this. Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect 418:. More generally I at least feel that you should avoid editing articles on controversial topics in which you are directly involved, although if you feel you simply must do that, you should certainly use your user account to at least alert readers to possible bias. I think you grasp the idea that historically Knowledge is governed by concensus and tends to give equal weight to all opinions no matter how ill informed. The latter is not always desirable but you should be aware of it. With patience and tact sometimes articles converge via successive approximation to a state acceptable to a small number of editors (right now I am not sure anyone but you and I is even reading this discussion). Then someone else comes along and undoes previous work. Not always desirable but part of the wiki philosophy. But there is strong community support for reverting slander or misinformation when the subject of a wikibiography raises concerns in the talk page. As I understand it, the current version contains no misinformation about yourself; please speak up if you spot any errors of fact. 999:. I'd prefer to quote Unruh directly, of course, but we have a problem here because as you probably know, very often academics are reluctant to publish critiques of papers by their colleagues, but simply warn off their own students and their friends in the field, who warn off their own students, etc. This practice is understandable (just look at the grief we are getting on this talk page!) but it does tend to mean that people can misleadly claim that their proposals have been "accepted". Someone WP needs to avoid leaving this impression (if there is good reason to think it is not true, as I am confident is the case here). 456:

the quantum vacuum. Thus if we are correct about the quantum vacuum acquiring an asymmetry from the perspective of an accelerating observer and that being the cause of inertia, then we have implicitly explained the principle of equivalence, since the two situations are identical. Thus inertial and gravitational mass become two different names for a single phenomenon. Have I raised your temperature by even half a degree. Download and read our . I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

145:

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project by the way) and by Lockheed Martin. We are not publishing unrefereed stuff on the Web. Our papers have appeared in the Physical Review, the Astrophysical Journal, Physics Letters A, Annalen der Physik, etc. (It is partly gratifying, partly amusing that our recent two papers appeared in Annalen der Physik, which is where Einstein published his famous paper on special relativity. Yes, I know, the Journal has changed in the last 100 years!)

1974:, who as you all know has been permabanned. I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch. In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occasionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain. Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch! (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently), 31: 433:

some unusual venues. It seems to me that this is adequately balanced without becoming boring for Knowledge readers, whose interests are ultimately paramount. In addition, concise articles are easier to maintain against "edit creep" and similar problems. ("Edit creep" occurs when some user adds new material without regard to previously existing organization, thus breaking up the flow of ideas, or even making nonsense of nearby material.)

220:) (Bernard Haisch IRL) about his wikibiography as rewritten by myself. I don't think it is a good idea to have users edit their own wikibiography, so I am going to revert, add an inuse flag, and try in good faith to address the issues he raised, then compare with his version, and consider similar changes, then summarize changes in a new message in this section of the talk page. This seems to me a better way to satisfy 450:

non-mathematical relativity explanations. Let's assume that GR is correct that light rays travel on curved geodesics in the presence of matter. Fine and good. Now when you stand on a scale, is there a physical explanation for the force, i.e. weight, you feel? You say, well I am prevented from travelling on a geodesic, therefore the force merely reflects my inertia. Okay... but is there a more physical reason?

1690:

living persons, which have been tested in practice and generally work pretty well. In particular, I feel that they are working here, although not nearly as smoothly as they would if you had refrained from edit warring and confined yourself to civil talk page discussion as I requested. Basically, being polite and patient and playing by the rules is a much better way of trying to get what you want here.

1199:

some prestigious journals. There is another point at stake here: this wikibio should read like a general encyclopedia article, not a C.V. Haisch can write his own wikibiography and post it at his website, which this article already links to. Rather than having multiple links to that site, he should have an index page or whatever to help visitors find whatever they might be looking for there.

173:

report all this in a pretty neutral way at www.ufoskeptic.org, and it really is my intention to be providing a public service on a topic most scientists choose to avoid altogether. I am simply presenting my best take on what I have learned over the years, there's no promotion agenda, take it or leave it. I make no money on any of this, in fact, it costs me money to host the website.

1617:

Henry was the poor young junior scientist who had to deal with this and that is what his JSE article is all about. Without spending hours finding and reviewing resumes I have to make an educated guess, but I would estimate that at least half the editorial board has not published anything promoting anomalies.

1103:

I also feel (I think Paul might agree) that the differences between my version (as corrected to fully implement the factual corrections regarding Rueda and UFO skeptic) are minimal, but there is a principle at stake: I don't think subjects of wikibios should edit their own wikibio. I think there are

152:

For example, you mention an article I wrote for Noetic Sciences along with editorial commentary on that organization, but never mention that I have also publlished in Science, Nature and all the journals mentioned above. Most of my research has been published in mainstream journals and the bulk of my

1764:

Newcomers (if any) please note: I wrote the original version and I'd prefer to use my latest version as the basis for any changes. I think it is best if I make any further changes myself since I can more easily see how to insert material or remove old material without breaking up the flow of ideas,

1616:

It is simply not true that the editorial board of JSE publishes such papers. Richard Henry's single paper was on his experience as a NASA HQ scientist whose job was to respond to Pres. Carter's request to his science advisor Frank Press to NASA administrator Robert Frosch that NASA investigate UFOs.

1599:

Our physics papers, i.e. those in real physics journals are all about the origin of inertia. It is only the popular articles that speculate on inertia-free propulsion and I always make it clear, I hope, that such an applciation could be very far off. The physics, not the hypothetical technology some

1315:

should be the basis for further revisions, and I don't think Paul (or anyone else) should use Haisch's wording verbatim; I feel that persons directly involved in controversial topics should not edit WP articles on those topics, although they are welcome to raise concerns, request changes in the talk

455:

I propose the following. The (very short) trajectories electromagnetic quantum vacuum photons follow are geodesics. This means that to the observer fixed in a gravitational field, the quantum vacuum is falling, i.e. accelerating past. But this is identical to having the observer accelerating through

449:

I would like to pose a simple question that might warm you up ever so slightly to the possibility that we may be onto something promising --- could be wrong, of course -- with respect to a connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia. You are a GR expert and even known for your

432:

I am not sure that I see that all the details like postdoc and titles are really necessary. It seems to me that the article makes it clear that you have held mainstream posts and published in presitigious journals, and have also been involved in some nonmainsteam organizations and have published in

