Tuesday, September 27, 2016

This has been a very dull blog, but I've got something worth reporting right now. A few months ago I discovered with certainty that I've been suffering from a serious bacterial infection for 47 years, maybe more. I've found effective ways to treat it since about 1983, but don't dare slip or it will get worse. Before 1984 it was bad, so much so that it's useless trying to explain what torment it put me through. The worst of it was not being able to go to an MD for answers. They were clearly not permitted to address these symptoms, so there was a BIG lie on some level.So, there are many of us but who, why, where...  But my wife fared much worse. She also had a mystery disease caught in the late 50s or early 60s that led to a complete mental and physical breakdown in 1996. We also had three children who had very serious symptoms at birth and all of them have been destroyed. They either weren't as strong as me or didn't take good advice. 

YES, turns out we all have the same thing. Not from testing, not primarily from matching symptoms, but primarily from studying how the MDs have consistently lied for decades and in some cases committed illegal acts by mishandling records, the only thing that it can be narrowed down to is chronic Lyme disease. In the last few months I've written a book because I want everyone on the planet to know what the bstrds have done to us. My major and most chronic symptom has been severe sinusitis. You'd think it would be easy to get imaging and a biopsy for that. Not. The first time I went in begging for diagnostics, they locked me up for a week, insisting that I was bipolar and refusing any diagnostics. Even at Mayo, they refused to do a biopsy, fumbled the MRI and ignored the CAT scan, again trying to pry me into using psychoactives. After observing what the wife and three children went through, it's clear to me that most of these mental disorders are fabricated and most people who are diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or personality disorder are suffering from something else. Indeed, since MDs are clearly strongly discouraged from doing real diagnostics on people with symptoms of Lyme, there is no doubt that the motive is the fat commissions received from psychoactives. 

There's lots more I want to to say, but that's why I wrote the book. To hear more about the book and about fraud in the CDC and medical industry, please visit http://foosresearch.com

THANK YOU

Monday, January 4, 2016

IS THE MEDIA A WASTE OF TIME? - ARE PRESIDENTIAL POLLS FAKE? - LET'S FIND OUT

FOOS RESEARCH: Scientific research and design, polls, professional analysis

PLEASE take our survey. The Muslim Obamanation has near zero approval as most article comments go. Gallup Polls show a 43-47% approval rating. Would Putin win the US presidency? Are the MSM and Gallup Poll big fat LIES? Let's find out for sure. For more information go to this website or directly to this form. Results will be intermittently available through the website or direct by email for those who participate. You will get professional results and gret graphic analysis without political conflicts of interest. THANK YOU! 

EARLY RESULTS FOR 1st SURVEY (click here)

If Putin Ran Against Obama For President
Should Muslims Be Allowed into the United States
We have a dire need for quality, scientific research without dependencies on funding by corporate interests that profit from those results, but also organizations with corporate ties, being essentially anything government. That ends up being almost any research results that you might find from a Google search.  So, who can you trust? I'm tempted to say nobody, but right now I am nobody. I have no funds at all, and no reputation. But what I do have is lots of time and a good education.  This is not a business, it's about helping people like you steer your own path to find good information and make our voice heard. 

I also have a lot of pet peeves reinforced for many years as the quality of the MSM (mainstream media) news has deteriorated and become polluted with bias.  You can't even make a comment on many articles such as Yahoo if it contains a link to better information.  Being the son of a once autistic child due to the MMR, I've always despaired over the heavy propaganda used to discredit parents who certainly know their children best. Professionally, I'm capable of conducting the best scientific research myself, but lack the resources to fight the vaccination lobby. Anyway, that's been done often enough, but it isn't easy to dig up. 

What finally brought me out of my cave was the dramatic and unspeakable deterioration of the USA these last 12 years. Normally, I shun politics, but it suddenly hits me that "now it the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."  I can't sit back any longer watching the media define reality for the rest of us. Consider recently that Gallup Polls shows an Obama approval rating of not much under 50%, but a quick examination of Yahoo comments seldom reveal more than 4% approval, even while these articles are strong biased in Obama's favor (as much as they are against Trump). And while the often accuse Trump of lying, it's easy to determine that just the opposite is true. Has Obama ever told the truth about anything. 

