Talk:Bruce Cathie

Psuedo science

Isn't the reference to "discoveries' somewhat overstating Cathie's theorising? The ideas are at best pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simply making something up is not making a "discovery". Cathie himself used the word "speculations", that would seem to sum it up nicely. 121.72.122.155 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that entire paragraph has been weasel worded and needing citation for years, it's almost certainly some crank's original research and unlikely to ever be brought up to wiki standards, given the amount of attention this article receives - about one edit a year. Deleted. 121.72.122.155 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because he was cranky and it was original in the original meaning of that does not invalidate the theory. I.e. even if it does not have gone through the official paper mill does not invalidate it either. Remember that original research did not always / does not have to have, a negative meaning. We have enough negativity in the world..to not let a former professional flight engineer and flight captain, have a hobby and a captivated audience.

Further the citations missing are from his published book.

Further his research could have some positive implications such as pointing out the the German X-7 reactor is at two identical harmonics (which they are called in his theory) which if we are unlucky is not a good thing for a fission reactor.

And consider for instance that the placebo effect is not (irony) not considered according to high-profile American magazine the new dope in medicine which is what homeopathy was based on all along. (As long as they can find a doctor who can utilize the placebo effect properly). Christmass (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Cathie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123123456/http://www.astrosciences.info:80/Matrix3.htm to http://www.astrosciences.info/Matrix3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

List of publishers of each volume for books section

Harmonic 33 — A. H. & A. W. Reed, Wellington (1968)

• https://www.abebooks.com/Harmonic-33-Cathie-Bruce-A.H-A.W/31848541187/bd
• https://archive.org/details/harmonic330000cath
• https://www.bookfinder.com/isbn/9780589000837/

Harmonic 695 — A. H. & A. W. Reed, Wellington (1971)

• https://books.google.com/books/about/Harmonic_695.html?id=dTIJAQAAMAAJ
• https://www.abebooks.com/signed/Harmonic-695-UFO-Anti-Gravity-CATHIE-Captain/31924828912/bd

Harmonic 288 — Reed (A. H. & A. W. Reed), Wellington (1977)

• https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/3037342
• https://search.worldcat.org/title/4448159
• https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Pulse-Universe-Harmonic-288-Cathie-Bruce/31067111500/bd

Harmonic 371244 — America West Publishers & Distributors, Tehachapi, CA (1989)

• https://www.ebay.com/p/385719
• https://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-922356-00-9.mobi.htm
• https://www.abebooks.com/9780922356003/Bridge-Infinity-Harmonic-371244-Cathie-0922356009/plp

The Energy Grid — America West Publishers, Tehachapi, CA (1990)

• https://search.worldcat.org/title/22420209
• https://www.abebooks.com/first-edition/Energy-Grid-Harmonic-695-Pulse-Universe/31242479402/bd
• https://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Grid-Harmonic-Pulse-Universe/dp/0922356203

The Harmonic Conquest of Space — Nexus Magazine, Mapleton, Queensland (1994/1995)

• https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/646412
• https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Harmonic_Conquest_of_Space.html?id=AVRMvgAACAAJ
• https://epdf.pub/the-harmonic-conquest-of-space.html

— Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure I've exhausted every resource I can find now

That's it, this is likely as far as the article goes barring further new works on Cathie. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 13:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bruce Cathie was a New Zealand ufologist who proposed UFO flight paths and nuclear tests could be mathematically forecast?

• Source: For flight paths claim:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250904160246/https://www.newspapers.com/image/967795249/?terms=Cathie&match=1

For nuclear matters:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250829224155/https://www.newspapers.com/image/1222996847/?match=1&terms=Bruce%20Cathie

And

https://web.archive.org/web/20241007072643/https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-the-earth-a-g-crystal/

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mikhail Koudinov

5x expanded by Very Polite Person (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

— Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

• New Enough and yep 5x expansion. Long enough (obviously). I think this is neutral. The 28.1% on earwig might be a false positive. The hook is interesting, and in the article. I WP:AGF the source above as for some reason I cannot access wayback machine. QPQ is done. The problem now is: a) there are unferenced statements (and even a citation needed tag) (emphasising that his background combined formal training, military service, and long experience in civil aviation. and and that his work remained a point of contention long after his death.. Pinging @Very Polite Person: for response. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Miminity: All set, check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Cathie&diff=1310254018&oldid=1309915492

The cite needed was actually added by me when I redid it, as I wasn't sure how to even source that end few bits I inherited on my rebuild (apparently we can't source to IMDB?). The other two trailing lines are gone too--I had initially thought I could RS/V those but it didn't work out. My understanding is we don't need a source for the basic feature appearance noted in the last line as it's apparently well known enough? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting on Earwig, it seems to be tripping over quotes that I used and attributed and some common terms/names that are longer in the article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person:, still the last part is still unreferenced. I suggest removing it as per WP:POPCULTURE. Also, while I don't think those unreferenced statements are allowed under WP:SKYISBLUE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Miminity: good point, I pulled it. It wasn't exactly important to the article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay go to go . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)+

@Very Polite Person:, the newspaper.com sources (https://www.newspapers.com/image/967795249/ and https://www.newspapers.com/image/1222996847/ for anyone with access) state that he had predicted/found a pattern to where UFOs were sighted/nuclear tests occurred. I could be going blind but I don't see anywhere in the sources where it is stated that he proposed those things could be mathematically forecast. I think you need to adjust your hook.TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Flight paths first... In hindsight maybe it wasn't super duper obvious... so on Bruce Cathie, the Anaheim paper is [4] for source, comes up here:

In 1967, press accounts described him as a "respected amateur mathematician".[4]

and

In 1967, Copley Press in the Anaheim Bulletin reported that several UFO sightings in the area of Hawke's Bay on the North Island appeared to align with his calculations.[4]

For flight paths claim from Anaheim Bulletin, Wed, Dec 06, 1967, Page 42, "Pilot Finds Pattern in UFO Sightings":

• Mathematician comes from 2nd column, 2nd-3rd rows.
• For the flight bit, it's starting 1st column, "But Bruce Cathe, a 37-year old Fokker Friendship captain..."

We're not saying he can or did do it, but that he proposed it was a valid:

1. "plotted the positions", "grid of lines which Cathie drew up", "map and grid were drawn up two years before"
2. Now Column 3: Paragraphs 1-2 get into his approach
3. Column 4: line of this continues paragraphs 1-3 approaches what he was up to
4. Column 5: ties it together

The writer was juggling an absolute ton of balls and wrote a bizarrely dense article for something like this. Some of the sentences are doing multiple bits of scaffolding and and lifting. It took me a bit to see it too that way (this is the article that motivated me to save it from AfD; someone put a huge amount of effort into this 1967 article).

(Will reply separate on the nuke one.) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: For the nukes, I think I see what I did--I dropped the wrong source link here, and used an adjacent one. I linked what's used here:

In 1968, the New Zealand government engaged Cathie to provide research material related to nuclear testing by France at the island of Moruroa in the Pacific Ocean.[3]

Which is that nuke-related newspapers one from 1978. It's fine for the above, but I needed the one that is [9], for this in the article:

The Royal Aeronautical Society in Auckland invited Cathie to present his claims in 1968.[9] Vice stated that Cathie was invited to join the society's president and secretary at dinner, where they challenged him to demonstrate with his formulas to forecast the date of a French nuclear weapons test.[9] Cathie reportedly predicted 24 August at the event to his hosts based upon his maths at the table, and then on 24 August 1968, France detonated a nuclear weapon in Opération Canopus.[9]

That's Vice at this archive link here.

Passages:

The Oklo natural reactor discovery and the Russian report’s corroboration of the grid would push Cathie to venture to an even more out-there branch of his research—predicting nuclear detonation activity.

Cathie is adamant throughout his work that due to “the relative motions of the atomic particles” nuclear detonations can only be achieved “on, under, or over a specific geometric point related to the Earth’s surface at a specific time.” Cathie maintains that “the relative motions of the Earth and sun, at this instant of time, cause the disruption of the unstable particles of uranium, plutonium, cobalt or whatever unstable matter is used to trigger the explosion.”

In August 1968, he was invited to present his UFO research at the Royal Aeronautical Society in Auckland. The night before his presentation, he joined a dinner with the president and secretary of the society. Late in the evening, the conversation turned to Cathie’s nuclear bomb test theory. Cathie’s dining companions were skeptical of his calculations. As a challenge, they invited him to predict the date of the next French atomic test. Cathie ran the math at the table and predicted the 24th of that month. Sure enough, on August 24th, 1968, the Pacific Carrier Battle Group carried out Opération Canopus, making France the fifth country to test a thermonuclear device.

And I hate that it always feels like it needs to be reiterated to even performative levels, but again, in case: we're not saying he could, we're saying he said he could do all this. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: the closest I can see that supports the hook is

Vice stated that Cathie was invited to join the society's president and secretary at dinner, where they challenged him to demonstrate with his formulas to forecast the date of a French nuclear weapons test (from the nuclear test quotes)

and

several UFO sightings in the area of Hawke's Bay on the North Island appeared to align with his calculations (from the UFO quotes).