164:

Your note to me is far less hostile than your articles about me and JSE, so perhaps there is some hope that we might come to a civil agreement on what is fair and what is not. By the way, I do know the NPOV philosophy quite well. Arguably the originator of the Knowledge NPOV is my right hand man at

156:

As for my editing JSE, I honestly did that as an unpaid public service. I think it is important for science to apply its tools to things that may lie outside the current corpus of scientific knowledge. There is no way to tell in advance where the next discoveries lie, so if most of what has appeared

2450:

I am not interested in "UFOs." I am interested in the "UFO phenomenon." There is a huge difference. No one can dispute that a "UFO phenomenon" exists even if it means nothing more than millions of people believing nonsense. But "UFOs" invokes a whole, cultish, UFO-conference attending circus that I

2068:

If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Knowledge, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Knowledge has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why

172:

Oh, yes, the UFO thing. I am not a UFO reseacher. I've never done any research there, but I have read books, met some of the leading characters (some totally credible, some really deluded) and have tried to see what could be gleaned from occasional peeks into the world of special access programs. I

2268:

This is a misinterpretation. At one time I said to Hillman that I felt that I was on trial. She countered "First, let's maintain some perspective. No-one is on trial here. No-one is in danger of being involuntarily confined or even paying a fifty dollar fine. The worst that can happen here is that

1198:

In the next section, my version leaves out some details of Haisch's career. I think my version is more readable and more focused, and I think it actually makes Haisch's own point better than his version because it is more focused: namely, that Haisch has held mainstream positions and published in

1033:

points out, the term "fringe science" is often considered to be pejorative. Is that the connotation you want to express here? On the other hand If you are instead suggesting that the term "non-mainstream science" is not just a non-pejorative way of referring to the same thing that "fringe science"

168:

I admit that I have been sloppy about logging in but it is easy to discover the association between my IP adress and my user name, so I am not trying to hide anything. Also I know nothing about Dr. Morelos posting or the pacbell one you mention that may have been Sarfatti's (whom I try to stay far

2344:

The reason for working from my version is that I felt my version is better written and better organized and more readable, so I prefer to make changes based on that version rather than Haisch's version. In addition, I don't think Haisch should edit the article itself directly or indirectly, so I

957:

I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value

255:

Knowledge can, of course, write about Knowledge, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Knowledge's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Knowledge as an example, in a

186:

I just replied on your user talk page, but just to make sure everyone knows: I will make the factual corrections and address the NPOV concerns you raised ASAP (probably in about four hours). After my revisions you can take a second look and let us know whether you are satisfied that the revised

1609:

Starspot Exploration Enterprises was an LLC formed purely for liability reasons. Students were employed in the JSE editorial office and some of this involved working in my home office so I formed an LLC to protect me from personal liability. The name is whimsical and the LLC was closed when the

2216:

but have stepped on each others toes because of confusion caused by Haisch's edit warring. I wish to work from my own most recent version and suggest putting discussion of my most recent version in a new section at the bottom of this page. I ask Haisch to discuss on this talk page rather than

1689:

This article has never been a "hatchet job". No-one is trying to prevent you from discussing accuracy and fairness concerns, but we do require you to play by our rules. To repeat: WP has an extensive repertoire of social mechanisms in place to encourage accuracy and fairness in biographies of

1620:

A person whose reputation is being attacked (and Hillman's first version was a hatchet job) has every right to intervene, ethically and legally. Knowledge has gone from a curiousty to a widely used first and often only source of information. Letting anonymous contributors say what they want and

304:

Please provide more details on forthcoming experiment on stochastic electrodynamics: Does this directly address the alleged explanation of the origin of inertia? What "U. S. government" agency precisely is providing the funding? Where will the experiment be carried out? When will results be

242:

My version quotes Haisch in what is intended to provide a more balanced portrait in his own words. In particular, it is important to note that he recognizes that his work with Rueda is controversial. OTH, I retained the long quotation from his "open letter" regarding UFOs and U. S. government

160:

If you are going to discuss my editing JSE, then it is also fair to note that I simultaneously served as a scientific editor of the most prestige journal in astrophysics, The Astrophysical Journal, for which I made publish/reject decisions on over 1000 articles. Fair and balanced is the rule.

2295:? They are all minor, the first a grammar correction (I think this is the third time I've tried to make this particular correction) the other two I discussed above. Well I will try again. If you have a problem with any of my edits could you say what exactly the problem is before reverting. 144:

I will be the first to admit that my work with Rueda and others on a possible connection between inertia and the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is speculative, and could well be totally wrong in the end. But the analyses we have published have been legitimate physics, funded by NASA (not the

2480:

Starspot Exploration Enterprises is completely irrelevant. It was an LLC my wife and I formed when part of the Journal of Scientific Exploration editorial work was taking place in our home office. So we formed this LLC to protect our personal property from liability and to legally deal with

1168:

to the next paragraph, which I think improves the organization of the introduction. I changed the phrasing because I don't think Haisch's version is very clear: is the Latin School part of St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey? Or are the Latin School and St. Meinrad Seminary two separate

815:

Old: "Since the editorial board of JSE apparently consists entirely of academics who themselves publish such papers, often in JSE itself, one must presume that the referees are also drawn from this population. For these reasons, JSE is often regarded as a 'fringe science journal'

1569:

This talk page has become very confusing (primarily because Haisch has not been playing by our rules and thus messing up our attempts to address multiple concerns) but I think these have all been addressed. Please discuss at bottom of the page if this is not true.

2491:

Well, I'll probably take that out too, but please calm down and take a break from this for a few days, if for no other reason than to let Paul August and myself calmly verify that the article is self-consistent re minor improvements he and I tried to make.

2429:

I agree that this kerfluffle was the result of misunderstandings and a few goofs on my part (incomplete implementation of changes) which however would probably not have occurred if Haisch had kept his cool and avoided an edit war as I requested.

2425:

Just to be clear: the reversions involved working from my latest verson rather than Haisch's latest version. I am in fact trying to implement the changes you suggested, in some cases using my wording in cases where you used Haisch's wording.