Anyway, I'm reluctant to put readers off by showing my own bias, but as we enter 2016 I want to strike fast and determine just what the common man really thinks of Obama (and by association more or less the rest of the democratic lineup).  Yahoo readers must be as close to an even cut as you can get, but if I submit a link or even keywords to an independent survey that challenges Yahoo's worldview, well, poof, it's gone.  So, this will be first survey as I struggle against impossible odds to offer a truly independent service. It's an exciting idea, but probably doomed unless I can overcome and get as many of YOU as I can to take surveys and give me more back links and posts.  A survey isn't much of your time, but extra effort is not for me, but for YOU, for ALL of us who want not only to KNOW, but to be heard, so help out, YOU, as many as can see like me that a clear and strong voice from the great unwashed is the only hope we have of being heard... 

If this presidential survey goes well, vaccine safety will be next on the burner. After that, it depends you you. How about saw palmetto? Like many other supplements, do they really work or do we just listen to comment reviews on company websites that sell them? Nobody seems to know for sure, but given the state of the art in statistics and experimental design, why shouldn't we? Many other questions remained unanswered. We have little of value from the media or corporations or government. Foos Research is a simple concept, to conduct entirely unbiased professional research and provide results to the common man.  Survey's require little work, but sifting through a thousand or more and providing high quality reports and graphics is what I was born and raised to do. 

Please promote and support these endeavors. Repost and link where you can.


Alan Foos Biography 

Alan Foos earned his MS in Soils from Montana State University. His thesis utilized a large 200 cell randomized block design with 25 treatment effects for a single ANOVA, several paired comparisons, and thousands of regressions used to measure dozens of effects and provide future predictions. Extensive use was made of statistical design, providing a deep understanding of statistical procedures. A by product of that understanding led to the development of the "randomized block" theorem. The theorem describes in depth the connection between treatment significance and consistency of treatment effects across replications. 

More important, this in turn yields a useful parameter that quantifies the goodness of fit in any experimental design with any number of replicated sets of data, that may be called the Foos Coefficient of Covariance. For example, in the equation above, the FCC (Foos Coefficient of Covariance) is equal to the Replication Mean Square minus the Error Mean Square divided by the sum of variances for all sets of elements held in common across replications. The theorem shows how this works for both treatments and replications in a randomized block. For example, the FCC for treatments would be the Block Mean Square less the Error Mean Square divided by the sum of variances for each treatment variance across all replications. 

In simple terms, an FCC of zero means that there no consistency across replicated elements (blocks or treatments), while an FCC of one means 100% consistency for changes, be they for treatments across blocks (treatment FCC) or treatments within blocks (block FCC) in a randomized block experiment. Similarly, using the FCC formula, an FCC can be calculated for any sets of data across any number of replications; whereas otherwise it would be nearly impossible. If you like difficult math problems, especially if you're a good PhD statistician, enjoy the proof and derivation of the Foos Coefficient of Covariance, full proof provided on 2nd web page, 
http://foosresearch.weebly.com/coefficient-of-covariance-theorem.html


Foos Coefficient of Covariance for Statistical Designs
Foos Coefficient of Covariance

CONVINCING EXAMPLE

This is an example of work I did on a quality graphic analysis that rescued a defendant was facing five years in prison and $50,000-$80,000 USD in penalties.  Bank records obtained by means of court subpoena should have been sufficient to prevent this from the outset and prosecute the scammer, but the attorneys and court dropped the ball. Four years later, after many court hearings and horrible stress, the subpoena was finally obtained.  The data, summarized in the graph,  was sufficient (in any court) to prove that the defendant was telling the truth about being the real victim. The raw numbers are not easy to interpret, but the graph gives convincing proof at a glance. 


