Expat Interview

[Bob Watson]

Gene, Chris I wish to comend you on an AWSOME interview with expat! VERY nicly done! my only fault I find is a little to much time was taken up by the fourms problems in the begining but that was understandable! GREAT JOB HATS OFF!

 

[Randall]

I've just reviewed Expat's Paracast appearance and I wasn't entirely satisfied with his answer regarding Hoagland's "torsion field detector", which I had referred to as a "space densiometer" ( more on that later ), so I started digging on my own, and from what I can tell, there could very well be something to it. This isn't to say that all the Hoagland's hypotheses and theories that have sprung up surrounding it are true, but to start with, this instrument isn't something Hoagland invented. It was invented by physicist Bruce DePalma. It's also not correct that the unit has no baseline to calibrate from ( it does ). So far, I haven't been able to find anything definitive that explains why it works the way that it does, but it does seem to register changes that manifest themselves as a discrepancy in time between the Accutron and the computer that does the analyzing. It also seems true that when it is placed near spinning masses the readings do change, and it is this phenomenon that has led Hoagland to link it to Torsion Field Theory, a theory not exclusive to the Soviet version mentioned by Expat.

Without going into detail on the various incarnations of Torsion Field Theory ( TFT ), they all seem to referring to the idea that in the theory of spacetime, there is a sort of "fabric" to space that is affected by the presence of mass. We sometimes see this idea illustrated ( as an analogy ) by placing a ball on a rubber sheet upon which some kind of grid has been drawn, or by some similar 3D rendering where planets are caught in something that looks like a net, but which is meant to illustrate the bending of space itself. Torsion Field Theory suggests that in the presence of mass, this grid doesn't simply dent inward but also that when the mass is spinning, it drags space around with it a small amount resulting in a sort of elastic compression of the fabric of space. It is this idea that led me to call DePalma's device a "space densiometer" ( there isn't really an official name for it that I've found so far ). The compression patterns are sometimes called an "inertial field" and are envisioned sometimes as waves or ripples that move out away from the object in a spiral pattern.

This brings me full circle to my original question. What makes this device work the way it does? Expat's comments on the Accutron being an outdated technology don't apply at all to this issue. In fact, it's precisely the way the Accutron was constructed that makes it suitable for this device, and it is far from lacking in precision. So far I've found no conventional scientific explanation, but if anyone has an explanation, please let me know, and in the meantime I'll keep rummaging around for more information. In the context of Torsion Field Theory, it seems that what's being implied is that changes in the density of space cause changes in the mass ( and consequently the intertia ) of the metal that composes the tuning forks in the Accutron, resulting in a change in the rate of vibration, and in turn the measurement of time. Right now I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept. Something about it doesn't seem exactly right, but the variables aren't easy for me to visualize because it isn't just mass alone. The hypothetical space density variable should affect not only the mass of the tuning fork, but also its tensile properties. In other words, if the mass becomes denser and therefore heavier and consequently slower to vibrate, should not the density also amplify the tensile properties ( the springiness of the metal ) thereby compensating?

 

[Fox Mulder]

I have about an hour left of listening to the podcast - very nice so far Expat.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

What a contrast to the Mike Bara episode. It's nice to hear a skeptic on the show from time to time. Now, if you could get James Oberg on the show...

 

[Randall]

Separatly from the issue of the Accutron question ( here ), I'd like to say that I empathize with the obvious feelings expressed by Expat on the use of personality attacks when examining claims or evidence. But rest assured it's not exclusive to one side or the other. I've literally been driven to tears by cyber bullies masquerading as skeptics over at the James Randi Forum ... and that's hard to do to a guy over 50. Here on the Paracast, Expat came across as a well informed and well spoken guest and it made for a good show. He's sounds like the kind of person that would be really interesting to sit and chat with. Thanks for bringing him on guys!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

There are jerks everywhere ufology. I find we keep that to a minimum on this forum.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What I like about Expat is his ability to disagree agreeably. Regardless of the merits of his case, Bara was too ready to call people who disagree with him dumb or stupid, or engaging in stalking. That's no way to sell his story.

 

[Expat]

ufology wrote: "It's also not correct that the unit has no baseline to calibrate from ( it does )."

Yes, that's correct. My scientific complaint is that Hoagland has never presented any baseline data from that actual Accutron. It's essential to see how accurately it keeps time under normal conditions before you start publishing data from what you claim are abnormal conditions.

Here's another point I didn't include in the show: If what he says is true we would expect many musical instruments to go out of tune during eclipses and transits. I've heard no such reports. Have you?