2060:

Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly

1710:

For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page and try to attain consensus first before editing the article. In particular I suggest we discuss each of the points addressed above in the section titled

2269:

you are not completely satisfied with a biography about yourself written by others." My response about a million dollar grant was a direct reply to that showing that there could potentially be huge consequences for a misleading article.

2177:

Oops, forgot to say that I changed the flag back to {{disputed}} from {{totally disputed}} because as far as I can see, no-one is disputing any factual information in the current version. Please speak up here if that is not true.

316:

I think it is important to avoid pasting a C.V. into an article like this, but a direct link to a complete publication list would probably be helpful to our readers. It might be nice to ask Haisch to choose one or two examples of

2403:

Chris: I like you're recent edits, and you have incorporated many of my previous edits as well, so thanks. And please don't misunderstand, I'm not upset. So long as we end up in the right place I don't really care, so much,

1249:

I removed one sentence from discussion of the JSE, but Haisch should not be allowed to insert a statement that papers are peer reviewed because this is misleading for the reason I mentioned in my earlier version; see also

1224:

change "UFO Skeptic, an organization founded by" to "UFO Skeptic, a website founded by" as per Haisch's request, but failed to notice an earlier instance of "organization". I have fixed this goof in the current version.

148:

What I object to and which violates NPOV is (1) your selecting only the controversial parts of my career, (2) your adding negative editorial commentary, and (3) in some cases outright misinformation (in the JSE article).

2447:"Fringe" is a pejorative term. It would be like calling a "gay" newspaper a "fag" newspaper. Please use a more neutral term that conveys the same information. "Non-mainstream" or "unorthodox" would serve that purpose. 556:"Unfortunately, Haisch's own publications and his involvement with fringe science organizations suggest to some that his involvement with Digital Universe might be compromise the percieved reliability of this project." 2153:, so we need to agree on some term even if some feel that it is perjorative. Actually, I thought that "fringe science" was a good way to avoid more inflammatory concerns; e.g. someone objected when I tried to recat 233:

OK, I have reorganized and rewritten this wikibiography. Summary: my new version retains most (maybe even all) of the changes requested by Haisch in his talk page message. The major difference appears to be these:

1539:

These inconsistencies crept in because of the edit war. Ironically, one reason I was trying to work from my latest version was to prevent this kind of error creep. In any event, I think I have addressed them all.

238:

Following the model of similar biographies elsewhere in the WP, I reorganized the material to present Haisch's more mainstream activities/accomplishments first and to summarize more controversial activities later

522:

added a phrase about Latin School of Indianapolis as per Haisch, although I must say I am still not sure whether Haish was trying to say that this is a Catholic seminary, or that he attended three seminaries, or

2069:

must be both accurate and fair. The Knowledge is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.

1169:

institutions? When was Haisch a student there? If he can clarify on this talk page, I would be happy to make another change, but I think it is best that I (or Paul) make any changes to the article itself.

1681:

The contents of JSE are available at their website, so this claim is easily verified. I have however changed that section to try to shove any controversy over whether or not JSE is a "fringe journal" to

1396:

These mean different things to me, the current version tends to imply belief in UFOs, the older does not. Chris, do you mean to imply that Haisch believes in UFOs? If so what is the source for this?

2002:) and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch. However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.) 107:

Haisch has now responded in a message (on my user talk page) and I have promised (in a message in his user talk page) to make some factual corrections and address some NPOV issues he mentioned. ---

1153:

of these terms have been used by Haisch and Rueda; the one I gave seems more frequent in their own writings (which I recently studied while writing this bio!!) but I insist only on the adjective

1765:

and I am also a much more experienced editor than Haisch, who has an obvious conflict of interest, so I don't think he should be allowed to choose the exact wording of his own wikibiography.

1246:

once employed five postdoctoral students. I prefer my wording because I think it is more readable. In any case, Haisch should really not be rewriting his own wikibiography line by line.

912:. During the dot com era this Institute employed five full-time postdoctoral physicists with expertise in string theory, general relativity, astrophysics and stochastic electrodynamics." 1060:

had made all the factual corrections, but I now see that in two places, I failed to make the corrections consistently, which I have just fixed. That was an oversight, but I apologize.

2212:

No, because I am getting tired of this, so let's just let that one drop and focus on discussing the current version of the article. I feel that you have I have edited this article

2461:

Alright, I am about to make those changes, but please take a break for a few days from editing this article, OK? I don't agree with your analogy but I do think it is inflammatory.

1106:

Haisch himself raised the issue which most conerns me: a financial incentive to slant this article to portray the theory/proposal of Haisch and Rueda in a highly favorable light

1613:

I ask your backing, Paul, on the neutral "non-mainstream" as opposed to "fringe." It is like the difference between "fag" and "gay." Hillman is not applying NPOV principles.

336:: indeed, I forgot to add my sig, and thanks for noticing that, but why did you alter the wording of my comment, even altering a few words so that they became misspelled? --- 2118:

and everyone else try to confine further discussion of this article to this talk page, as far as possible, since the discussion is getting spread out and hard to follow.

562:

Bernard, if you still have concerns sufficiently serious to pursue, please describe below the two most urgent concerns and describe what changes you would like to see.

400:

Because I have this article in my watchlist, even this is probably redundant unless you are wondering why I have not continued some previous in some article talk page.

1450:

I prefer the old version, the current one sounds like he dropped by the institute one day. In any case what is the source for this and other biographical information?

1818:

Usually I'm just referred to as "Paul August", sans definite article, but I do think "The Paul August" has a nice ring to it, and as far as I know I'm the only one.

971:

Well I have no serious objections to any of "New" versions listed above. And I could support changing "Fringe" to "non-mainstream", but I want to wait and see what

1674:

Starspot Exploration Enterprises: I have deleted this information as per your request, although I am not sure I entirely see why you would not want this mentioned.

2470:

suggests some useful things you can do at WP which would also be a good way to gain more experience here in subjects which do not directly concern yourself. ---

1488:

These statements are in conflict. Which is it? Did they propose that it "can in fact" propel? Or that it was merely a possibility? What is the source for this?

761:

New: "… Alfonso Rueda (Ph. D. in physics from Cornell who teaches in the Department of Electrical Engineering at California State University, Long Beach) …"

699: 2162:

Once again, I am more than willing to make changes, but I would ask that everyone commenting on this talk page (or on my user talk page) try to respect

2157:

as fringe science rather than pseudoscience since I feel some ingredients of the claims of "plasma cosmologists" are less controversial than others.