Withdrawals by Defendant Matching Deposits by Scammer

MISSION OF FOOS RESEARCH 

This is about YOU, about US, not about Alan Foos. We are saturated in information, yet for many purposes find ourselves in the midst of an information blackout. The polls are a good example because they clearly do not represent OUR opinion, that of the average person. Obama would have never been elected if they did, and many of us know that. So, to start out 2016 as an election year, such a survey makes a good starting point.  If people respond, we can go on to many other questions that neither the mainstream media or the corporate monopoly on research can or will give us answers to. The media and government has crucified Andrew Wakefield for linking the MMR to autism while also discrediting and disparaging the thousands of us parents who watched the MMR destroy our children. Better than medical research could be a better picture of damages as seen by them.  For good answers to any such questions, we need a "nobody" like me who has a strong academic background in real research.  MONEY? I don't need money and have plenty of time. Money might be helpful for advertising the service and web presence and for serious scientific investigations if we ever get that far.

But we NEED each other. I honestly don't see how I can establish enough presence through SEO to get enough people to drive a truly independent research service. If you are reading this and can help get the word out, please do that. 


STRANGE EXPERIENCE WITH TELESURVEY 
The mystery of Research Data Design

But, you say, my academic training in research is over 30 years old, what good is it to research today? Actually, research techniques haven't improved, only the ability to slice and dice large amounts of data and quickly develop charts to visualize it. If Foos Research was privileged enough to gather gigabytes of input, Alan Foos is ready to use SPSS or Systat or Statgraphics for best effects.  As for experience in the art of surveys, I have more to say about that, not being sure it's a good idea to give it voice. Making a good survey isn't high tech stuff, but here is my story.

Unfortunately, I've not been privileged to work much on real scientific studies these past 36 years   I made the mistake of trying to stay in Montana which is profoundly backwards culturally, drenched in alcohol, drugs, vulgarity and both racial and religious bigotry. My best experiences came from working for Fort Peck Community College on the reservation. I very much regret leaving, but my children were unable to attend school there and we were suffering from the gamut of malicious threats from crooks tied to the state administration. Most would have dismissed it as a real concern, but the threats made were very credible and meant to instill fear, ranging from criminal legal activities to outright murder against everyone in the family. Moving to Missoula, my birthplace, was a bad decision. I had to abandon my job, but my son was able to finish high school there.  But then what?

Missoula has been called the "San Francisco" of Montana, but it would be more accurate to say that it is a dump saturated with drug users, pedophiles, alcoholics and the worst possible quality of administration on all levels.  It was impossible to find decent work while my son finished high school at Big Sky.  One day I took the old Dodge Ram to a fishing hole near Frenchtown.  As I was returning to the pickup after an hour's walk, a strange, short man about 5'6" was standing about 12 feet away waiting to approach me.  He was only about 30, about 140 pounds, had a ruddy complexion with about an inch of reddish beard.  His own pickup truck was parked about 40 feet away. It wasn't old and cheap like mine, but sparkly new and very expensive looking like the one I'd read of by people claiming the FBI was using to peddle cocaine in the vicinity of Havre, Montana.  

Well, for no apparent reason, Mr. Redbeard began blurting out his confession of being a daily crack user for several years. He said that he had worked as a supervisor for a company in Missoula with dozens of employees, all of whom smoked crack with several other supervisors.  Nobody just approaches a stranger at a fishing hole with a load like that out of the blue, as if I had a history of drug use, which I didn't, so I was immediately on guard.  He said that every so often he'd have to run off to Seattle and take a couple of weeks to "dry out."  It was hard to believe such a business existed in Missoula, but I didn't want to inquire directly. it did sound like a front for drug distribution, so I asked, what about the manangers or CEOs, did they know about this? Yes, he said, but they didn't mind. I inched my way back to the truck and left, thinking wow, somebody is pulling my strings in a really bad way. I wouldn't be surprised if someone invited me to work there next. Who knew I was at this fishing hole? Only the three people in my Bible study group and a fourth, a new arrival who did not act like a Christian at all. He was only there it seemed to put the hustle on our musician. No good reasons for coming to town or being in the church. I didn't trust him at all. He also knew of our plans to travel to Boise.   

