Edward Dowdye Lives On

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, he had transformative observations that have yet to be officially recognized.

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, and it isn’t because he’s black. It’s because he dared to know better than Einstein and the official orthodoxy. He has transformative work that has yet to be officially recognized.

It’s obvious why this is. Because “disclosure” isn’t over yet. The public wasn’t given access to the truth; thus, Dowdye had to disappear.

Dowdye, you have been such an inspiration that it’s like I can feel you tapping on my shoulder, nagging on me. Thank you so much, no-wherever you are! The truth is leaking. And you remain a persistent positive force in that direction. Many have taken notice and are privately inspired by you despite deliberate attempts of concealment. Respect!

Fact: Proponents of General Relativity have no explanation for what appears to be visual confirmation that gravity does not effect light. Dowdye gives us what may be the most important visual of the 21st century: The absence of gravitational lensing where it is expected.

The white graphic animations are where General Relativity predicts the light to be observed from. The photography proves different.

Dowdye, you will live on forever in the hearts that you touched.

Stay present.


Psychological techniques used to pass fraudulent information support notions of intentional deception to push General Relativity

November 10th, 1919, the New York Times (known globally for their unquestionable authoritative voice) announced that Einstein’s theory of light had been “proved” by an eclipse expedition. A century later, it is empirically observable that Author Eddington’s data cannot confirm light bending around the Sun. Had the observation been authentic, it still wouldn’t prove anything, and an extremely robust study by a NASA engineer demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Scientific review of Arthur Eddington’s work shows that valid data was discarded that would have invalidated the observation. Essentially he cherry picked the data points that fit and dismissed the rest. Subsequent studies do validate the observation. However, the cause of light bending around the sun underscores how disingenuous it was for anyone to suggest that anything had been “proven.”

Laboratory experiments show that plasma causes light to refract. It turns out that the Sun is surrounded by an enormous atmosphere of invisible plasma known as the corona. That means the corona will deflect light. Therefore, to determine if gravity bends light, you can’t just have one observation of light bending around the Sun and consider the matter “proven.” Empirical testing must occur to ensure the plasma is not 100% responsible for the effect.

Saying that one observation of light bending around the sun “proves that gravity bends light” is the formal logical fallacy “affirming the consequent.” My favorite example is:

"If Bigfoot is real, we might hear him cracking twigs as he walks in the forest. I hear twigs breaking. Bigfoot is real."

That is the same disingenuous logic the New York Times used when suggesting Relativity had been “proven,” and it’s as fraudulent and dishonest as cherry-picking data.

Sadly, other deceitful press releases have also suggested that “gravity lensing” has been observed with zero effort to test if plasma is causing the effect.
Some papers indicate they detect deflection after subtracting for the plasma around the Sun. However, the theorized gravitational effect drops off quickly, making the results incredibly difficult to discern from the effects of plasma. Dubiously, the error bars are more significant than the effect they are trying to detect. They didn’t say, “we detected gravitation lensing with a p-value of < 0.2” It’s not a definitive answer.

Fortunately, Dr. Edward Dowdye, former NASA engineer, university professor of mathematics, and internationally recognized expert in Atomic Physics, Optics/LASERs/Satellites, thought of a way to make a definitive distinction between plasma and gravitational effects.

He examined the “collected images and the astrophysical data of the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, a region thought to contain a supermassive black hole.” It’s the most rigorous study into the question that I know and soundly definitive. The expected results from Relativity do not exist.

A Star orbits a black hole exhibiting gravitational lensing as predicted by the Light Bending Rule of General Relativity as presented in the Textbooks, Literature and Lectures
Star orbits a black hole showing no lensing effects as observed at the galactic center

Dowdye had some great graphics explaining the observations on his website extinctionshift.com which unfortunately no longer exists since his death, but can be found on the Wayback Machine. You can read his paper, “Gauss’s Law for Gravity and observational evidence reveal no solar lensing in empty vacuum space,” which tediously and thoroughly lays out the facts.

Objects around Sagittarius A*
White animations are the predicted observations of Relativity that are not observed.