2503:

As already mentioned above, I have taken Starspot out, although I am not entirely sure I understand why Haisch wanted this information removed. ---

291:). In fact I solicit further information (please provide it in this talk page and let me figure out how to incorporate into the bio, however) on: 1606:

My 3 years at the prominent Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics were a big part of my career and I objecct to Hillman's suppressing this.

1553:

Well Issues 2 and 3 have been resolve to my sastisfaction, but not so far 1, 4, and 5. As my comment indicates I'm particularly concerned with 4.

1217:, as per Haisch's correction, but apparently I failed to remove the EE thing from a later section. I have fixed this goof in the current version. 975:(and others) have to say. I will say that at the moment, many of the assertions of fact in the article are unsourced, which I think is a problem. 2227:

Ok fine but I just want to make it clear for the record that, although you claimed that Haisch reverted me he didn't. I think that to be fair to

1683: 408: 1585:

I have added the postdoc as per Haisch above. (I trust he will be willing to let me choose the wording, whcih slightly differs from his.) ---

2408:

we get there, It's just that I've made eleven edits to this article so far, and you've reverted each one. My ego would like to see at least

1944: 1913: 1864: 1999: 903:, which formerly employed five full time physics postdoctoral students doing research on stochastic electrodynamics and related topics." 390:

to my user talk page and to article talk pages. Usually Wikipedians just leave a note in a user talk page saying something like this:

157:

in JSE proves to be wrong (as it might) publishing on those topics is still a valid and, in my opinon, necessary function of science.

1800: 1515: 1508: 1251: 804: 795: 703: 1898:

example of edit adding citation to his own book (I think this is linkspam, although some of these are more justifiable than others)

251:, let me point out that the quotation is talking about Haisch, not the WP, and in addition, WP:SELF states in the second paragraph 1985: 1268:; I don't understand Paul's rationale for removing this since I take it there is no question that the information is accurate. 1149:

The introduction mentions "hypothetical zero-point-field inertia resonance" rather than "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis";

1112:

Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.

558:

as per Haisch, although this has been mentioned by others and something along these lines should in my view be reinstated.

436:

If anyone strongly feels that the information about postdoc, exact titles, etc. are urgently important please speak up.---

2035: 1788: 1752: 1639: 1181: 1165: 1127: 1104:

plenty of safeguards in place to prevent anyone from being slandered or unfairly slammed here, but on my user talk page

1084: 661: 648: 515: 479: 421:

I reverted to my version and then added back the information about Latin School of Indianapolis. Bearing in mind that

288: 256:

neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Knowledge.

217: 117: 86: 2199:

No, I don't believe that Haiisch has reverted any of my edits, Chris can point to the edit you are referring to here?

1209: 728: 1157:

just to emphasize that this alleged effect is not accepted even in theory by all researchers; later I point out that

2238: 2206: 1804: 1726: 1258: 996: 745: 736: 38: 660:

New: "He attributes his interest in "spiritual" matters to his early days in a Catholic seminary environment (the

2154: 1686:. Same rules apply there: please discuss on the talk page and let me (or some non-Haisch-sock) make any changes. 773:

concept which Haisch and his coworkers have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft (including alleged

1145:

Here is how I summarize the diffs between my version and Haisch's version (almost identical to Paul's version):

1858: 2149:

as pejorative but as descriptive. I agree that term can be said to have a pejorative connotation, but so can

1938: 1907: 1603:

I am interested in the UFO phenomenon, not UFOs. There is a big difference which we can discuss if necessary.

346:

Sorry about that — mea culpa! — I was inadvertently editing a previous version of the talk page. Again sorry.

1993: 504:

I feel it is best if I make any neccessary changes, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest should

1878: 121: 2189:

Oops, that flag only mentions "factual", doesn't it? I'll change the flag to the NPOV flag in a moment.---

1320:

I haven't used any of Haisch's words (verbatim or otherwise), my only edits have been minor copyedits, see

1228:

I've changed the section title for that section from "UFO Skeptic organization" to "UFO Skeptic website".

1934: 1903: 1854: 2416: 2381: 2368: 2333: 2299: 2235: 2203: 2129: 1989: 1822: 1812: 1723: 1557: 1527: 1492: 1467: 1454: 1421: 1400: 1330: 1300: 1275: 1232: 1188: 1038: 979: 944: 727:

Old: "… with Alfonso Rueda, a physicist currently teaching in the Department of Electrical Engineering,

350: 2076:

Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar :-/

1600:

day, is the substantive part of our work and thus "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" should be used.

786:

concept which Haisch and his coworkers have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday.

1627: 1353:

The following lists other differences not listed by Hillman above. These are essentially taken from

120:(see the file history of the images and the article). Can anyone verify this? The stuff about the 2011:

Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to

1755:) take a few days first to calm down and learn our rules. (I have repeatedly requested him to obey 1979: 1354: 518:) edit his own biography. In the new version, I made some minor changes from my previous version: 47: 17: 2322:

incorporated the second two changes you just cited and I just now incorporated the first (a -: -->

1161:

has claimed that the alleged explanation of the phenomenon of inertia rests upon a miscomputation

1671:

Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics: I have added this information as per your request.

1621:

attempting to prevent the subject from correcting errors and slanted information is unethical.

1808: 1131: 1096: 483: 372:

moved the following comment by myself from my own user talk page and then added his reply ---

2413: 2378: 2365: 2330: 2296: 2232: 2200: 2126: 2029: 2018: 1819: 1782: 1746: 1720: 1635: 1554: 1524: 1489: 1464: 1451: 1418: 1397: 1327: 1297: 1272: 1229: 1185: 1121: 1078: 1035: 976: 941: 900: 879: 850: 509: 473: 347: 333: 282: 211: 80: 1208:

Alfonso Rueda, a physicist currently teaching in the Department of Electrical Engineering,

1012:

is inaccurate in any way, and I feel that is more appropriate that non-mainstream here.---

295:

Can you provide some standard biographical information (birthplace/date, early education)?

2451:

try to have nothing to do with. Please be fair to me and draw this critical distinction.

