But it’s far worse than that, Walter L. Wagner is a complete and total fraud, and dangerously mentally ill. He is not now, nor ever has been, a “Doctor” of any kind. He is not a lawyer, and the details of his ‘law’ education are disturbing to an astounding degree. His not a doctor of physics of any kind – and the most he can point to is some undergrad coursework in general physics and some time as a minor lab tech. He’s been convicted of disturbing crimes, and is currently under indictment for embezzlement in Hawaii. Every single thing this man has claimed is a complete and total fabrication and a construct of his disturbed mind.

Confirmed and validated details can be found at the following links:

Stonekettle Station

Refugees from the City – The original post which turned the baleful eye of the UCF blogger community on Wagner in the first place and where Wagner’s and Tankersley’s (jtankers) credentials are soundly debunked in the comments thread.

Refugees from the City Where wagner’s so called science is debunked and James Bloggett gets handed his ass and change.

The blog of Siram a summary of the events.

and finally a detailed examination of Wagner’s law career can be found here along with the most damning evidence regarding Wagner yet.

Note all of these blogs are linked together are part of the UCF online community. Both Wagner and jtankers have construed this to mean that we are involved in some sort of conspiracy to cloud their ‘message.’ Make of it what you will.

Jim Wright, Stonekettle Station

<a href=”

“There are several areas of science and technology that may pose risks. We need a protocol for consideration of such things.”

You’re right about that. The problem is that you undermine the argument for such protocols when you take a case where such protocols have been carefully followed [twice!], such as the studies of LHC safety, and choose to ignore the thorough careful studies that have gone into them, in favour of the “star-trek” fashionable [but completely nonsensical] alarmism that a handful of people [and at least one serial litigator] have been perpetrating on the internet.

There may be crackpots associated with collider concerns, but those concerns are not all crackpot. It was questionable for collider advocates to predict black hole production, and posit for a safety factor a Hawking radiation questioned in the literature. The collider/cosmic ray analogy was also questionable, Mangano was willing to question it. If we are looking for a high level of safety, as is appropriate when earth is at stake, the safety factors provided before Gidding and Mangano were not the high level of safety that we deserve.

The issue goes beyond colliders. There are several areas of science and technology that may pose risks. We need a protocol for consideration of such things. Crackpotism is not helpful, but neither is hubris on the part of scientists who state that “nothing can possibly go wrong” without careful consideration.

One of the best recent articles I read was from Queen Marry’s Math Professor Shahn Majid, author of “On Space and Time” with contributions by Roger Penrose. Prof. Shahn Majid writes “”I’m only not worried because I do not think that step 1 [micro black hole creation] will occur in the first place. But this is just my personal skepticism.”[11]

Another question is how disinformation and censorship can short circuit legitimate safety debate.[12]

Disinformation includes stating that Large Hadron Collider safety is assured and global danger is not possible (as most people would understand not possible) when in fact safety is disputed by multiple credible sources[1][2] and safety is unknown[3][4].

Disinformation includes stating that micro black holes evaporate without noting that Hawking Radiation is unproven theory disputed by multiple credible papers as fundamentally flawed and may not or does not exist.[5][6][2]

Disinformation and censorship includes directing CERN scientists to affirm no risk in all interviews regardless of personal opinion[7], and attacking the credibility of independent scientists who publicly express concern.

Are scientists more concerned with public opinion and funding scientific experimentation than safety? At the Global Catastrophic Risk conference when Toby Ord estimated a 1 in 1,000 chance that CERN’s safety assumptions may be fundamentally wrong, an author of CERN’s safety report replied “Jeopardizing the future of scientific research would be a global catastrophe.”[8]

The fact is some credible scientists have credible concerns about a potentially credible danger. Senior Astrophysicist Dr. Plaga refutes safety conclusions of particle physicists who conjecture safety based on disputed properties of dense stars (astrophysics) and proposes feasible risk mitigation measures[1]. Dr. Rössler is a an award winning former visiting Professor of Physics famous for inventing Chaos theory’s Rössler attractor and founding the field of Endophysics[2], he calculates that micro black holes could be catastrophic to Earth in years or decades. Former University of Berkeley cosmic ray researcher and Nuclear Safety Officer Walter L. Wagner originally discovered fundamental flaws with CERN’s safety arguments and filed a US Federal law suit to require reasonable proof of safety[3]. Other physicists, theoretical scientists and risk experts have also expressed concerns both publicly and privately[4].

Of the independent scientists who created detailed safety reviews and rebuttals not employed by CERN or asked to comment as a favor to CERN[9], a common theme is concluded, safety is unknown. Some scientists are very concerned, and that is not misinformation or propaganda.[10]

[1] arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders – Rainer Plaga Rebuttal (2008)

[2] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rossler (2008)

[3] http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php US Federal Lawsuit Filings – Walter L. Wagner (2008)

[4] http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_expertssay.php What the Experts Say (2008)

[5] xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Do black holes radiate?. Dr. Adam Helfer (2003)

[6] arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137, On the existence of black hole evaporationyet again, Prof. VA Belinski (2006)

[7] http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Affidavit%20of%20Luis%20Sancho.pdf AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN UPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[8] http://www.reason.com/news/show/128492.html A 1-in-1,000 Chance of Götterdämmerung, Will European physicists destroy the world? Ronald Bailey | September 2, 2008

[9] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=72 CERN?s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story – LHCFacts.org (2008)

[10] http://www.lhcfacts.com An agument for caution, risk mitigation and an open independent and credible safety conference before high energy collisions begin.

[11] http://www.cambridgeblog.org/tag/shahn-majid/ Particle Accelerators, CERN, and Doomsday. Prof Shahn Majid (2008)

[12] twomosquitoes.blogspot.com/2008/09/cern-wins-battle-at-wikipedia-lhc.html CERN wins battle at Wikipedia, LHC history scrubbed, TWO MOSQUITOES

Well if you can’t read the papers you can certainly look into the credibility and credentials of the people writing these allegations. That IS something even “most of the world” can do.

As an example of one blogger out there who has looked into the credibility of Rossler and Plaga see:

http://onscreen-scientist.com/?p=34

Having read that don’t you think that “most of the world” could easily have come to the same conclusion as Mark as to whether these individuals are crackpots?