Skip to main content

More Santilli Shenanigans

Fringe scientist Ruggero Santilli is not pleased with two articles you can find on my website. The first one, Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli (2013), is quite long and in it I show that Santilli used aliases to write articles in scientific journals to support the pseudoscientifc articles he wrote under his real name. In February this year I followed up with a short post on the Santilli Telescope, one of his newer inventions, in The Continuing Stupidity of Ruggero Santilli.
Since publishing the first article I’ve encountered many comments from Santilli  (using sockpuppets) on several webforums and message boards in which he showed his annoyance with these publications. On his own websites he has published articles in which he for instance stated that my website is ‘jewish controlled‘. Santilli seems to think that there is a large conspiracy of Jewish scientists who cooperate in several ways to protect the theories of Einstein against his ‘improvements’ of these theories. Last May Santilli went a bit further. I received a letter from his attorney, Joseph E. Parrish, owner of Fortis Law, with the subject: Imminent legal action if you do not Cease, RDesist and DisRetract.

NB. for convenience sake, I will talk about ‘mr. S.’ in the remainder of this post , while it might actually concern Ruggero, his wife Carla or one of his close co-workers.

The ‘Parrish’ letters

First I heard from the chairman of Skepsis (the Dutch Skeptics Foundation of which I’m a board member) that he had received such a letter. A couple of days later I received the one addressed to me via the hosting company of my website. Later I learned that they had received a letter addressed to the company as well.
All these letter are identical except for the first few lines. In the letter attorney Joe Parrish writes that he represents Ruggero Santilli and claims that I’ve written inaccurate stories about his client with the intention to injure his reputation. And of course he demands that I remove the articles.

The letter mentions  the following ‘inaccuracies’:

  • I call Santilli a “fringe scientist”, “a mad professor” and “a cunning scam artist”;
  • I state that “the whole concept of antimatter is bullshit”;
  • and I’ve ‘defined’ Magnegas Corporation a “pyramid scheme”.

You can read the entire letter I received by downloading it here.

The style of the letter is so similar to other writings of mr. S, including spelling mistakes and odd word use, that one almost immediately assumes that mr. S has written the letter and that the attorney just signed it and sent it off. But Fortis Law seemed even less involved.


The letter our chairman received (via FedEx, I believe) was sent in a plain white envelop. It was also handed in at the delivery service three days after it was apparently signed, by a mrs. Sherry Stone who happens to be a secretary at Thunder Energies Corp, the company which sells the Santilli Telescope. There is not a real signature on this letter, just Parrish’ name printed in a fancy font as you can see here on the left (the font is Linotype Zapfino, I think). Also my letter had an empty last page, which seemed a bit amateurish for a letter sent by an attorneys office.

Together these facts pointed strongly to a scenario in which mr. S. had just received some stationery from Fortis Law, had written the letter himself and let his secretary take care of the delivery. All this with or without (detailed) knowledge and consent of Parrish. So we thought it wise to ask him to authenticate this letter before answering to the complaints.

It took quite a while before Parrish met this simple request and sent us signed copies of the three letters.



This signature looks reasonably similar to one I could find of Parrish on a “Public Reprimand – with Conditions” from the Florida Bar (October 2015). But notice that the font of the quasi signature is now different than in the original letter I received (this looks like Script mt). There are more discrepancies between the signed copies we received and the originals. Parrish probably couldn’t sign an actual copy, because he has never possessed one. My guess is that after our request for authentication mr. S. had to sent him a document with the letters sent to us (in text, not even a pdf) and that Parrish had to print those again on his own stationary without noticing that his office computers lack some fonts mr. S. had used. It all looks very clumsy.

My answer to the complaints

But okay, now at least it was clear that Parrish took responsibility for the letter, we decided to send him decent answers. Dr. Jan Willem Nienhuys, secretary of Skepsis, did this on paper and he used several pages to eloquently explain why the concept of the Santilli Telescope must be seen as utter nonsense and also explained that in the letter from Fortis Law some crucial articles of the Dutch law are left out, exactly those which deal with the exemptions and allow me to legally write what I did without being defamatory or libelous.