2090: 1975: 1874: 1796: 1792: 1213: 1030: 732: 497: 415: 274: 270: 262: 248: 221: 188: 1651:

UFO phenomenon: I have made this change as per your request, with an internal link to

1367:

Old: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."

1184:, it was a pre-seminary boys high school — not a seminary (I've now corrected this) — 618:

New: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."

273:

I think it is best that I correct any remaining factual errors or address any further

2244:

I think this is getting a bit absurd but I have slashed that "without prejudice". ---

2213: 2163: 2094: 2047: 2043: 2039: 1971: 1756: 1092: 1088: 842: 647:

Old: "Haisch attributes his spiritual interests to his educational experience at the

2507: 2496: 2485: 2474: 2455: 2437: 2419: 2397: 2384: 2371: 2349: 2336: 2312: 2302: 2273: 2248: 2221: 2193: 2182: 2170: 2132: 2101: 1825: 1699: 1666: 1589: 1574: 1560: 1544: 1530: 1495: 1470: 1457: 1424: 1403: 1343: 1333: 1303: 1278: 1235: 1191: 1041: 1034:

does, can you give examples of non-mainstream science which are not fringe science?

1016: 982: 965: 947: 569: 490: 462: 440: 376: 353: 340: 328: 228: 195: 179: 128: 111: 101: 2504: 2493: 2471: 2467: 2434: 2394: 2355:

Ok you incorporated my grammatical edit ""a astrophysicist" to "an astrophysicist"

2346: 2329:

Yes I'm confused, can you please show me where you had incorporated those changes?

2309: 2245: 2218: 2190: 2179: 2167: 2098: 1846: 1696: 1663: 1662:. The paper by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff would appear to be a counterexample. --- 1586: 1571: 1541: 1340: 1013: 972: 566: 487: 437: 373: 337: 325: 225: 192: 125: 108: 98: 838: 739:. In these papers, Haisch and Rueda have elaborated a controversial hypothesis, …" 587:(as of 04:50, June 11, 2006 (UTC)). Perhaps we could discuss these one at a time? 247:

Regarding a quotation from WP talk page: before anyone objects that this violates

2433:

I think I have addressed all the concerns you raised in the previous section. ---

1067:

promptly and fairly address concerns raised by Haisch in this and other articles,

277:

concerns myself, but I am willing to consider further modifications suggested by

89:) has not yet responded to my request that he confirm his IRL identity. I think 2482: 2452: 2270: 2228: 2025: 1778: 1742: 1716: 1631: 1117: 1074: 962: 864:"sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness" 835:"sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness" 756:

Old: "… Alfonso Rueda (who is apparently an electrical engineer by training ) …"

695: 686: 505: 469: 459: 369: 361: 278: 207: 176: 76: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1741:

To repeat: I am willing to discuss my version line my line, but I do ask that

1679:"It is simply not true that the editorial board of JSE publishes such papers." 1655:, but this umbrella article does discuss the concept I think you have in mind. 1257:

I have now quoated the critique by Unruh as summarized in the post by Baez in

1158: 992: 321:

publications in presitigious journals to add to the list, to balance it out.

1177: 1660:"It is only the popular articles that speculate on inertia-free propulsion" 1926: 1485:

Old: "… have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday.

1173: 652: 206:

Unfortunately, I was delayed until now in addressing the users raised by

2377:

And now you reverted my last edit again!? This is getting frustrating.

2308:

Please let me review them and incorporate them into my version, OK? ---

2080:

to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner. I find this deeply disturbing.

468:

I have briefly semi-replied to this and other duplicated messages from

411:

because this comments seems to concern this article, not your wikibio.

961:

Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair.

1482:

Current: "… have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft."

1445:

Old: "He has been a visiting scientist at the Max Planck Institute …"

719:

New: "He has been a visiting scientist at the Max Planck Institute …"

298:

Can you provide subject of Ph. D. thesis and perhaps advisor's name?

124:

and the quotation comes from the amazon.com blurb for the book. ---

425:

this is an encyclopedia article and not a C.V. or academic eulogy,

874:

Old: "At one time Haisch apparently had a startup company called

724:"Speculatice proposals …" section, first sentence and following: 526:

added sentence to quotation of open letter on UFOs as per Haisch.

2115: 2111: 925: 846: 2231:, the right thing to do would be to strike that statement out. 892:"California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics" reference: 698:

and thereafter did three years of postdoctoral research at the

1652: 1440:

Current: "He has been a visitor at the Max Planck Institute …"

1414: 1410: 1388: 1379: 774: 748:, Haisch and Rueda have pursued a controversial hypothesis, …" 636: 627: 575:

Differences between the last version by CH and the current one

25: 97:

establish my conjecture beyond reasonable doubt, however. ---

1463:

Ok, Chris has now changed "visitor" to "visiting scientist"

932: 921: 909: 896: 821:

New: "JSE is often regarded as a 'fringe science journal' …"

935:, which promotes the investigation of the UFO phenomenon …" 2318:

Paul, I know this is getting confusing, but in fact I had

1063:

For the record, I feel that I have bent over backwards to

875: 744:

New: "… with Alfonso Rueda which concern their version of

714:

Old: "He has been a visitor at the Max Planck Institute …"

594:

Old: "… speculative theory proposing that a hypothetical

2393:

fixed them. Please calm down and let me finish, OK? ---

1518:, founded in 1987 by Stanford professor Ronald Howard, …" 859: 830: 807:, founded in 1987 by Stanford professor Ronald Howard, …" 1479:

Speculative proposals section, 3rd para, last sentence:

2362: 2359: 2356: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2014:

not overreact to some questionable anon edits by Haisch

1950: 1895: 1889: 1883: 1870: 1324: 1321: 1312: 1057: 584: 580: 532:

added "employed five postdocs" to brief description of

94: 90: 414:

Third, you should avoid editing your own wikibio; see

1364:

Current: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."

920:

Old: "Haisch has also founded an organization called

153:

research was supported by NASA grants and contracts.

