The Deception Deepens. Falsification of experimental results relating to the Theory of Relativity.

From Al Kelly to Ivor Catt.

Hi Ivor,

I am just satisfied that I published in detail the 'cooked' results of H
& K in 1996 in Monograph No 3 of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland.
Anything I emailed to you and others really is describing what is in that
paper. A later paper on the same subject which will reach a wider
audience is coming out in Phys Ess. in Dec 2000 (in press and late) .
Quoting any emails I sent to you would merely prolong the site you are
forming. The abstract I sent to you of the Phys Ess. paper would be
enough for the reader I suggest.

I repeat it here :-

Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele &
Keating. In their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were
radically different from the actual test results which are here published
for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence
can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
Good Hunting,

Al Kelly, 10june01

----- Original Message -----

From: ic <>

To: > <>

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:06 AM

Subject: draft es/rel scandal

The reference is on in the bibliography. It
is: Atomic Clocks Coming and Going, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt <

To: Al Kelly <>; mikegi <>
Cc: Malcolm Davidson <>;
<>; <>;
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: essen/rel
Al Kelly (et al),

This is the kind of thing I intend to put on my website. Please help me.
Ivor Catt 6june01

The Deception Deepens

"'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.

'I only wish I had such eyes,' the king remarked in a fretful tone. 'To be
able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can
do to see real people, by this light!'"

"Pathological science often depends on experiments at the threshold of
detectability, or at the lowest margins of statistical significance. The
claims frequently emerge from a body of data that is selectively
wishful researchers unconsciously discard enough 'bad' data to make the
remaining 'good' points look important. That the measurements are at the
very threshold of sensitivity is an advantage, not an obstacle: data that
don't fit the theory are explained away; those they fit are lovingly
retained. - Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge", 1991, p27.

"No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I
persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. .... .... the
continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a
rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44.

"The authors then proceed to make a statistical analysis of the frequency
comparisons made between the clocks, to obtain their final results. No
details of these comparisons are given, but the analysis is based on the
assumption that the frequency variations are random in nature, which
appears to be unlikely and is not in accord with my own experience.... the
experimental results given in their paper do not support these
predictons." - Louis Essen, "Atomic Clocks Coming and Going", Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 14, 46 (1977)

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."
- Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.
Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information

In my article "The Conquest of Truth", Electronics and Wireless World,
jan98, I point out that all four so-called acid tests of the validity of
the Theory of Relativity are disputed. This article summarises a continuing
deception practised by the Establishment including the journal "Nature" on
a later much vaunted experiment.

The theory of Relativity states that increased velocity causes clocks to
slow down. Two aeroplanes carrying the world's most accurate were flown around the world in opposite directions, and then compared with each other and with a stationary clock. The experimental results were then falsified, and Nature and other journals wrongly concluded that Relativity had been experimentally verified. Louis Essen, who became Fellow of the
Royal Society in honour of his achievement in developing these (caesium)
clocks, was prevented from publishing his caveat, that the clocks were
less accurate than claimed.

Decades later, under the Freedom of Information Act, Dr. A G Kelly obtained the raw data from the experiments, which showed that the wrong conclusion had been published. Further, he obtained an internal memo by one of the authors a year earlier, when the author had written that the experiment could not lead to any valid conclusions.

Ivor Catt 8june01

Will the new editor of Nature now belatedly publish this information? - IC.

Cc Nature (Editor: Philip Campbell) via 12june01