I myself replied as follows:

Dear Mr. Parrish,

Thank you for the signed version of the letter which was sent to me in your name on May 20th 2016. I still find it quite particular that it took you so long to answer my simple request for authentication and the fact that this signed version is different from the original in several aspects. Together with the strange spelling mistakes, in my opinion this all points strongly to mr. Ruggero Santilli, your client, being the real author and actual sender. But now that you have confirmed that you are accountable for its content, I will address the issues raised in the letter.

To start with: your client is complaining about two articles on my personal website. My website is not related to Stichting Skepsis. So why you have also addressed the chairman of Stichting Skepsis, Professor Frank Israel, in this matter with a similar letter, I do not understand. The secretary of Stichting Skepsis, dr. Jan Willem Nienhuys, has sent you an elaborate letter (on paper) explaining most of the following matters in more detail. I’m grateful for his support in this case and I do urge you to read his letter with care. I believe that after reading it, you will agree that your client does not have a case against me.

Your letter mentions article 261 of the Dutch Criminal Code, but you leave out the important third part, which I will invoke if necessary to justify the statements I made in my articles which apparently have annoyed your client in such way that he has sought your help in getting those changed. Dr. Nienhuys has been so kind to give you an English translation of this part of article 261 in his letter. In answer to an e-mail apparently sent by mrs. Carla Santilli to me and Professor Israel on April 25th this year, I had already pointed out that she missed this particular part and its importance.

In correspondence with the ‘institutions’ of your client I have become used to getting all kind of replies signed by different people without ever receiving a reply to my questions signed by your client in his own name. Your client has acknowledged that these are indeed fake names in several cases, although, as far as I know, he has never admitted that these are aliases for himself. Because of this history you will understand that our requests for authentication are not proof of a strategy to delay, but instigated by very real concern.

For the specific issues you bring up in your letter, let me start with the complaint about Exhibit B [i.e. this article]. From the context I belief it’s quite clear what I meant by “It looks like a pyramid scheme”, namely that Magnegas didn’t look like a sustainable firm at the time of writing considering the accumulated losses and without the prospect of compensating those losses with future gains because of the dubious way in which their product (the original Magnegas) was promoted as a gas mixture containing molecules with properties that are not known to mainstream science. I also wrote: “Magnegas’ main business doesn’t seem to be selling gas but attracting small investors, who fall for the promise of Magnegas being a new miracle gas.” If you follow the link to the Wikipedia article which is in my article under “pyramid scheme” you’ll find that the description fits reasonably well. And in the most recent update (Nov. 2014) to the article I wrote: “It still doesn’t look like a financially solid company to me and they seem to be struggling to keep the MNGA stock listed on the NASDAQ, but I am not an expert on stockmarket operations.”

All together I don’t think this article can be seen as libelous towards Magnegas. Besides, this article is more than three years old and because of that I learn from your own blog that bringing this to court under Florida law seems pointless: [mirror].

I’ll now discuss the complaints about Exhibit A [i.e. this post]. In his article I expose the Santilli Telescope as the next weird and false ‘scientific’ idea of your client. This I have also explained to mrs. Santilli in response to her mail on April 25th. I quote from that mail: “I didn’t state that Ruggero is stupid, I just call his theories stupid. And that’s easily proved, so this is not libelous according to the law.” I’m not a stock expert, nor am I a psychiatrist. In my opinion it is quite clear that the ‘Stupidity’ in the title is a reference to the ideas and deeds of your client, not an expert opinion on his mental state. The words “fringe scientist” are appropriate as your client is widely seen so by mainstream scientists who dismiss his theories as fringe science (for instance according to Wikipedia).
Then about “the whole concept of antimatter is bullshit”. Here you left out ‘-light’, the actual sentence is: “The whole concept of antimatter-light is bullshit, because the anti-particle of a photon is simply a photon.” Dr. Nienhuys has provided you a clear analysis of why this concept of antimatter-light as a kind of light which behaves differently from normal light is absurd. In my words: another idea of Santilli, which lacks proper scientific reasoning, therefore the ‘Continuing’ in the title.