116:

It is natural to conjecture that Haisch attended the

1845:(Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in 1770:

Following is my summary of what has happened so far:

1715:

above. To that end I have reverted the last edit by

1736:has made more edits without discussing them here. 1261:and refered to that article in the wikibiography. 910:California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics 897:California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics 615:Old: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion." 2323:an) so this is now done, exactly as you wanted. 1514:Old: "Haisch served as the second editor of the 803:New: "Haisch served as the second editor of the 651:,St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey, a Catholic 301:Can you confirm that Rueda is an EE by training? 2066: 1947:) adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net 1799:and some articles in which he has an interest, 1504:"Fringe publications" section, first sentence: 1110: 791:"Fringe publications" section, first sentence: 253: 1795:, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography 2141:I have added the postdoc as per Haisch above 2017:be helpful to Haisch as a WP newbie (despite 1867:) adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net 1293:(is Lockheed Martin an "academic" employer?) 991:Paul: if you are referring to the comment by 8: 1916:) adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net 1705: 529:corrected Rueda education/job as per Haisch. 2258:(referring to apparent financial incentive) 1507:Current: "Haisch is a former editor of the 1056:Well, this is rather upsetting. I thought 700:Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics 2286:Chris why do you keep reverting my edits: 1925:(SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the 1706:Paul August's revert of Haisch's last edit 1435:career section, 2nd para, second sentence: 1138:I think WP must resist POV-pushing in the 826:"Fringe publications" section, last para: 1610:editorial office shifted to Allen Press. 141:I just today discovered your note to me. 1791:), who is in real life fringe physicist 543:as "website" not "organization" and add 1807:. Please see also his user talk page, 931:New: "Haisch also has a website called 917:"UFO Skeptic" section, first sentence: 794:Old: "Haisch is a former editor of the 664:, St. Meinrad Seminary and Archabbey)." 2364:?. Did you have a problem with those? 2345:have tried to find my own wording. --- 1684:Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration 924:, which promotes the investigation of 579:Here are the main differences between 409:Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 2282:Chris why did you revert my changes? 1988:) apparently also edits as the anon 596:"zero-point-field inertia resonance" 165:the Digital Universe, Larry Sanger. 1892:implicit confession of IRL identity 995:, I quote the post by John Baez in 784:"quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" 605:"quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" 395:Please see my comment in ]. ---~~~~ 269:To avoid any question of violating 1953:implicit admission of IRL identity 1838:Haisch also edits as an anon from 1271:I didn't remove this (see below). 24: 1801:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1516:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1509:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1252:Journal of Scientific Exploration 805:Journal of Scientific Exploration 796:Journal of Scientific Exploration 704:University of Colorado at Boulder 312:essentially consists of yourself? 2412:of my edits go unreverted ;-) 2217:rewriting his own biography. --- 1712: 1581:More changes suggested by Haisch 1073:not over-react to violations by 876:Starspot Exploration Enterprises 769:Old: "This casts doubt upon the 583:(02:00, June 11, 2006), and the 308:Would it be correct to say that 29: 2024:not overreact to violations by 1164:My version moves the bit about 782:New: This casts doubt upon the 428:you have enjoyed a long career, 1070:tried to help him as a newbie, 841:of lectures on such topics as 812:Next sentence, and following: 735:, have developed a version of 1: 1378:Current: "… his interest in 1285:I retained the section title 1172:St. Meinrad is a Benedictine 1813:Paul August's user talk page 1409:Ok,, Chris has now changed " 1387:Old: "… his interest in the 1182:Latin School of Indianapolis 1166:Latin School of Indianapolis 1008:Bernard: I do not feel that 860:Institute of Noetic Sciences 831:Institute of Noetic Sciences 771:"inertia modification drive" 662:Latin School of Indianapolis 649:Latin School of Indianapolis 635:New: "… his interest in the 386:First, you don't need to cc 118:Latin School of Indianapolis 2155:Electric universe (concept) 1923:pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain 1210:California State University 1180:. According to our article 729:California State University 2524: 1886:confession of IRL identity 1805:Stochastic electrodynamics 1259:Stochastic electrodynamics 1206:in fact describe Rueda as 997:Stochastic electrodynamics 871:"Other ventures" section: 766:Next para, last sentence: 746:stochastic electrodynamics 737:stochastic electrodynamics 500:concerns of Bernard Haisch 2508:21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2497:20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2486:20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2475:20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2456:20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2438:21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2420:21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2398:20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2385:20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2372:20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2358:, but not the other two 2350:20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2337:20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2313:20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2303:20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2274:20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2249:22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2239:21:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2222:21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2207:20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2194:20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2183:20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2171:19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2143:"major part of my career" 2133:20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2102:18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1968:pltn13.pacbell.net domain 1873:removes internal link to 1843:pltn13.pacbell.net domain 