 

[Randall]

There was some improper behavior against Ufology at the JREF forums. My observation was that this was quickly dealt with by the moderators.

For his part, Ufology showed a distinct inability to engage on issues, to understand reason, and to answer reasonable questions about his statements. I won't discuss anything with him because of that same behavior (also seem in these forums).

Best,

Lance

Lance you're just plain wrong about a couple of things. Most of the questions I haven't responded to over there are from people on my ignore list who ended up there for good reason. People can prove it to themselves just by visiting the forum and looking at the threads I've contributed to. As for you not wanting to engage me because of my behavior, I've done nothing to deserve that on the JREF and certainly not here. My participation here proves that I remain level headed, logical, civil and genuinely interested in the subject matter. So I'll tell you what Lance ... how about proving your unfounded allegations by trying me here without that cabal of JREF cyber-bullies around? I'll engage you on any issue of your choice.

 

[Expat]

I'd like to recommend that people here interested in the "reality check" visit Stuart Robbins' blog, Exposing Pseudo-astronomy. Robbins is the Ph.D. astronomer from Univ. Colorado who wrote a great deal about the so-called ziggurat on the Moon.

 

[SRL+]

There was some improper behavior against Ufology at the JREF forums. My observation was that this was quickly dealt with by the moderators.

For his part, Ufology showed a distinct inability to engage on issues, to understand reason, and to answer reasonable questions about his statements. I won't discuss anything with him because of that same behavior (also seem in these forums).

Best,

Lance

I have read through the numerous posts, and there is quite a bit to chew through.

 

[Randall]

ufology wrote: "It's also not correct that the unit has no baseline to calibrate from ( it does )."

Yes, that's correct. My scientific complaint is that Hoagland has never presented any baseline data from that actual Accutron. It's essential to see how accurately it keeps time under normal conditions before you start publishing data from what you claim are abnormal conditions.

Here's another point I didn't include in the show: If what he says is true we would expect many musical instruments to go out of tune during eclipses and transits. I've heard no such reports. Have you?

Hi there Expat. I'd like to compliment you on your interview. It was a pleasure to listen to you speak. Regarding the baseline for the device, lets just call it an Inertial Field Detector ( IFD ) for the sake of convenience, if you look at the way the IFD is setup, there are two timekeeping mechanisms in play, one inside the Accutron and another in the computer. According to Bulova, the Accutron watch itself is built to specifications of +- 2 seconds per day, which according to what I've found so far is as accurate than most quartz clocks, including those inside most PCs. I haven't found any extended time chart for the Accutron watch itself, however that doesn't mean there is no baseline because each session produces a new baseline at the start. Specifically, if I understand what's going on correctly, at the start of a session, the Accutron sends a signal to a PC where software specially designed by Bulova to calibrate the watch examines it and a baseline is automatically established at that time. The Accutron signal is simultaneously compared to the PC's clock and deviations are recorded as events unfold. The theory is that the PC's clock isn't affected by the inertial field the same way as the Accutron, and experiments independent of Hoagland's apparently indicate that in the presence of a nearby spinning mass, the Accutron is somehow affected by some unknown force that manifests itself as an irregularity in the Accutron's timekeeping. Original experiments were done with a Westclox unit as the secondary timekeeping mechanism. However, the clock in a PC ( when running ) is very accurate ( more accurate than when they are shut down ) and are capable of ultra precise measurements. So I don't see much of a problem yet with the PC setup.

 

[Expat]

&&So I don't see much of a problem yet with the PC setup.&&

I understand what you write. However, the other part of this is that, like all scientific experiments, to be valid the Accutron displays have to be accompanied by appropriate controls. An appropriate control in this experimental setup would be an identical Accutron/MicroSet™ device as far as possible away from the claimed influence (The Coral Castle, the pyramid of Teotihuacán, Sandia Peak). For the Venus transit, Hoagland announced on Gaiam Inspirations TV that he had controls in Chicago and Florida. These might have been acceptable but the only slight problem is that he has never produced any data from them.

Please read this. You'll notice that what he calls his positive data is in the form of extremely short-duration spikes. It's easy to imagine that his 35-year-old wristwatch may be exhibiting those spikes under baseline conditions, without noticeably affecting the famous +- 2 seconds per month. Especially since the spikes go in both directions -- another very serious problem with his theory.