Six weeks later, the 2nd week in June, the four of us took Alan's Explorer to Boise to attend a festival for Christ.  Lover Boy didn't come, only Alan and the two ladies. We were travelling at 70 mph+ right next to the Snake on our left which was raging reddish brown with spring runoff, when a newish, dual wheeled utility truck sped by at no less than 100 mph. It struck us on the left side, breaking the windows, such that it shouldn't have been impossible to avoid plunging into the river, but somehow Alan kept good enough control to swerve left, but left the road on the left, missing many large rocks and bushes before we were able to stop, possibly about here: http://bit.ly/1PAcaL5.  The utility truck kept going, disappearing over a hill about a half mile down. Then, after about 20 minutes, he came back with a patrolman. Since the speed limit there was 55, the others decided we should agree to fib to the patrolman in our statements that Alan was going only 55, but he was for sure doing 70 or over. I thought this wasn't a good idea, especially because to me it looked very strange and likely not an accident, but who could know for sure. No doubt the other driver also lied about his speed.  Oddly, he and the patrolman were close acquaintances, using first names and chatting casually. 

The Snake RIver incident may have been only an accident, but I wouldn't have been a bit surprised if Lover Boy were to invite me to work at a some kind of Missoula business that was in reality a cocaine racket and distribution point. Well, you got it. He worked at a telesurvey outfit on Palmer Drive in the midst of all the government buildings. Several dozen telephone operators were hired at any given time to do tele surveys.  Most of these were college or high school age youngsters. Since about 1994, this place employed a heavy turnover of unskilled telephone solicitors to do surveys. About half of these were surveys for WAMU (Washington Mutual Bank) based in Miami with which it had clearly strong ties.  Currently a CEO is listed as the founder and current CEO, but in 2004 a different CEO was listed as a Columbia national living in Miami. He was credited with 18 years experience with Gallup Polls in Columbia and Brazil.  I don't remember his name now. WAMU, well known for its cocaine culture and  laundering of drug money from Fortune 500 startups in Miami, in 2008 became the largest bank failure in US history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutual.  

This being ten years ago, I cannot say what things are like now. It was not the appropriate job for me, but then $150/week was better than nothing at the time, and I had something to do. My curiosity was also soon satisfied when the managers began casually dropping hints about their love of crack, though I was lured with crank and pot as well. Given the circumstances leading to this, I was sure that I was not a prospect for drug sales or kindred company, but was the target of a reverse sting. Having just tangled with Missoula Public Schools administration over their hiring of pedophiles and porn activities, it probably had something to do with that. I was careful to lock the RAM and check underneath for bugs and drugs, but stayed on to study this further. It soon became obvious that those who did not respond to the drug overtures would become targets for harassment and false accusations. Cocaine users were being retained and others being driven off and new ones brought in with a new hiring promotion every few months.  That much I could say with certainty. At the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that there is sufficient data to easily conclude that RDD is also a cocaine racket run in cooperation with the federal government. That the government began peddling large amounts of cocaine under Reagan is no secret, but nobody seems to know where the dope goes after being smuggled in. 