Finally on the terms “a mad professor” and “cunning scam artist”. The actual passage is: “Is Santilli just a mad professor? Or is he a cunning scam artist trying to sell his ‘Santilli-ofocus-scopes’ (or even better: stock in his businesses) to people who fall easily for sciency sounding nonsense? Maybe both …” I think it’s in the public interest to warn potential buyers of these instruments that those cannot work as claimed. “Mad professor” and “fringe scientist” are in the same league as far as I am concerned.

Your client may be unhappy with my articles and some of its content, but they are not libelous as I have provided sufficient grounds to justify the use of the terms your clients objects to.

With regards,

Pepijn van Erp

And after that? Nothing! No response from Parrish for a couple of weeks, so I asked him via mail if he was still representing Santilli. And to that simple question no answer either, not even after repeated requests. Quite peculiar behavior for a professional attorney if you ask me.

The funny thing about this whole episode is that the complaints of mr. S. do not address the main point of the ‘Kadeisvili’-article, namely that I accuse him of scientific fraud by using an alias to write in the  International Journal of Hydrogen Energy to defend himself against a rebuttal of an article he has written under his real name. Does this mean he now tacitly admits this?

Another award

In the comments on that ‘Kadeisvili’-article mr. S. was eager to inform me and the readers of the comments there that mr. S. had received another award. A piece of paper with his name on it and the words “Technical Achievement Award”. The award certificate mentions several prominent institutions as co-sponsor of this award:


One of those, the American Institute of Physics, I sent an e-mail for clarification. They answered me that more people had contacted them on this matter and that they were already taking action. The AIP was clearly not informed about being mentioned as co-sponsor of this award. Their only involvement with the conference is that AIP Publishing would be publishing the conference proceedings. Exactly what AIP did, I don’t know, but from the website of mr. S. we get the impression that they put some pressure on the organizers to remove all mentions of AIP as co-sponsor, see the section ‘6. Organized scientific crimes perpetrated by the Jewish control of the AIP on this page [mirror].
To most people it will be clear that this award was instigated by mr. S. himself and that he just asked his co-worker Georgiev to organize the signatures. There is a clue that this piece of paper was doctored at the offices of mr. S.: the filename of the picture is ‘TARPON_2.jpg’, which points to the address of his business (1444 Rainville Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida).

I’m sure that these are just two more events we can add to the long list of fringe activities on Santilli’s curriculum vitae.

Update Nov 2nd 2016: the story continous in Sued by Santilli

22 thoughts on “More Santilli Shenanigans

  1. A word about the theory behind Santilli’s telescope.

    Santilli claims that the antilight emanating form antimatter has different optical properties. This is of course strange, because light is just electromagnetic waves and you get electromagnetic waves when you move electrical charges back and forth. It doesn’t matter whether these charges are positrons (antimatter) or electrons (matter).

    According to Santilli the index of refraction of transparent materials is negative. I invite you to take a look at's_detection_of_antimatter_galaxies_via_a_telescope_with_concave_lenses


    Both publications have a figure 2 purportedly showing what happens when ordinary light passes from air into water (‘positive index of refraction’) and what happens when light from antimatter does the same thing. Let’s say the index of refraction of water is 1.333. That means that the speed of light in water is smaller by a factor of 1.333 and that a ray of light falling in with an angle of 30 degrees with the vertical is proceeding a little bit more steeply, namely with an angle of 22 degrees with the vertical. An angle of 45 degrees changes into an angle of 32 degrees. Snell’s law says sin(30 degrees) : sin(22 degrees) = sin(45 degrees) : sin (32 degrees) = 1.33 : 1.

    So far so good.
    The pictures of Santilli show a ray which is bent away from the perpendicular to the water surface, just as if the top part of the drawing represented water (or glass or diamond) and the bottom just plain air or vacuum.
    That would mean that the speed of antilight in the bottom half was 1.33 times the speed of light in the top half. In other words, the drawing represents an index of refraction of antilight that is positive but smaller than 1, say 1/1.333 = 0.75.

    Now that is interesting. As soon as antilight enters a denser optical medium, it speeds up to speeds larger than the speed of ordinary light.