I see nothing but fraud, quack logic, and gaslighting from those asserting that Relativity has observational support. They’re the same people that would attempt to fraudulently gaslight you out of $100. Those behaviors are immoral, and they’re turning our society into irrational idiots.

People no longer understand the distinction between shaming people into wrongness and intellectually explaining. I’m incredulous over the number of college graduates, scientists even, who don’t understand that logical proofs are not confirmed or invalidated by experimental evidence. Same with thinking observations can confirm mathematical principles.

People have a moral obligation to have some discernment to protect their brethren from being infected with bogus information. I feel that it’s part of my job to understand and discern how basic scientific principles apply to my work. I think of it as having integrity.

I recommend that people review all the basic logical fallacies, but maybe start with these:

  • Ad Hominem (“conspiracy theorist”)
  • Straw Man (“you’re suggesting this…”)
  • False Dichotomy (“are you going to buy my bullshit today or tomorrow”)
  • Appeal to Authority (“DOD says Swamp Gas.”, “Scientists say…”,) etc.

Then practice identifying them. The enemy is tearing away away at you, so you have to pump your own iron. You can build your muscle of discernment and become bulletproof to absurd lies.

Stay present.

Conspiracy Theorists

Months ago, while watching a Richard Dolan video, he declared, “In any debate, the first person to mention the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is the loser.” I chuckled. Many of us, like Dolan, have grown so accustomed to being labeled “conspiracy theorists” for things that turn out to be true we have learned to suspect anyone using the term is probably uninformed, irrational, or both.

In some ways, we can use how often someone dismisses things as conspiracies to gauge their socio-political awareness. However, we can also use it to measure people’s self-awareness.

Despite any “official” definitions, simple observation of how people use the term “conspiracy theory” shows that no definitive class of theories fit. Often theories about conspiracies don’t even earn the label. It’s used as a derogatory term like “quack,” “kook,” “crackpot,” etc. People classify something as a conspiracy theory if they want to project animosity toward the narrative.

But many people often put their lack of clarity on display as a status symbol when gregariously presupposing conspiracy theories are an intellectually distinguishable class of theory instead of an emotionally charged judgment. Just yesterday, I heard someone suggesting one can accurately estimate the validity of a narrative based on the severity of conspiracy theory-ness. Reading through his intellectual confusion, the assertion translates to, “I decide what’s true based on what feels true.” That’s not a rational approach.

At Universal Principle, we pride ourselves on the drills we endure to ensure we adequately distinguish observation from evaluation – or objective and measurable from subjective judgements. Both are important, but discerning them from each other is required to be a critical thinker.

You do not have an internal sensor that identifies correct ideas; you have an intuition (often wrong) about what seems right. Critical thinking isn’t intuition; it’s a boots-on-the-ground mathematical word-problem type of grind. If you think you have an intuition about what ideas are “conspiracy theories” and you believe yourself to be an intellectual, think again. You probably need to be made aware of how much the state erroneously crafted your intuition for you.

Your intuition will only guide you straight if you drill it to conform to reality. Carefully paying attention to the minor distinctions between observation and evaluation and courageously owning what you witnessed and what you assumed, felt, or insinuated for a month will make you feel like you see dimensions deeper than most around you.

Face it. We’re all conspiracy theorists, snowflake extremists, and superstitious hairless apes in someone’s judgment, but none of those judgments/labels are informative or objectively verifiable. It’s worthless information. They’re just mindless noises humans make when they’re incredulous.

Thanks for reading.

Stay sharp.

Davidson Wrong on Lights Out Scenario

This references a very obscure theory about space weather. If you don’t know who Ben Davidson is, watch the playlist.

A question arose during a Q&A with Ben Davidson a few days ago that needs significantly more discussion. Ben apparently believes that the probability of a coordinated state effort to control the masses during a global “light’s out”‘ scenario from a CME is “conspiracy theory.” I tested his assumption by interviewing someone I knew would have a strongly informed opinion.

