Mafia?
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31n.pdf
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 if 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.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59596.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/3600.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.uk/ipub002a.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.uk/Y65BRILL.htm
Ivor Catt 5 February 2017