1826:21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1727:17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1700:21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1667:21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1590:19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1575:21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1561:21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1545:21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1531:18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1496:18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1471:21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1458:18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1425:21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1404:18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1344:00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1334:03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1304:04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1279:03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1242:My version does say that 1236:04:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1192:04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1042:16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1029:Chris, as our article on 1017:01:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 983:17:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 966:16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 953:Reply from Bernard Haisch 948:05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 626:Old: "… his interest in 570:01:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 491:01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 463:02:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 441:14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 377:01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 137:Reply from Bernard Haisch 2166:and other guidelines.--- 2125:Yes that's a good idea. 1734:reverted Paul August and 1140:interests of our readers 887:New: (sentence deleted). 753:Second Rueda reference: 672:Old: "Scientific career" 669:"career" section title: 354:12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 341:08:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 329:21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 229:20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 196:21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 180:19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 129:12:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 112:21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 102:01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 2145:. I don't intend that 1879:List of UFO researchers 607:which might provide … " 581:Chris Hillman's version 122:University of Wisconsin 2071: 1970:has also been used by 1642:) 16:18, June 12, 2006 1136: 829:Old: "… published by 677:New: "Academic career" 267: 958:laden term "fringe." 862:, which says that it 858:New: "… published by 833:, which says that it 42:of past discussions. 2443:Comments from Haisch 1966:Important note: the 1264:My version mentions 837:. In particular, it 603:New: "… speculative 2078:financial incentive 1130:), in a comment in 551:link, as per Haisch 539:In links, describe 405:Additional comments 18:Talk:Bernard Haisch 2481:consulting income. 1254:and its talk page. 388:identical comments 70:Notable Wikipedian 2466:Please note that 2089:In the matter of 1809:my user talk page 1644: 1630:comment added by 1595:Reply from Haisch 1349:Other differences 1287:Scientific career 1132:User talk:Hillman 1108:. As he put it: 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2515: 2151:"non-mainstream" 2147:"fringe science" 2019:Digital Universe 1695:Fair enough? --- 1643: 1624: 1361:First sentence: 1134: 901:Redwood City, CA 880:Redwood City, CA 851:life after death 839:sells videotapes 612:First sentence: 598:might provide …" 591:First sentence: 545:and Astrophysics 403:Second, I moved 334:User:Paul August 319:noncontroversial 265: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2445: 2284: 2110:I propose that 1708: 1625: 1597: 1583: 1351: 1291:Academic career 1135: 1116: 1054: 955: 711:Next sentence: 682:Next sentence: 644:Next sentence: 623:Next sentence: 577: 502: 365: 266: 260: 204: 182:Bernard Haisch 139: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2521: 2519: 2511: 2510: 2500: 2499: 2478: 2477: 2463: 2462: 2444: 2441: 2423: 2422: 2375: 2374: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2316: 2315: 2283: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2252: 2251: 2225: 2224: 2197: 2196: 2186: 2185: 2174: 2173: 2159: 2158: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2120: 2119: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2091:Bernard Haisch 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2022: 2015: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1935:71.146.176.178 1931: 1930: 1918: 1917: 1904:69.107.144.172 1901: 1900: 1899: 1893: 1887: 1881: 1875:Bernard Haisch 1855:69.107.150.126 1851: 1850: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1797:Bernard Haisch 1793:Bernard Haisch 1772: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1738: 1737: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1656: 1596: 1593: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1548: 1547: 1535: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1512: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1483: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1461: 1442: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1407: 1384: 1373:Next sentence: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1350: 1347: 1337: 1336: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1262: 1255: 1247: 1244:calphysics.org 1240: 1239: 1238: 1218: 1214:Long Beach, CA 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1162: 1114: 1101: 1100: 1097:user talk page 1071: 1068: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1031:Fringe science 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 986: 985: 954: 951: 939: 938: 937: 936: 929: 915: 914: 913: 906: 905: 904: 890: 889: 888: 885: 884: 883: 869: 868: 867: 856: 855: 854: 824: 823: 822: 819: 818: 817: 810: 809: 808: 801: 800: 799: 789: 788: 787: 780: 779: 778: 764: 763: 762: 759: 758: 757: 751: 750: 749: 742: 741: 740: 733:Long Beach, CA 722: 721: 720: 717: 716: 715: 709: 708: 707: 692: 691: 690: 680: 679: 678: 675: 674: 673: 667: 666: 665: 658: 657: 656: 642: 641: 640: 633: 632: 631: 621: 620: 619: 616: 610: 609: 608: 601: 600: 599: 585:crrent version 576: 573: 560: 559: 552: 549:calphysics.org 537: 536:as per Haisch. 