I can’t say who this person is. I know him through his son when we worked at Lockheed Martin together in an almost miniature city hidden behind the foothills outside Denver. However, this person had top-secret clearances while living 30 minutes from Groom Lake in the late 70s, worked on the minuteman missile, became the director of the MX missile and a manager over Lockheed Martin Astronautics. He loves his American flag, his grandchildren and shirt, exclaiming, “Why yes, I am a rocket scientist!”

Q: Would the state have some plan for a CME strike that takes out global power and communications?

[Paraphrasing, didn’t record]
A: Absolutely! They harden their processes. They will have developed a strategy dependent on their capabilities at various levels. They’d resort to carrier pigeons if needed. They will have found multiple ways to coordinate that people cannot anticipate.

Sure, it’s anecdotal, but…

I believe it. FEMA released a report in 2019 assessing vulnerabilities and outlining strategic responses for precisely such an event. Considering that FEMA is connected to the DIA via the ODNI, it’s implausible that covert plans don’t also exist for the DOD.

Some awareness of the actual scope of the state’s plans is essential. How do we prepare if we’re not accurately informed about the strategies and goals that states will employ? What will the social environment really be like?

Ben doesn’t know. And he believes the need for prep in that area is far fetched “conspiracy theory.”

I recognize that I have a huge knowledge gap here, so I want to resolve it. If you have actual intel on this matter and wish to compare more detailed notes, please PM me on Twitter @SithDubh.

Thanks for reading.

Stay sharp.

Time 102 – See the Light

A widespread deception began immediately after the valid equations for light were first published. While Maxwell’s equations didn’t assume to describe the nature of light, people assumed light must be electromagnetic because Maxwell’s equations appeared to describe light. Light is electromagnetism, so they were correct. However, a confusing narrative was immediately pushed on the people that defied Maxwell’s descriptions.

They started using language about a “photon” moving from point A to point B. Then point out that if points A and B are moving quickly compared to some observer C, that photon reaches point B in the same amount of time as it travels between the stationary A/B pair. “How is this possible,” they ask. “The photon traveled different distances at the same time, at the same ‘speed,'” they exclaim. To explain this, they told people that “time bends” relative to its velocity (compared to any relative C).

However, nothing about Maxwell’s equations described “a particle traveling a distance, at a velocity.” The math explicitly states that the reaction is relative to their distance. That represents a process occurring between two points that takes t = cd ( time = some factor times the distance ) to complete. Light is a process; it’s not traveling a distance. The process begins relatively instantly and has a duration dependent on it’s distance.

Their mind-boggling puzzle begins with the imagined ball traveling between A and B. It’s just a lie. Maxwell’s equations don’t suggest it, and no observations suggest it. Trying to have a photon framework makes time and light-speed effects very confusing. Understanding t = cd means time never bends. Light changes its induction rate when traveling through different mediums, so “the medium” is one factor of c. Light is a process that takes duration based on the distance and the medium between the two objects. This level of simplicity reminds me of Occom’s razor. Meanwhile, “modern physics” is full of time paradoxes.

You will never find anything paradoxical or contrary evidence to the idea that EM effects occur instantly, but the effect is a process that takes a certain amount of time (based on the distance and the medium between them.) EM is virtually instant, and so is gravity, which is the actual universal speed limit.

Time doesn’t bend. “Time” is a type of analysis. The universe is in motion. We’re just trying to describe it. Enjoy the process!

Time 101

“There is so much politics in science now… it has created an Idiocracy of doublethink… where people now accept ideas that are mutually exclusive to reality.” – Dr. Edward Dowdye

Time is an intellectually generated quantitative value derived by comparing one object’s motion to another’s. We relate things to rotations of the Earth, orbits of the Moon, sands in an hourglass, and cycles of cesium-133 atoms.

Contrary to modern myths, time is not something you move through, something that is moving, or a substance that can bend or dilate. Time is a pure mathematical abstraction, just like a square. You can prove the area of a square, but you cannot find a square in nature. You can find something in the shape of a square, but squares do not exist; they are mathematical concepts. The same is true of time.

The scientific method involves observations and evaluations. I always remind people that it is critical in any inquest to be diligent in separating observation from evaluation and not confuse the two. Nobody observes “time.” The observation is of motion, and time is the intellectually derived evaluation. 