    One may wonder what a negative index of refraction means. This doesn’t occur in nature. One should imagine that the ray of light is reflected after it is “bent” at the surface between the two mediums, i.e. reflected in the vertical. So when the ray comes from the air into the material from the right, it proceeds by going to the right in the material. More explanation in

    Such materials with negative index of refraction (metamaterial) are difficult to make, because they basically contain en enormous amount of carefully aligned microscopic mirrors. It is hard to imagine that ordinary glass or water is organised so that it can have a negative index of refraction with respect to a particular kind of electromagnetic waves.

    But all this is besides the point. Apparently Santilli doesn’t know the difference between a positive index of refraction that is smaller than 1 and a negative index of refraction. Santilli has a poor grasp of elementary physics. We don’t have to believe what he says about physics.

    1. As soon as antilight enters a denser optical medium, it speeds up to speeds larger than the speed of ordinary light.

      To my mind, that is the most obvious indication that “antilight” is meaningless wibble, but there are so many other indications that it’s hard to choose.
      I am eagerly awaiting news of the antilight microscope as Santilli’s next discovery.

      1. Oh look! There’s a Smut Clyde comment highlighted in the sidebar, let’s pop in and say hello. I had hoped terribly to find that Santilli’s discovery of antilight would enable the creation of a long desired object, the flashdark. A flashdark, quite obviously, makes the area in its projection and range, dark.

        Now you tell me antilight isn’t even a thing. Damn you for smashing my hopes and dreams!

  2. Today I sued Mr. “Luca Petronio” to the Italian postal police by showing them all his crackpot anti-Semitic emails and by adding that I strongly suspect that Mr. “Luca Petronio” is only an alias of Mr. Ruggero Maria Santilli. They will investigate about this and, if I am correct, Mr. Santilli will be put in a jail in his next trip in Italy, because in Italy racial hate and anti-Semitic claims are penal crimes. In any case, I decided to attend to the ‘Dreamers Day 2016’ in 2 October 2016 in Milan, Teatro dal Verme, in order to meet Mr. Santilli face to face and to see if he will have the courage to claim his bullshit against myself and my family in front of me.

  3. Today, I received the usual, anti-Semitic e-mail by Mr. Santilli-Stone (SS) who used again his alias “Luca Peronio”:

    Continued defamatio of Prof. R. M. santilli by dishonest Jews


    The Jew C. Corda, under instigation by jewish physicists in Italy (who are recipient under pseudonym of this list prepared by Corda) continue to slander Prof. R. M. santilli because hey have no serious technical objections against his surpassing of Einstein’;s theories, thus retorting to despicable acts of dishonesty. I attach two Nominations of prof. Santilli for the Nobel Prize in Physics of the late 10980s written in the special form released by the Nobel Committee of the time to scientists solicited for nomination and they Nominated Prof. Santilli. The R. M. santilli has many several such real Nominations I cannot disclose. It should be said that the Jew Corda presented Prof. Santilli several times during meetings as “Nobel Nominee Prof. R. M. Santilli,” What a filth!

    The defamation “”paper”” (??!!_ Confusion in Cosmology and Gravitation by the three Jews Christian Corda, Reza Katebi, Nathan O. Schmidt is under technical and criminal review by academic physicists as part of the ongoing criminal and civil procedures against them all. Do not bee too anxious mister Corda. Criminal legal proceedings require time….. but then they hit hard…..

    What I keep repeating is astonishing is that Einstein-fanaticJews do not see the huge damage that continues to be inflicted to the entire Jewish community (whose majority is made up of clean people, as I stated various times, see eg by continuing to institute, rather than stopping these so blatantly self-defamation Jews Christian Corda, Reza Katebi, Nathan O. Schmidt

    Incredible! Incredible!

    Luca Petronio”

    This is my reply:

    “Dear poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio,

    Actually, there is no limit to your crackpottery and ignorance. Thus,
    I will clarify this point in an ultimate way.