 

[Randall]

&&So I don't see much of a problem yet with the PC setup.&&

I understand what you write. However, the other part of this is that, like all scientific experiments, to be valid the Accutron displays have to be accompanied by appropriate controls. An appropriate control in this experimental setup would be an identical Accutron/MicroSet™ device as far as possible away from the claimed influence (The Coral Castle, the pyramid of Teotihuacán, Sandia Mountain). For the Venus transit, Hoagland announced on Gaiam Inspirations TV that he had controls in Chicago and Florida. These might have been acceptable but the only slight problem is that he has never produced any data from them.

Please read this. You'll notice that what he calls his positive data is in the form of extremely short-duration spikes. It's easy to imagine that his 35-year-old wristwatch may be exhibiting those spikes under baseline conditions, without noticeably affecting the famous +- 2 seconds per month. Especially since the spikes go in both directions -- another very serious problem with his theory.

That's would be a reasonable assumption if it were not for the issue of repeatability, including the ones by the physicist ( DePalma ), who invented the first device. I also don't readily see what aspect of the engineering in the Accutron would weaken over time to cause these anomalies under specific repeatable circumstances. However note that I've also got a similar thread running over on the JREF in the hopes that someone will find an independent analysis by a respected scientific lab. I find this rather intriguing and am not going to write it off just yet ... not without some more solid information.

 

[Expat]

&&I also don't readily see what aspect of the engineering in the Accutron would weaken over time to cause these anomalies under specific repeatable circumstances.&&

Somehow you've manged to miss the point. We don't know whether these anomalies only occur
under specific repeatable circumstances because Hoagland has never provided baseline data.

 

[Randall]

&&I also don't readily see what aspect of the engineering in the Accutron would weaken over time to cause these anomalies under specific repeatable circumstances.&&

Somehow you've manged to miss the point. We don't know whether these anomalies only occur
under specific repeatable circumstances because Hoagland has never provided baseline data.

Um ... nope ... I don't think I've missed the point at all. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you seem to be suggesting is that a lengthy chart in some neutral environment should be used as a baseline, and that perhaps if we were to see such a chart it may also show similar deviations without any obvious exposure to an alleged inertial field. Sure I'd like to see that too. It would be more evidence to consider. However the absence of such a chart doesn't mean there is no baseline. The tuning fork in the Accutron vibrates at 360 Hz ( 360 times per second ), so it doesn't take very long to establish a baseline at the start of each session. In just 60 seconds you've got over 21,000 samples and the software automatically detects and records deviations from that baseline which are clearly visible in the charts. What we don't know is the cause of the deviations. You suggest some kind of engineering weakness, and that is possible, but when we have multiple sessions and DePalma's independent experiments to consider, there is sufficient reason to think that perhaps there is something anomalous going on. Independent scientific testing from a reputable lab would be very helpful in clearing this issue up.

 

[Expat]

The tuning fork in the Accutron vibrates at 360 Hz ( 360 times per second ), so it doesn't take very long to establish a baseline at the start of each session. In just 60 seconds you've got over 21,000 samples

If you'll kindly look again at the Sandia Peak May 20th trace, you'll see that the time elapse between spikes can be quite substantial. Prior to the 7:09:04 event (and remembering that time increases right-to-left) it looks like about 20 minutes with nothing happening, and yet this is during a time when Hoagland claims the torsion wave is doing its thing. So a 60-second run-up does not seem to be useful.

 

[Randall]

If you'll kindly look again at the Sandia Peak May 20th trace, you'll see that the time elapse between spikes can be quite substantial. Prior to the 7:09:04 event (and remembering that time increases right-to-left) it looks like about 20 minutes with nothing happening, and yet this is during a time when Hoagland claims the torsion wave is doing its thing. So a 60-second run-up does not seem to be useful.

Can you please provide a link to that screen shot. I've been looking at the ones here ( http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional-Eclipse.htm ).

 

[Randall]

For his part, Ufology showed a distinct inability to engage on issues, to understand reason, and to answer reasonable questions about his statements. I won't discuss anything with him because of that same behavior (also seem in these forums).

So I'll tell you what Lance ... how about proving your unfounded allegations by trying me here without that cabal of JREF cyber-bullies around? I'll engage you on any issue of your choice.

"Somehow you've manged to miss the point."
LOL! That was my experience always in trying to discuss things with Ufology.

Do I even need to explain the rudeness and subtle flaming going on here already? Come on Lance, is making unfounded slights against me in the third person the best you can do?

 

[Apocalypto]

A great show. It was excellent to hear Expat put Hoagland and Basa in their place. I agree with virtually everything Expat said. The only hiccup I caught was when he stated that Europa is a moon of Saturn as opposed to Jupiter.