As intellectual creatures, we often use mathematical abstractions to communicate and think about those motions. We set up to confuse our abstractions with reality. Even I use language like “move through time” when describing analytical results with clients. I don’t mean it literally, but it literally means something moving “through time.”

Before Western Science dismissed it without evidence, people had known for thousands of years that there is only a “now.” Motion means “being here” now and then “being over there” in the exact same now.

An object at point 1 and time 3 and then point 7 at time 6 is the definition of a line. A line is not something in motion, but it’s an excellent way to chart motion. However, people can easily confuse the two concepts if they are not disciplined about separating observation from evaluation.

An excellent example is the highly dubious logic, “Atomic clocks in GPS satellites get out of sync; therefore, that proves time is bending.” A sand timer in a spinning centrifuge will empty faster than one not. Does that mean centrifuges warp time? So why would anyone think anything that messed up atomic clocks (temperature, electromagnetic radiation, gravity) is a warp in time?

As former NASA Engineer and University Professor of Mathematics Dr. Edward Dowdye has pointed out (but neglected by the mainstream), there is sufficient evidence suggesting a reasonable (non-irrational-time-bendy) physical cause:

Every claim that “we proved time bent” can be reinterpreted similarly. Forces act on clocks, and if you interpret that as “Oh, that was just time bending,” you are fraudulently refusing to account for errors in your clock. And unfortunately, that scam is rampant today.

The rational view of time is that the universe is in motion (within a “static now”) due to the presence of forces. Humanity understood this, but about the turn of the 20th century, scientific institutions started to conflate evaluations with observations regarding both time and motion. However, people who have made it a discipline to thoughtfully differentiate what they can see and touch from what they imagine, find the truth blatantly obvious.

Because “time dilations” are a meaningless irrational concept, there are significant ramifications to our understanding of light. In “Time 102 – See the Light,” I’ll dissect what is calculated vs. actually measured regarding the “speed” of light. Coming soon…

Vent Post #UFOtwitter

Cartoon expressing the types of arguments I’ve been hearing from skeptics of the Admiral Wilson / Eric Davis Notes. I created an alternated ending which might be better:

I’ve been disappointed in the intellectual prowess of #ufotwitter. It’s no wonder they’ve been the victims of career con artists and flash-in-the-pans. However, my disdain is not homogeneous. Some of the most thoughtful people I know in our society are very interested in UFOs, and not all of them avoid Twitter.

Thus there is a dichotomy between people who curiously identify the significance of investigating the Wilson/Davis notes and those who know it’s a hoax and a waste of time but can’t express it without insulting you.

When taking a rational scientific approach, we always manage uncertainty. When you come up with a hypothesis, the first thing you do is try to reject it. Fail it fast, or try. Then you report your inability to reject that hypothesis in terms of probability. Essentially, you clarify what you don’t know; known unknowns and probable ones.

That’s why we do experimentation or “take measurements.” We’re trying to resolve the uncertainties we’ve identified. However, those demanding that the Wilson/Davis notes are a waste of time to investigate/measure seem to know it’s a hoax. They’re clueless about their uncertainties, faint certitude (read “confidence game,”) faulty logic, etc. If you asked me, they’re so intellectual scrambled; I’m suspicious they’re terrified of the reality the evidence is painting.

Why Team Elizondo is Bad for Ufology

Lue Elizondo is a former counterintelligence agent for the DOD. He was instrumental in getting some impressive videos of UFOs released to the public as he resigned his position in protest of how the UFO/UAP issue had been handled within the Defense Department. Many within the UFO community regarded him as somewhat heroic. He has a strong following as he does interviews and speaks about his criticisms of the DOD and his thoughts on how we can move toward disclosure.

While I had already seen the videos in question, I was grateful that he helped raise awareness about them and even got the Pentagon to verify their authenticity. However, it didn’t strike me as particularly heroic because there are at least a hundred people to whom I am grateful for speaking up and bringing forth evidence. He didn’t seem particularly special, except he was the only one to get a New York Times article written about him. He’s the only one to gain tremendous notoriety. And the only one to obtain an instant fan base that stinks of astroturf. I affectionately refer to his astroturfers as “Team Elizondo.”

