I just told Malcolm Davidson and also Stephen Crothers that I have access to enough professors to develop a full analysis of the crisis in science, and the relevant role of the various parties in the corruption of science. I only listed Davies, Yakovlev, Oppo. Then just now I remembered the Italians who comprehensively misrepresented and defamed Catt. They are three more professors; Pelosi, Pieraccini, Selleri. There is no conspiracy. Everyone knows his role anyway.
I see no need for secrecy or conspiracy. Central to the crisis is that none of those fellows will talk unless they see a big stick - real threat to their careers and reputations. There is always the possibility that one of the canaries will sing. It has taken 50 years to assemble six professors; - sorry - seven; I have just thought of Pepper. Perhaps I will remember more. This has gone on for half a century. (Professor Yakovlev refused to have his name on a letter asking Sir Michael Pepper to correct the IEEE’s southerner position on cattq, the IEEE falsely saying Pepper was a westerner.) http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x67d.htm . Why did he protect Pepper?
The Italians, one an IEEE editor, were very helpful, when they went over to a peer reviewed attack, falsifying and comprehensively defaming Catt http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cw.htm Let us see if, now the lid is off, any of the listed professors will say in writing that they disapprove of the Italians' hatchet job. One chink in the armour was when Davies criticised his fellow Professor Oppo for threatening legal action against me. Why did he not object to Oppo doing something much more serious - Oppo writing rubbish including; "There is no Catt’s anomaly, only scientifically poor mathematical and physical statements". Can he really think Oppo threatening to sue Catt is more serious than Oppo saying "There is no 'Catt's anomaly', just scientifically poor mathematical statements?" Does he not care about scientific advance, thinking someone threatening to sue someone else is more serious than someone sabotaging scientific advance, misnaming “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm as “Catt’s anomaly”, as the Italians did? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf .
If a professor refuses to criticise blatant scientific misbehaviour by another professor, as Davies and Yakovlev did, then he is a member of an evolved mafia. When I first met Davies, he waxed lyrical about Catt and “the Glitch”, with Catt at its centre. Now Oppo rubbishes “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . The second Italian peer reviewed article, entitled “An apparent paradox; Catt’s anomaly” http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/48/6/718/meta is far more damaging for Catt and for science than threats to sue Catt at law. Or does Professor Davies think legal action is more serious than falsifying science? Get real! Is he a law professor?
I hereby guarantee that all professors will be allowed, even encouraged, to write any comment, or counter-argument, which will always be added to what I write and publish. This is of course unless I lose control of the publication.
Oppo suggested legal action. I think it would be very helpful is one or more professors take legal action against me. The courts are the right place to clarify the situation. If only it can be gotten into court, a spineless media might finally address this subject, which will obviously be very interesting for their readers.
Ivor Catt 5 February 2017