I'm not seeing that either support the assertion that Cathie proposed ... could be mathematically forecast. With the nuclear stuff it states that he was challenged to forecast the next nuclear test and that he reportedly did. This is not the same as saying that he proposed that the occurrence of nuclear tests could be mathematically forecast. With the UFO stuff it states that UFO sightings appear to align with his prior calculations. Again, this is not the same as stating that he proposed that UFO flight paths could be mathematically forecast. TarnishedPath^talk 22:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath... how about this? Just using strictly what's in the {{tq}} material here on this DYK page:

ALT2: ... that New Zealand ufologist Bruce Cathie claimed UFO sightings aligned with his calculations, and once used his formulas to forecast a French nuclear test? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person, sorry for the delated response. I think we'd need to use the word 'reportedly' in relation to the nuke prediction, given that the source does. Beyond that I have no other concerns. TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person and TarnishedPath: This nomination times out tomorrow, has everything been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know. Should be:

ALT3: ... that New Zealand ufologist Bruce Cathie claimed UFO sightings aligned with his calculations, and once reportedly used his formulas to forecast a French nuclear test? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's good to go. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

My issue is that hook seems to be too complicated, focusing on two main hook facts instead of one. Maybe it could instead focus on the nuclear test? Of course, since this is a UFOlogist we're talking about here, we need to make sure that the hook won't fall afoul of the WP:FRINGE police. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy with ALT3 now that what I'd asked for has been provided; however, I do see @Narutolovehinata5's point about it being complicated. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: @TarnishedPath:

How about this, split the difference and K.I.S.S.:

ALT4: ... that Bruce Cathie, a New Zealand ufologist, once reportedly forecast a French nuclear test?

Hits it all, keeps it easy. Two interesting links beyond the subject, minimal wording, applies the curious narrative intersection uses the less-commonly seen ufologist vs UFO, which gets plenty of screen time each year on the front page. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

, I'll approve ALT4. Not sure it will get promoted given what Narutolovehinata5 wrote about WP:FRINGE above; however, that will be the decision of someone else. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Cool. And that was actually User:Narutolovehinata5's worry, the complexity of two actions/clauses and so on. Now we just have subject, two descriptors (one exotic!) and then something he reportedly did, which tonally is weird and interesting. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This hook has not been promoted for nine days after its approval and is now eight days past WP:DYKTIMEOUT. Given the massive backlog of approved nominations, I am exercising my discretion under the TIMEOUT provision to mark this for closure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I guess I'll try again after GA. That's disappointing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

No judgment on the merits of the nomination itself, although as Naruto pointed out promoters may have been reluctant to move it forward; I decided to mark for closure solely on the clear timing out combined with a list of approved nominations so long they aren't even transcluding on the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bruce Cathie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AdaCiccone (talk · contribs) 02:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this one. Expect to hear from me by 16 July at the latest. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@AdaCiccone thanks! Let me know what you need. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person I'm very sorry, I think I'm gonna have to quick-fail this nom because it's a long way from satisfying criterion 4 (neutrality) and, to a lesser extent, criterion 3 (broadness). I've done the soure-to-text checks and I think the issue is structural, and not a matter of a few isolated phrasings. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead

The lead says Cathie's work "attracted both scepticism and support." But the body doesn't establish recognised scientific support. Its positive assessments mostly come from:

• a credulous 1967 wire-service feature
• Cathie himself
• his son
• his friend Bob Harvey
• fringe writers or speculative popular journalism.

The article doesn't identify a recognised mathematician, physicist, scientific institution or peer-reviewed publication that accepted Cathie's grid or harmonic theories. But "scepticism and support" places the two sides rhetorically alongside one another.

Criterion 3 issues

For someone whose notability is mostly about scientific UFO and nuclear theories, their intellectual status and reception are unmistakably main aspects.

The article has a lot of facts but it doesn't answer the crucial, encyclopedic questions like:

• What exactly was Cathie's theory?
• How did his methods supposedly work?
• What parts of it were testable?
• Its standing among relevant experts?
• Did it have any identifiable influence outside fringe literature?
• How was it received over time?

Instead, the article distributes pieces of the theory across the Eltanin, nuclear-testing and later-work sections. It never provides a compact, coherent explanation of the claimed causal chain from sightings to grid lines, harmonic values, propulsion, spacetime and nuclear detonation.

Also, it lacks a proper account of scientific reception. The sources has stuff to say that the theory was fringe and that its nuclear-geography claim has no accepted basis. They don't, however, support the suggestion of a meaningful scientific debate.