According to Wikipedia: Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. Having been in legitimate grassroots movements that have been infiltrated and overtaken by an outside agendas, I have been spotting and dealing with astroturf before I knew it even had a name. Luckily there are some tell-tale signs.

Every movement will have some buzz words or phrases. However, when you see supposedly unassociated individuals suddenly adopting the same repetitive use of certain words and phrases, you can be sure there’s some centralized coordination. Team Elizondo likes to repeat “transparency,” “congressional hearings,” “disclosure,” and, of course, “Elizondo.” It makes me feel like he’s a candidate for president or something.

Hate Hyping is my name for a technique where you talk disparagingly about the magnificent number of haters you have. This approach signals the ‘significant importance’ of the figure you’re publicizing while stifling dissent because nobody wants to look like a hater. While the approach doesn’t belong to astroturf exclusively, the same ability to spot groups and individuals adopting this technique for the same issue applies when identifying astroturf.

In Team Elizondo’s case, the Hate Hyping has been heartbreakingly vivid. They’ve created an environment where just disagreeing with them implies you’re a felon, motivated by hate, and live in your mother’s basement. It’s apparently part of the Elizondo script that his interviews begin (and sometimes last 30 minutes) with him insulting some vague, undefinable army of haters that I cannot find.

Typically if someone is complaining about a real irritant, they will identify it specifically. However, the language pattern Lue uses seems engineered to be exceptionally ambiguous. As someone who is not only skeptical but highly confident in my assessment that Lue is part of a greater unseen agenda, the ambiguity of Team Elizond’s derogatory comments can feel like direct personal attacks. “Is he talking about me?” But, I’m just a skeptic, not a hater, and I can’t find any actual haters. However, I can find an army of social media influences using the same language pattern, that insults skeptics, regarding the mythical bunch of haters.

Because the Hate Hype technique involves being derogatory toward the “haters,” it signals to the audience that hating on haters is okay. A general “I’m not agreeing” attitude gets you labeled a hater and attacked by hundreds of tools angrily anticipating the chance to tell off one of those mythical haters. So if they perceive someone as a Lue Hater, they unleash on them hard. People still get interview questions like “Do you still beat your wife” for things Lue said months ago… yet it’s still unclear whether Lue was referring to that individual, but he’s a skeptic, so it doesn’t matter.

I’ve been called a troll, a tool, dumb, foolish, a douche, etc. (you name it) because people can convince hundreds of people to call you names. Typically, they don’t have this ability because they have a respectable intellect, but because powerful interests market and support them. They’re willing to lie and embellish, and they’ll try to present like they’re the toxicity police when they’re the ones generating most of it.

As unhealthy as all that is, it gets worse. The most immoral coordinated pattern I see within Team Elizondo is the repeated suggestion that the “argument from authority fallacy” is a valid line of thought. I know people get confused about the nature of that fallacy because we regard expert testimony as valuable evidence. However, a common blind spot is forgetting that people who know more than you can easily scam you. The fallacy is in thinking it’s like logic: “because expert, we now know [whatever].” It’s only evidence that needs to be weighed against other evidence. Experts aren’t proof of anything. It’s also fallacious to think you can create an expert by assigning them “authority.”

However, after Lew stops hating his skeptics, he pretends we can assign authority to figures within the state or even that the state has some inherent authority on the UFO topic. They don’t. Comically, the truth is the “authorities” within the state tried to sell us on weather balloons and swamp gas when they knew better, but “non-authority” regular people decided to become experts and prove the government was lying.

It’s precisely because people without “authority” highlighted the relevant evidence that people realized the government was scamming them, and the state lost credibility. But then comes Lue, several New York Times articles, and an astroturf movement suggesting that all we need to do to get disclosure is “trust the process” of the authorities. If you disagree, you’re a hater who it’s okay to hate on.