534:calphysics.org 530: 527: 524: 501: 494: 484:user talk page 466: 465: 457: 452: 451: 445: 430: 429: 426: 398: 397: 364: 358: 357: 356: 314: 313: 310:calphysics.org 306: 302: 299: 296: 258: 245: 244: 240: 203: 200: 199: 198: 187:articles meet 138: 135: 133: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2520: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2484: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2448: 2442: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2431: 2427: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2380: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2291: 2288: 2281: 2275: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2259: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2223: 2220: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2202: 2195: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2176: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2070: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990:69.109.222.23 1987: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1972:Jack Sarfatti 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1897: 1896:26 April 2006 1894: 1891: 1890:25 April 2006 1888: 1885: 1882: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1839: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1827: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713:"New version" 1701: 1698: 1694: 1688: 1685: 1680: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1594: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1562: 1559: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1503: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391:phenomenon …" 1390: 1385: 1383: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1356: 1355:my list above 1348: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1267: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1141: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1113: 1109: 1107: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1059: 1051: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 998: 994: 990: 989: 988: 987: 984: 981: 978: 974: 970: 969: 968: 967: 964: 959: 952: 950: 949: 946: 943: 934: 930: 927: 923: 919: 918: 916: 911: 907: 902: 898: 894: 893: 891: 886: 881: 877: 873: 872: 870: 865: 861: 857: 852: 848: 844: 843:faith healing 840: 836: 832: 828: 827: 825: 820: 814: 813: 811: 806: 802: 797: 793: 792: 790: 785: 781: 776: 772: 768: 767: 765: 760: 755: 754: 752: 747: 743: 738: 734: 730: 726: 725: 723: 718: 713: 712: 710: 705: 701: 697: 693: 688: 684: 683: 681: 676: 671: 670: 668: 663: 659: 654: 650: 646: 645: 643: 639:phenomenon …" 638: 634: 629: 625: 624: 622: 617: 614: 613: 611: 606: 602: 597: 593: 592: 590: 589: 588: 586: 582: 574: 572: 571: 568: 563: 557: 553: 550: 546: 542: 538: 535: 531: 528: 525: 521: 520: 519: 517: 514: 511: 507: 499: 495: 493: 492: 489: 485: 481: 478: 475: 471: 464: 461: 458: 454: 453: 448: 447: 446: 443: 442: 439: 434: 427: 424: 423: 422: 419: 417: 412: 410: 406: 401: 396: 393: 392: 391: 389: 384: 383:Hi, Bernard: 381: 380: 378: 375: 371: 363: 359: 355: 352: 349: 345: 344: 343: 342: 339: 335: 331: 330: 327: 322: 320: 311: 307: 303: 300: 297: 294: 293: 292: 290: 287: 284: 280: 276: 272: 264: 257: 252: 250: 243:conspiracies. 241: 237: 236: 235: 231: 230: 227: 223: 219: 216: 213: 209: 201: 197: 194: 190: 185: 184: 183: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 136: 134: 131: 130: 127: 123: 119: 114: 113: 110: 105: 104: 103: 100: 96: 92: 88: 85: 82: 78: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2479: 2449: 2446: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2409: 2405: 2390: 2388: 2376: 2343: 2319: 2317: 2285: 2257: 2226: 2198: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2077: 2067: 2032: 1996: 1982: 1967: 1951:10 June 2006 1941: 1922: 1910: 1884:12 June 2006 1861: 1847:San Jose, CA 1842: 1785: 1777:A new user, 1749: 1733: 1709: 1678: 1659: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1584: 1534: 1523: 1449: 1444: 1439: 1434: 1417:phenomenon" 1395: 1386: 1377: 1372: 1352: 1338: 1310: 1290: 1289:rather than 1286: 1266:starspot.com 1265: 1243: 1221: 1220:Likewise, I 1207: 1203: 1155:hypothetical 1154: 1150: 1144: 1139: 1137: 1124: 1111: 1105: 1102: 1081: 1062: 1055: 1009: 960: 956: 940: 863: 834: 783: 770: 694:New: "… in 604: 595: 578: 564: 561: 555: 548: 544: 540: 533: 512: 503: 476: 467: 444: 435: 431: 420: 413: 404: 402: 399: 394: 387: 385: 382: 368:(Apparently 367: 366: 360:Comments by 332: 324:Comments?--- 323: 318: 315: 309: 285: 268: 254: 246: 232: 214: 205: 175: 171: 169:away from). 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 140: 132: 115: 106: 83: 74: 73: 60: 43: 37: 2414:Paul August 2379:Paul August 2366:Paul August 2331:Paul August 2297:Paul August 2233:Paul August 2201:Paul August 2127:Paul August 2116:Paul August 1871:5 June 2006 1820:Paul August 1721:Paul August 1626:—Preceding 1555:Paul August 1525:Paul August 1490:Paul August 1465:Paul August 1452:Paul August 1419:Paul August 1398:Paul August 1328:Paul August 1298:Paul August 1273:Paul August 1230:Paul August 1202:My version 1186:Paul August 1052:New version 1036:Paul August 977:Paul August 942:Paul August 933:UFO Skeptic 922:UFO Skeptic 696:Madison, WI 687:Madison, WI 685:Old: "… in 541:UFO skeptic 496:Addressing 370:User:Haisch 362:User:Haisch 348:Paul August 202:New version 36:This is an 2214:good faith 2097:. TIA --- 1811:, and the 1677:You wrote 1658:You wrote 1313:my version 1159:Bill Unruh 1058:my version 993:Bill Unruh 899:, also in 305:available? 75:Actually, 2061:involved: 1976:DrMorelos 1648:Bernard: 1178:archabbey 95:this edit 91:this edit 61:Archive 1 2389:Paul, I 2036:contribs 2000:contribs 1986:contribs 1945:contribs 1927:Bay Area 1914:contribs 1865:contribs 1789:contribs 1753:contribs 1640:contribs 1628:unsigned 1311:I think 1174:seminary 1128:contribs 1085:contribs 908:New: "… 895:Old: "… 653:seminary 554:removed 516:contribs 482:) on my 480:contribs 289:contribs 218:contribs 87:contribs 2320:already 1732:Haisch 1413:"s to " 973:Hillman 702:at the 565:TIA --- 498:WP:NPOV 416:WP:AUTO 275:WP:NPOV 271:WP:AUTO 263:WP:SELF 249:WP:SELF 222:WP:NPOV 189:WP:NPOV 39:archive 2483:Haisch 2453:Haisch 2271:Haisch 2229:Haisch 2164:WP:CIV 2112:Haisch 2095:WP:CIV 2048:WP:AGF 2044:WP:CIV 2040:WP:NLT 2026:Haisch 1779:Haisch 1757:WP:CIV 1743:Haisch 1717:Haisch 1632:Haisch 1316:page. 1118:Haisch 1095:on my 1093:WP:NLT 1089:WP:CIV 1075:Haisch 1010:fringe 963:Haisch 849:, and 506:Haisch 470:Haisch 460:Haisch 279:Haisch 224:. --- 208:Haisch 177:Haisch 77:Haisch 2468:WP:DR 2038:) of 1877:from 1087:) of 523:what. 486:. --- 261:from 191:. --- 16:< 2391:have 2114:and 2030:talk 1994:talk 1980:talk 1939:talk 1921:the 1908:talk 1859:talk 1841:the 1803:and 1783:talk 1747:talk 1636:talk 1511:, …" 1380:UFOs 1176:and 1151:both 1122:talk 1091:and 1079:talk 926:UFOs 847:Gaia 798:, …" 775:UFOs 628:UFOs 510:talk 474:talk 283:talk 212:talk 93:and 81:talk 2492:--- 2410:one 2406:how 2178:--- 1653:UFO 1570:--- 1540:--- 1415:UFO 1411:UFO 1389:UFO 1339:--- 1296:OK 1222:did 1204:did 878:of 777:)." 637:UFO 547:to 407:to 239:on. 2505:CH 2494:CH 2472:CH 2435:CH 2395:CH 2361:, 2347:CH 2310:CH 2292:, 2289:, 2246:CH 2219:CH 2191:CH 2180:CH 2168:CH 2099:CH 1815:. 1759:.) 1719:. 1697:CH 1664:CH 1638:• 1587:CH 1572:CH 1542:CH 1382:…" 1357:: 1341:CH 1326:— 1323:, 1212:, 1142:. 1115:— 1014:CH 928:…" 882:." 845:, 816:…" 731:, 706:." 689:." 630:…" 567:CH 488:CH 438:CH 374:CH 338:CH 326:CH 259:— 226:CH 193:CH 126:CH 109:CH 99:CH 2417:☎ 2382:☎ 2369:☎ 2334:☎ 2300:☎ 2236:☎ 2204:☎ 2130:☎ 2046:- 2042:- 2033:· 2028:( 2021:) 1997:· 1992:( 1983:· 1978:( 1942:· 1937:( 1929:) 1911:· 1906:( 1862:· 1857:( 1849:) 1823:☎ 1786:· 1781:( 1750:· 1745:( 1724:☎ 1634:( 1558:☎ 1528:☎ 1493:☎ 1468:☎ 1455:☎ 1433:" 1422:☎ 1401:☎ 1331:☎ 1301:☎ 1276:☎ 1233:☎ 1189:☎ 1125:· 1120:( 1099:. 1082:· 1077:( 1039:☎ 980:☎ 945:☎ 866:. 853:. 655:. 513:· 508:( 477:· 472:( 379:) 351:☎ 286:· 281:( 215:· 210:( 84:· 79:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index