It was only a matter of time before ignoring the drug overtures would get these punk managers on my back, but meanwhile, I did hundreds of tele surveys in 2004. I was able to chat with people from all walks of life and found it quite enjoyable. Aside from WAMU, most of the surveys were either funded by big pharma or the federal government. Of particular interest were surveys by Merck and Pfizer to test people's knowledge of the Cox-2 inhibitors, Bextra, Celebrex and Vioxx. That Vioxx was causing severe organ damage and many deaths was by then well established and Merck was withdrawing it from shelves as the survey was being done. Merck settled three years later for $4.85 billion, though most analysts predicted up to $25 billion. Merck denied any wrongdoing, but certainly knew Vioxx was dangerous several years earlier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html?_r=0). More revealing and from the surveys it was clear that Celebrex and Bextra, also Cox-2 inhibitors marketed by Pfizer, were most likely to be causing the same damage, but Pfizer continued to sell them aggressively, anyway. Ironically, after working several hours one day on those surveys, I walked into the house to see a Celebrex commercial on TV.  One of the last surveys I did at RDD required those of us conducting it to sign a special agreement not to divulge the nature of the survey to anyone or incur severe civil and possibly criminal penalties. I can't remember the exact wording of the agreement, but I remember that the survey was jury selection for the Enron prosecutions of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling from a pool of respondents in Texas. I suppose that making this statement could bring about trouble, but I think jury selection is supposed to be open to the public and the secrecy of this case was symptomatic of the appearance of official wrong doing by both RDD and many of the contractors for other surveys. 

It was very odd, even bizarre, to later see a sign pop in front of the RDD business in Missoula with the words, "Connally and Skilling Oil."  There was no sign for the tele survey business or anything else to connect the Skilling sign with. Perhaps it was no less strange than the adjacent two story building to the left with a big sign in front, "Justice Department." You would think there would be business going on there, but when I stepped in to check, there was a large foyer which was barren except for a bulletin board posting various services that had nothing to do with anything being done. The main interior to this large building was behind doors with huge locks, I think combination style.  Peeping into the windows, it was dark inside with no lights or activity of any kind.  You could make out large piles of dusty papers and books on a desk, that was all. So, I pounded on the doors until to my surprise, someone finally came. I told him I had a problem and needed someone to talk to, so he showed me to his office. This had a huge picture window facing directly at the adjacent entry to the telesurvey operation. I spun a rambling, somewhat true but irrelevant story about my wife and kids being a target of official corruption.  I said, what can we do? He said to wait, then disappeared for about ten minutes. He eventually returned with another fellow, no doubt the only other inhabitant, and I talked to both of them for a while about mostly nothing. If you ask me, the place was no less strange than the tele survey racket next door.    
Foos Research Logo

Sunday, January 3, 2016

The Correct Explanation of the Einstein Myth With Real Solution

One sure way to be tossed into outer darkness is to disrespect Albert Einstein, so I will not be seeking positive attention with this short essay, but neither do I wish to disparage Einstein or detract from his accomplishments.  

Einstein's supreme stature as the greatest genius in world history is deeply entrenched in all levels of society. Hundreds of times daily, he is quoted with reverence to enhance a point of view with unassailable wisdom, though most of the time it is most improbable that Einstein ever said such things. The historical issues surrounding his first (special) theory of relativity  challenge the limits of human understanding, the intellectual depth far exceeding the level to which most men can plunge. Few are willing or  fool enough to attempt it. And since the PTB and the media have so completely accepted it, Einstein could only be considered nothing less than a God; therefore, his personal views on political and religious matters are often used as trump in any argument. Only those who grasp his ideas, or make a pretense of understanding them, can be considered qualified to enter the ranks of prominent scientists while those of lesser rank will hold their peace to keep their jobs.  If the theory was sound, then argument would be welcomed and there would be need for the existence of such extreme peer pressure. 

Those highly esteemed scientists like Herbert Dingle and Louis Essen who early on objected to the theory were ignored, and Essen's career was threatened despite absurdities painfully apparent to the most simple mind. Since the most succinct and authoritative refutation of the relativity mess was given by Essen and Essen was rejected, allow me to forego that and just submit my own impression when the theory was first explained by my physics professor, Dr. Denny Lee at Montana State University in 1973. I was a very serious student and ardent fan of Dr. Lee's. He was a most engaging and popular lecturer who threw open the doors to my understanding of physics. But when he got to his lecture on relativity, he fell. I could only think that he had been brainwashed with the worst batch of nonsense I'd ever heard.  In particular, I had to question how, given Einstein's 2nd postulate that motion can only be considered as relative, could it then be that clocks would slow down due to uniform motion?  In other words, if B is moving fast with respect to A, then B's clock would be running more slowly, okay says Einstein. But then B by the postulate must be considered at rest and A moving. That could only mean that either clock was simultaneously running slower than the other.  I raised my hand and asked that very question in class, to which Dr. Lee replied that this was a good question, but the answer involved highly technical issues of acceleration and deceleration. I smelled a rat right then.  This issue was central to the famous "Twin Paradox" where Einstein asserts that a twin who spends his life traveling about will age less than his stay at home brother. This is also typically tied to another absurdity, the constancy of light speed, c. 