    1) Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3.000
    individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are
    awarded. These individuals are generally prominent academics working
    in a relevant area. Regarding the Peace Prize, inquiries are also sent
    to governments, former Peace Prize laureates, and current or former
    members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The deadline for the return
    of the nomination forms is 31 January of the year of the award, see
    Levinovitz, Agneta Wallin (2001). Nils Ringertz, ed. The Nobel Prize:
    The First 100 Years. Imperial College Press and World Scientific
    Publishing. ISBN 981-02-4664-1.

    2) The Nobel Committee nominates about 300 potential laureates from
    these forms and additional names. Thus, ONLY these latter 300 guys are
    the REAL Nobel Nominees. This means, that, even admitting that the two
    documents have been sent as a reply to an invitation of the Nobel
    Foundations (which I think to be a FALSE statement), this DOES NOT
    imply that poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio was a Nobel Nominee, see Abrams,
    Irwin (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the Laureates. Watson
    Publishing International. ISBN 0-88135-388-4.

    3) Very important: The nominees are not publicly named, nor are they
    told that they are being considered for the prize. All nomination
    records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the
    prize, see
    This means that if a “Nobel Nomination” is publicized, like the ones
    of poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio, it is SURELY FALSE and that the
    “Nominations” of of poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio can be used as toilet

    Concerning the other points raised by poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio, as I
    am not an idiot, I NEVER presented poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio during
    meetings as “Nobel Nominee” because I were well aware that such
    “Nominations” were FALSE.

    Dears Nathan and Reza,

    I learned by poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio that I should be a Jew. It was
    completely new to me. Now, I learn that both of you are also Jews…
    It is also completely new to me. In any case, you are welcome in the

    Dear poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio,

    I am not anxious. I well know that the “academic physicists” who are
    reviewing our paper “Confusion in Cosmology and Gravitation” are ALL
    your aliases, who, in turn, understand nothing of gravitation and
    cosmology. I am instead worried for you proper health. After an
    enormous number of self-humiliations there is a strong risk that you
    will have an heart attack. I strongly suggest to stop here your
    nonsense and to be careful to your proper health…
    Finally, dear poor Mr. Santilli-Petronio, I did NOT prepare this
    email list. He was you who started these stupid attacks. Thus, the
    list was prepared by you… I merely added some REAL name, not
    aliases. Using aliases is a prerogative of you, because you have not
    the balls to use your real name….

    Christian Corda”

    After that, I have been informed that Mr. SS sent other delirious e-mails to the bank office in which my wife works. My wife has nothing to do with this story. Mr. SS is a despicable scoundrel, a psychopathic and a coward. Tomorrow, I will print such emails and I will REALLY sue him to Italian postal police. I had enough of his madness.

    1. This is rather nasty. I think it is a wise thing to strike back, this is going too far.

      Via my webhost I learned that Santilli has sent me a summons, but I haven’t yet received it. Apparently this was again sent by Fortis Law, but the website of that company has been offline for weeks and I never got an reply to my response to Santillli’s complaints. Also I didn’t get an answer to my repeated question whether Parrish (the attorney) was still representing Santilli.

  4. In Italy we have a special prize for crackpottery that has English translation as “Golden Donkey Prize”. As Mr. Santilli-Stone is obsessed by Nominations and Prizes, I will do my best for obtaining a Nomination for him for the “Golden Donkey Prize” based on his elementary mistakes in gravitation and cosmology. I am sure that he will have a big chance to win the final prize…

  5. Concerning the summons by Mr. Santilli you were referring to on Social media today.

    I wonder if Santilli in his busy career as a fringe scientist had a chance to look into the Streisand Effect as well.

    Pepijn, you proved to be a true, alternate “Indiana Jones” in this story and you can always sell the rights to Hollywood.

  6. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for keeping us updated. Some people just don’t like critical research! I think it’s very unwise of the Santili clan to keep on pushing like this. Everybody in and outside the Netherlands knows that the Dutch Skeptic Society is home to a massive overload of very bright people like Mr. Pepijn van Erp and Dr. Jan Willem Nienhuys, who all are, in turn, connected to members of Skeptic societies abroad, for example, in the United States of America. Santili could easily discover that he is not up against Pepijn van Erp alone, but all these bright people.