If you want to know about UFOs, you will have to research them. The alternative, trusting authority, likely makes you one of those who believe the government’s narrative on JFK and 911, ripe to accept the next weather balloon story, and an immature brat.

Ufology is at a critical juncture. We can figure this out, our we can get hopelessly lost in narratives driven by politically motivated intelligence agencies. We need ambitious people seeking the truth, not a zombie crowd shouting “disclosure.” We don’t need new government agencies that don’t know up from down presented as “authority.” We need an environment where it’s okay to speak truth without being attacked by morons who think authority is real. And that’s why Team Elizondo sucks dick.

Honor Killings in 2008

I made this video in 2008 while working on the Ron Paul campaign. It needs some context: In Texas, a Muslim man killed his daughter because she shamed the family. FOX News wouldn’t stop talking about it because it involved a Muslim and had this lady spew emotional disgust and repeat the term “Honor Killing” as often as possible.

Wikipedia defines Honor Killing as: the murder of an individual, either an outsider or a member of a family, by someone seeking to protect what they see as the dignity and honor of themselves or their family.

I found a part of a Republican debate, where Ron Paul went toe to toe with neocon Mike Huckabee, particularly poignant. Back then, that’s what we called these militant fascists who talked about a New World Order, “neocons,” or “neo-conservatives.” A few people at the time knew the Republicans were littered with them, but the most astute understood that the Clintons and anyone associated (and later Obama) were neocons also.

I created this video to snap a few FOX News “conservatives” out of their stooper. I think only Ron Paul fans appreciated it.

All Woke Scammers

Back in pre-woke times (9/11), engineers would direct the construction of reports, but they would interview the principles for their needs and intentions. Suppose you have people who struggle with laws of logic directing the project. In that case, the team will get caught where they must produce details about data they’re fundamentally confused about. If there are unclear concepts, coders will struggle for additional hours every time they have to touch the ambiguousness. Meanwhile, solving it could be a snap if those directing the project believed that fundamental concepts are required before extracting details about it; if they believed in principles before outcomes.

As an engineer who worked in the pre-woke times, I occasionally had to interview an especially woke person to create a report. It was always a struggle because they wouldn’t communicate their needs clearly and typically just fought you for control over the project. I would be thinking, “Why is this person telling me how to design a report? Why are they evading my questions?”

Now that’s the norm. I spend most of my time backtracking and recoding crap simply because someone didn’t think they needed to understand a concept before they commanded (usually with a derogatory tone), or they don’t think the coders need to understand something to make the software work (usually with a derogatory tone). It all results in wasted time and poor quality.

I’ve directly addressed the time waisting element of modern processes and gotten responses like, “But it’s more time you can enjoy laboring for $$$” I’m sorry, but I have the human need to not feel like I’m wasting my time.

I’m sorry, I can’t pin down the cause of this wokeness. It may sound odd, but I do believe it traces back to the early 1900s when Relativity and Quantum Physics were introduced. Fundamentally, general relativity utterly dismisses basic laws of information. Specifically, it assumes mathematical abstractions like time have physical properties. Since then, misinterpreting basic concepts and pontificating about nonsense realities like big bangs, black holes, or dark matter has become trendy. They don’t understand the principle but profess to produce great woke wisdom. A behavior that is now rampant.

Schrödinger’s cat example was intended to get people to see the irrationality of the quantum state, but the world said, “yes, reality isn’t logical.” True, but logic is required to think about reality and make rational sense. Just because the math is a probability doesn’t mean the reality is in a 60/40 state. It’s another example of confusing a mathematical abstraction with physical reality. It’s another way people started dismissing principles and started professing woke blether.

There are plenty more examples, but today, anyone who wants to look cool acts like they magically know without understanding. I recently saw a video titled “inability to find dark matter proves dark matter.” It had enough views and comments for me to discern that people were attracted by the irrationality of the reality they were advertising. It’s like a consciousness virus has taken hold.

I’m sorry that I don’t understand the fundamental elements of this problem well enough to suggest a solution. I think awareness of the problem may be key. The woke craze is over a hundred years in the making, this won’t be fixed overnight.