Many years later, I discovered that this same point was a major issue in Herbert Dingle's aggressive arguments opposing Einstein that are nicely summed up in Dingle's Science at the Crossroads. The wiki article on the matter reveals the typical mainstream bias.   Dingle's criticisms were refuted by Nature, but the absurdity of the Twin Paradox and blatant contradiction to his own postulates continued to plague Einstein. Before publishing his "general" theory, he tendered a meek retraction, admitting that the difference in ages (clocks) was only due to acceleration and deceleration.  This was a good tactical move for silencing critics, but very few took notice and dozens of complicated mathematical proofs cropped up by those wishing to establish their intellectual acumen. Over a hundred years later there are yet hundreds of explanations promoting these notions without shame and still drawing near universal approval, such as this shameful youtube video

Essen's most authoritative assessment disputing the relativity myth has exceptional value because being the first to accurately measure the speed of light, he more than anyone understood the behavior of light from direct experiments. There are excellent articles by Essen and others that explain this all in simple and straightforward fashion, and you would benefit more from reading those, but I despair that this has all been done without gaining any traction from the physicists. Essen himself initially thought that the world would appreciate his unique familiarity with the issues and contribution to the truth, but his career was threatened and he probably sacrificed a Nobel prize for criticizing Einstein. He best also explained the flaws in the experiments that purported to validate relativity where results were inappropriately manipulated in order to confirm the theory.  His criticism was especially pertinent with regard to the Hafele Keating experiment with atomic clocks, being that Essen himself had invented the atomic clock (it was even later admitted that the results of this experiment had been badly misrepresented with the original data being kept secret). 

Many others have stepped forward with their own attempts to explain the glaring defects in relativity, but are invariably dismissed as crackpots. Indeed, many have been crackpots indeed, because after repeating what good men already know, they have attempted to elevate themselves by providing corrections that are even more obscure, irrational and without experimental basis.  Clearly, it is not possible to plunge into the depths of Einstein's dreamland and emerge with any rational solution. The only path to the truth would be to carefully edge past the black pit that has ensnared all before, and focus solely on a solution to a problem. All we require of the solution is a simple relationship that confirms the three experiments used to validate Einstein. Even though we know that the results of these experiments were improperly manipulated to validate Einstein, we also know that the nature of the Einstein's swindle is to twist mathematics unrelated to the question. In particular, the Lorentz equations are twisted to predict results without any logical basis. Only that they succeed by means of lame abstraction is how the critics have been silenced. It is therefore only right to suspect that the results being sought have a real but different natural origin. But how can we provide the rational and straightforward explanation that Einstein was unable to give? First, we must consider the point the experiments were meant to make. 

Only three experiments were significant in the cheat, so I am burdened only with providing a rational explanation for the results and not address the theory. This I will do here. These were the Eddington, Hafele-Keating and Pound-Rebka experiments. These three experiments comprise the three interrelated phenomena that are the essence of the Einstein riddle and also source of confusion in the scientific community.  These were specifically 1) a doubling of the deviation of starlight predicted by Soldner; 2) the slowing of clocks in a stronger gravitational field (or due to equivalent force from acceleration/deceleration); and 3) a shift in light frequency passing through a gravitational gradient (red shift leaving a large body of mass and blue shift approaching a body of mass). The contraction of length (linear dimension) is actually a consequence of clock speed, because the natural definition of length depends on the number of wavelengths of light over a given time interval. so a meter at sea level MUST be slightly shorter than a meter on top of Everest if clock speed is slower.  This is NOT to say that matter is not more compressed at sea level, because the effect is as much real as it is a matter of how units are defined, so we can suspect that matter in the center of a black hole is darned heavy.  The obscure notion of a spacetime is an inexcusable distraction from these simple facts. The relationship between these effects can be calculated using the most elementary mathematical terms within plain old three dimensional space.  Despite the mass obsession with Einstein's early theory and the foolishness of Lorentz, neither clocks nor meter sticks change with respect to uniform motion, but they do with respect to gravitational field strength. The general theory was not an extension of special theory truths, either, but only an attempt to patch up the painful holes in the special theory.   