    1. So now Santilli writes and sends fake attorney letters and writes his own awards…what else is he doing to deceive the world? He actually looks good in the photo showing the award that he wrote himself.
      And it is all explained in a lengthy “article” Good long job, Pepijn ! And we all thought you were on vacation: no you were writing articles on Santilli.
      In regard to the long legal discussion in which you” teach “the attorney how to interpret the law, ask your attorney if the same argument will convince a judge.

      1. Hi Mr. S.,

        Ruggero looks indeec quite good in that photo, happy as a child. It seems however that you have lost the ability to count, there is only 1 article I wrote on this matter, no articles thus … oh wait, of course you use Hadronic counting …

        1. So I correct now : …”one article” , please this is singular not plural, apologies to the readers of this highly influential blog …. I may have lost the ability too count, but you lost your credibility.

    2. Pepijn van Erp is an embarrassment to any serious Skeptic society….this last piece is just a piece of gossip
      Full of lies and allegations. The AIP denied any communication from Pep.and this is proven by his own contradictory account:
      First Pepijn said that he called the AIP then that he wrote an e mail….the truth is that he is trying to show the relevance of his blog with lies and fabrications like he is doing in this last piece where he is inventing details
      To such an extent that he has lost all credibility. Even if he removes this comment, everybody sees the vacuity and the total irrelevance of what he writes.

        1. AIP’s “Scitations” web page (which publishes abstracts from its proceedings) is carrying “confirmations” of Santilli’s theories by folks no one’s ever heard of in the proceedings of its 2013 conference in Athens:

          This is post-modernist physics in which, like peewee sports in California, “everyone’s a winner” regardless of the actual results of the game. You get a trophy for showing up, not for doing anything worthwhile. Santilli gets to show he’s been cited in a hundred papers written by a hundred guys no one ever heard of, and he’s kind enough to roll the log with them, citing them in his “gold model”, pay-to-publish open source journal papers.

          Everyone gets positive h-index scores in Google Scholar (I wonder Google knows how they’re being p’wned) for lots of citations, and I’ve actually read defenses of Santilli’s status as a scientist based on those inflated h-indices. Everyone goes home with a trophy and his very own personal reality, in which convex lenses detect antimatter galaxies and “invisible terrestrial entities”.

          Of course, real astronomers and real physicists could throw cold water on this game fast by denouncing Santilli’s theories, for the only real cure for bad free speech is good free speech. But no one will.

          Neil deGrasse Tyson, for all his windbaggery about “defending Science”, is silent on Santilli, and he’s been told about the “Santilli telescope”. It seems to me that if you’re the self-described spokesman, not just for astronomy but for all things science, you weigh in when someone’s peddling crap telescopes based on extreme physical implausibilities to the public.

          But crashing silence from Neil deGrasse Tyson.

          If legitimate physicists won’t clean their own house, they shouldn’t complain when Santilli-ism rides the wave of Trump supporters’ ignorance to influence how Congress funds physics. After all, if the government won’t shut down what’s effectively mail fraud now, what chance will there be for legitimate science to out-shout the physics community’s equivalent of laetrile a few years from now? Congress has been shaky on science almost from the beginning, and we need truth to be out there out-shining falsehood.

        2. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for all his windbaggery about “defending Science”, is silent on Santilli, and he’s been told about the “Santilli telescope”.

          Do you have any info on this? That he was asked what he thinks about this telescope.

        3. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for all his windbaggery about “defending Science”, is silent on Santilli
          If legitimate physicists won’t clean their own house

          1. Neil Tyson is not your bitch.
          2. Why should he waste his time arguing with every jumped-up little numpty like Santilli who crawls out of the woodwork spouting gibberish?
          3. If Neil Tyson did waste his time arguing with Santilli, how many of the credulous cretins who believe Santilli would pay any more attention to him than they pay to our host Pepijn?
          4. If Neil Tyson did waste his time arguing with Santilli, how many other jumped-up gibberish-spouting little numpties would you expect him to argue with next?
          5. Neil Tyson is not your bitch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *