April 2016

 

Ivor Catt 

4:54 PM (6 minutes ago)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

to Monika, chaeremon,

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

Dear Klaus Witzel,

 

"What can I do for you? My speciality is the levels (layers) of language behind which academic scientists obscure their teachings and their alleged insights." - KW

 

I think this is close to part of the help I need.

Since it is not permissible to suggest there is a fatal flaw in classical electromagnetism, I merely asked for clarification of classical electromagnetism.

For the purpose of this email, some definitions.

 

Careerists v real scientists.

Means Defenders of the Faith v Heretics.

 

I think your speciality will stretch to the case of "The Catt Question". We see "levels (layers) of language" used to obscure and avoid a very simple Question asking for clarification of classical electromagnetism.

 

Example. Since expert careerists contradicted each other, it was falsely alleged that they were asked different questions.

It was said that the Question was "wrong".

It was said that the Question was not a Question, but rather an assertion that classical theory was faulty.

The Questioner did not understand mathematics, even though the Question contained no mathematics.

The Questioner was rude.

The careerist (knighted for services to physics) had changed his mind, and now agreed with the other (Nobel prize winning) careerist - but the first careerist himself did not say so.

The Questioner was racist.

The Questioner was "outside academia and structured science".

All careerist answers were all agreed.

 

This has gone on for 35 years.

 

""What can I do for you?"

Look into this case. However, it will take you a long time. However, this case is rich with interest.

If you are willing to pursue it, I will send you the other key www addresses. Two are here;

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm

II think my strategy is unique. I appreciate that in today's professional (careerist) science, it is unacceptable to propose a new paradigm. That would cause too much damage to careerists. Instead, and uniquely, I have asked for clarification of the careerists' classical theory, which careerists are unable to answer.

Careerists are also unable to explain "The Wakefield Experiment", and none of them will comment on the results of that experiment.

Ivor Catt

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x63p.htm