Even if a body such as mine were to dare to provide an easy and straightforward explanation of the these physical phenomena that Einstein used to hopelessly entangle us in a cult of desperate confusion, it would surely slip past the event horizon of a black hole and become timelessly extinguished in a singularity of silence.  Attempts to do that have quickly gotten me banned from physics forums for life, but then we know we can't go there, we just want to give them a chance to hear it. So this revolutionary revelation in physics is not meant for you physics majors. I will ignore the foolishness bound up in Lorentz contractions and twin paradoxes, but go on tothe real issue. In part, I have time on my hands and partly because I've yet to find anybody else who can.  It's always amazed me that greater men, particularly Louis Essen, never put their finger on it. For some time I also thought that Einstein must have known the proper answer being his PhD was on Brownian motion, which illustrates a phenomenon similar to gravity, but on a coarser scale.  But more likely is that Einstein was as great a bungler as he was an opportunist adept at covering his tracks.  Newton's major flaw was in not having any conception of what the cause of gravity was, or he would have easily filled in the holes that Einstein later claimed credit for. 

But Einstein himself also admitted to being unable to provide a rational cause for gravity, which is  certainly essential for an easy grasp of the relationship between the gravitational strength and the variable speeds of light and the clocks being used to measure it. From that understanding, any decent mathematician of university level can readily derive the equations relating all these essential issues of linear dimension, variable clock speed and frequency shift of light. Yes, I'm more than a match for it and have done it, but I'm not talking to the mathematicians right now, just common people like you and me. Nor is my claim to be the only one able to properly explain gravitation and bless the physical phenomena pilfered by Einstein with proper mathematics, stem from any arrogance or ambition. I just do it because anybody who can should find the time to do it. Why me?  Only because I was well trained at Montana State University to juggle scientific concepts and describe them in mathematical terms, and so I can. 

So, now it's time to explain gravitation and these related issues in the simplest words, but that can be also readily translated into simple mathematics.  Ironically, I start with the subject of Einstein's PhD thesis, Brownian motion. As a teenager, I spent countless hours exploring the many secrets of pond water with a microscope. The phenomenon of Brownian motion was always present. Small particles of inert debris can be seen jerking to and fro at random. Few would argue against this being due to collisions with fast moving particles, which after Einstein's thesis everyone came to admit were unseen molecules making up water itself.  What Einstein didn't mention or appear to have observed was the fact that these tiny particles in close proximity were gradually driven towards each other to form larger clumps of debris. This should be no surprise, because the outer surfaces are more exposed to fast moving particles as the inward facing surfaces are shielded by other particles. The same idea can easily be applied to gravity and explain the inverse square law.  

GRAVITY! One would think that a similar principle underlies the "force" of gravity, that a much finer fluid of far more rapid particles would naturally give us gravity. This we could call an ether. Unfortunately, it was supposed by the masters that the "luminiferous aether" must be of a rigid character, and that motion through it would be verified by experiments such as the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment. But the MM contraption revealed no change in interference patterns no matter which direction either light beam traveled. What the masters seem to have missed was that the ether is a fluid like water, is not rigid, but so exceedingly fine that it should mostly pass right through ordinary matter and not be measurable by physical instruments.  Gravity is the weak force simply because it takes an enormous amount of mass to deflect enough ether particles to be detected.  Small objects are much reduced in weight at a cosmological equivalent distance of near zero from Earth's surface, so the effects of ether on measuring devices would be too negligent for measurement. Those few ether particles slowed by collisions that could interact with measuring devices have a velocity and random motion that is too great for any relative motion of the fluid to be detectable.  It is also a characteristic of fluids to become entrained with the objects with which they come into contact.  If less than 99.99999999% of ether particles pass through an object of mass, and those that do not become entrained with it, then there should be no detectable ether drift in a lateral direction. It would be unfortunate that the great minds are in the mood to argue, because this simple model fully accounts for any experimental results that purport to validate Einstein's relativity. It is possible, I suppose, that ether is made of the infamous neutrino!    

It is therefore expected that entrainment of a tiny number of ether particles by collision will impart a change in motion which maintains a constant average distance from the center of mass. While this idea has apparently never been considered, it would be easily verified by a variation of the Michelson-Morley experiment where the two beams being compared were not at the same elevation, but one at an even elevation and the other being straight up or down. The result is critical to the main issue here, because the assumptions require that a relatively small number of ether particles are progressively slowed and entrained towards the center of any object of mass. This means that the ether has a tiny, but distinct viscosity that is dependent on the density of atoms in proximity, thus objects, even atoms, even clocks, that move through it will move somewhat slower or faster depending only on the distance from a center of mass and the density of that mass. Also, of course, vibrations through a thicker medium will tend to bunch up. Therefore, the lower the elevation (or effect of gravity or acceleration/deceleration), the lower will be the frequency of a ray of light, and to the same degree its velocity will slow from the standpoint of any observer at a fixed gravitational potential, whether in motion or not. The reverse is true as well. This is the red and blue shift.  All of these are the logical effects of an ether with characteristics similar to Brownian motion that purport to validate the myth of relativity which denies any ether. 

Now, this is also KEY to the matter of the constancy of light speed. Light speed is not necessarily the same in all directions contrary to popular belief, nor is that the relevant issue. From the standpoint of any observer, fixed or in motion, the speed of a distant ray of light is constant as long as it travels through a uniform gravitational field (constant elevation with respect to the Earth), but its velocity will increase as its frequency decreases (redshift) as it travels into a weaker field (up from the Earth), and decrease in velocity and increase in frequency (blueshift) as it travels towards a body of mass. Bear firmly in mind, however, that if you were traveling with the beam of light in any direction or up or down, you would perceive NO change in velocity. How could that be? Well, the ONLY possible answer is that the clock by which you measure velocity would slow to the same degree going down or speed up while going up. Keep in mind that a meter stick must shrink or expand to the same degree, this being also how a meter is defined. Granted, it takes some thought until these matters gel into your thinking, but this very simple idea, unlike Einstein's awkward frames of reference, explains both the cause of gravity and all of the effects in physical measurements that Einstein's relativity pretends to predict.
  
As Essen claimed, relativity is indeed a swindle. Perhaps if he had been able to give a perfect explanation for where and when and why we can predict changes in clock speed, light frequency, and linear dimensions, and deflection of starlight, then people would have been enlightened instead of deceived. Oh, yes, I forgot the matter of Eddington and starlight deflection. Soldner first calculated the deflection of starlight as caused by a gravitational field which was later duplicated in a paper by Einstein. but he did not realize that there was an ether medium through which light also traveled in space. Newton explained very well how both the angle and direction of light was changed when moving through a medium of higher density such as glass.  If Newton or Soldner had known that ether was a medium of variable density in a gravitational field, then they would have realized that it would deflect light in the same way as glass. They then would have done exactly as Einstein had done just prior to the Eddington expedition and Solder, anyway, would have doubled his predictions for the deviation of starlight just as Einstein did.  Odd, isn't it, that Einstein never gave a good reason for having abruptly doubled his own prediction, and no less odd that he got a ticker tape parade in New York for having called it right, especially when Eddington's results were still subject to dispute?