Criterion 4 issues

• Much of the favourable material are from Cathie himself, his family, a close friend and admirer, or credulous and speculative profiles. But the article uses such material to create the impression that Cathie's theories received meaningful scientific support.
• It is said that the NZ government "engaged" Cathie. The Claire Huff source doesn't independently establish that. It says:
  • Cathie stated that he kept the government informed
  • Cathie stated that he was encouraged
  • Cathie stated that he was asked to provide dates
  • Cathie stated that each date proved correct
  • All of that are his account

The existence of correspondence shows that letters existed but it doesn't prove govt endorsement, govt reliance on his research or govt validation of his calculations. The article later goes back to attribution ("He said..." and "He reported...") but the earlier categorical claim has already transformed his account into something like an institutional fact. The current wording is stronger than what the source says.

• The alleged successful prediction of the 24 August 1968 French nuke test is presented as a documented demonstration, but the available accounts don't verify independently the calculation or the circumstances it was supposedly made in.
  • The article narrates a neat sequence: Cathie attended dinner with Royal Aeronautical Society officers > they challenged him > he calculated 24 August > and then France detonated a weapon on that exact date. This creates the impression of an independently witnessed successful prediction.
  • But the Vice article offers no independent documentation regarding the dinner, contemporary written prediction, calculation, or testimony from the witnesses. It narrates the story in the style of Cathie's own account.
  • The Claire Huff source is even clearer, that the successful calculations are explicitly Cathie's claim: "Each date that I calculated proved to be correct."
  • Overall, this should've been presented as anecdote that's attributed to Cathie. Because of evidentiary weakness and its power to imply scientific success, it probably shouldn't be included at all.
• The article selectively uses Vice to rehabilitate Cathie.
  • The article has this: "scientists across disciplines have corroborated pieces of Cathie's grid puzzle" but then says merely that "some members" of mathematical communities regarded his work as "mathematical quirks."
  • The same source says that Cathie's work was fringe even within parts of the UFO community; criticisms increasingly treated it as mathematical quirks or number games; his nuke-detonation conditions had become entirely inconsequential; and geography plays no determining role in detonating a nuke.
  • The article uses the source's most flattering and speculative points but omits its clearest rejection of Cathie's major testable claim.
  • Vice's "corroboration" consists of analogies to crystallisation in Earth's inner core; magnetic anomalies; and an obscure consciousness-grid theory involving holographic software and binary light. These don't validate Cathie's UFO flight lines, harmonic mathematics, anti-gravity claims or nuclear-test theory.
• Harvey is presented as though he were an independent evaluator.
  • The article says that Harvey called Cathie a "serious researcher and not regarded as part of a lunatic fringe..."
  • But he explains that he personally regarded Cathie as a mathematical genius, became fascinated with his work, and remained his friend until 2013.
  • His article also adopts a credulous position toward UFO evidence, describing the material as "rich and true and still unexplained" and ending with an appeal to the idea that an improbable explanation may nevertheless be true.
  • Harvey can be cited for his personal recollections but certainly shouldn't function as an independent authority establishing Cathie's seriousness or distance from the "lunatic fringe." The way the article is written now, it doesn't give readers enough context to understand whose judgment this is.
• Early press accounts are promotional, not evaluative.
  • The 1967 Copley article calls Cathie a "respected amateur mathematician", a "reliable observer", and someone known for "level-headedness and cool judgment."
  • Then it claims that mathematicians in NZ and Australia found his calculations "irrefutable" and that "weighty, scientifically derived evidence" supported his grid, without naming who these mathematicians are.
  • This source has no names, institutions, publications, calculations or independent examination. Most of its substantive description comes directly from Cathie. It's a credulous human-interest feature, not a reliable source for scientific validation.
  • The article uses the "respected amateur mathematician" description for the biography but without explaining the source's promotional tone.

Addressing all of these requires a significant sources reassessment, removal or rewriting of numerous sentences, new research into reception, a rewritten lead, and overall a major restructuring. That obviously exceeds the scope of a normal GA hold, hence my decision to quick-fail this. Feel free to renominate after all of that has been addressed. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality and article reassessment

I've recently finished a GAN review on the article (see above) and I believe a neutrality tag and a reassessment (from B to C) is necessary. If the above review is too long to read for you, in a nutshell I've found issues with due weight, attribution and source treatment, like the presentation of Cathie's own claims and sympathetic accounts as though they show scientific or institutional support. I've also found that the article gives a lot of space to peripheral material while at the same time not adequately explaining the theory's reception and standing among relevant experts. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)