Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Mike Ruppert, Canadian TV panel purport US Govt 9-11 complicity, transcript to be on web, "may The Schwartz be with you"

Expand Messages
  • David Crockett Williams
    5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TVFormer award winning LAPD officer and now prominent investigative journalist on US
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 12, 2002
      5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV
      Former award winning LAPD officer and now prominent investigative journalist on US government intel agency corruption, Mike Ruppert will appear on panel of experts in 5 upcoming air dates for Canadian TV with web access for transcript of program claiming US Government complicity in 9-11 attacks.  Dr. Jackshift Sarfatti, with nominal physique of consciousness, says "it's all lies" (sight unseen) because The Schwartz told him so.  What do you think?
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      [[[see more at http://www.copvcia.com]]]
      Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:04 PM
      Subject: 5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV

      5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV

      Canadian Mainstream TV to Air Roundtable of Experts, Govt Official, Discussing US Govt Complicity in 9-11 Attacks

      by

      Greta Knutzen, FTW Staff Writer

      TORONTO, Mar. 10, 2002 (FTW) Michael C. Ruppert, editor and publisher of From The Wilderness, raised more than a few eyebrows, during a televised debate, when he presented a scathing indictment of US government complicity in the attacks of September 11. The program, produced by Vision TV, is estimated to reach 7 million North American homes. Vision TV Insight presents the special one-hour long edition of Mediafile, entitled “9/11 Roundtable,” that will air on Thurs., Mar. 14, at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET on the Vision TV network.

      Special added screenings have been scheduled for Mar. 15 at 7 AM and 1 PM and for Saturday Mar. 16 at 8 PM. All times are Eastern Standard Time.

      Six months after the attacks of September 11, the official explanation of events has been left largely unchallenged by mainstream North American media. The producers of Vision TV Insight have taken bold steps aimed at challenging the status quo, reminding us that the media does have a duty to inform and challenge its audience. The programme “9/11 Roundtable,” follows on the heals of Vision TV’s Medialfile host, Barrie Zwicker’s controversial six-part commentary which boldly examined the official narrative of the events of September 11 and found it to be “frankly implausible.” Zwicker’s series touched a nerve. The positive response it received indicates that there is a growing audience that does indeed want answers to the questions exposed by the official explanation of events of September 11 and its aftermath.

      The groundswell of opposition to the official narrative of 9/11 is reflected by Rupperts increasingly popular lecture series, bourgeoning FTW subscription lists and massive sales of his video, “The Truth and Lies about 9/11.” Increasing numbers of people in all walks of life, are clearly eager for alternative analysis of the events of September 11 and unwilling to accept the official narrative any longer.

      “9/11 Roundtable,” hosted by executive producer Rita Deverell, provides a forum for a long overdue yet refreshingly frank debate focusing on the question, what really happened on September 11? Ruppert faces an influential Canadian panel including Ron Atkey Q.C., former chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the agency responsible for CSIS (the Canadian intelligence community), journalist-educator Peter Desbarats, and ethicist Phyllis Creighton. Rupperts insightful analysis challenged the panel to tackle thorny issues such as the relationship between illicit drug trade, oil and U.S. foreign policy; the long history between the bin Laden and Bush families; questions raised by the actions and inaction of the U.S. government prior to, and on, September 11; and the lack of plausibility and logic in the U.S. governments official explanation of those events.

      “9/11 Roundtable,” provides a valuable alternative to the passive and subservient post-9/11mainstream media coverage and deserves audience attention. Transcripts of the show and Zwickers controversial series can be obtained from http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/insight.htm  

      Panel bios:

      Peter Desbarats was the Dean of Journalism at the University of Western Ontario from 1981-97. He sat on the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia and was later appointed as the Maclean Hunter Chair of Communications Ethics at Ryerson University.

      Ron Atkey Q.C. was a former Conservative Solicitor General and minister in the government of Joe Clark. From 1984-89, he was the first chairman of he Security Intelligence Review Committee, the agency responsible for CSIS (the Canadian secret service).

      Phyllis Creighton serves on the Health Canada board on reproductive technologies. She is a council member of the International Peace Bureau, the oldest peace organization in the world. She was a member of the group that produced “Just War? Just Peace!, an educational resource for the Anglican and Lutheran churches. 

      -----------end forwarded post
       
       
      Star Wars physics proponent Dr. Sarfatti's fantastics about his physics of consciousness and "the mind of God" are at http://www.stardrive.org along with latest draft of his almost-finished new book, "The Destiny Matrix" which might even get him on The Oprah Show with Gary Zukov for whom he ghost-wrote all the physics for "Dancing Wu Li Masters".  The Jackshifter's earlier book agent was the "famous now infamous" and currently extradited from France and imprisoned in Pennsylvania ex-Philadelphia "hippie guru" Ira Einhorn of "Unicorn Killer" fame purportedly framed for a 1979 murder (like Bill Tyree perhaps, see http://www.copvcia.com) to discredit and shut him up about matters such as info at Ruppert's site which he was talking too much about in the 1970's while Sarfatti et al were working on CIA mind control theoretics and experiments and others in Einhorn info network purportedly worked on advanced electromagnetic energy weapons of mass destruction which some think are now nearly online http://www.cheniere.org or, as Sarfatti and Einhorn et. al. argue about, even perhaps reverse engineered or engineerable from crashed UFO's  http://www.cseti.com , while the new energy technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power available from this new science are apparently not being taken seriously in places like the California Energy Commission and CA Energy Czar's office which cancelled the appointment it made recently with Dr. Brian O'Leary for their briefing and have not responded in eight months since our visit to Governor Davis' office to deliver introductory materials on these technologies last August http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions perhaps due to "national security concerns".
       
      How to resolve?  Truth-Amnesty-Reconciliation: Recognition and acceptance of the truth of the matter, sincere repentance of then understood wrong-doing/thinking, acceptance of pardon/amnesty, working together for the good thereafter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truthamnestyreconciliation "Forgive them for they know not what they do" -- but let's soon awaken from denial and get onto the right track to global peace now.

      David Crockett Williams
      for an American Peace Movement
      Science and Technology in Society and Public Policy
    • Jack Sarfatti
      This is a bunch of seditious nonsense and everything you say about me is complete disinformation and misinformation distorted out of context to fit your
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 12, 2002
        This is a bunch of seditious nonsense and everything you say about me is complete disinformation and misinformation distorted out of context to fit your anti-American agenda. You belong in prison with the al Qaeda and the Taliban. That's where Abe Lincoln would have put you in 1861.

        David Crockett Williams wrote:
        5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV
        Former award winning LAPD officer and now prominent investigative journalist on US government intel agency corruption, Mike Ruppert will appear on panel of experts in 5 upcoming air dates for Canadian TV with web access for transcript of program claiming US Government complicity in 9-11 attacks.  Dr. Jackshift Sarfatti, with nominal physique of consciousness, says "it's all lies" (sight unseen) because The Schwartz told him so.  What do you think?
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        [[[see more at http://www.copvcia.com ]]]
        Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:04 PM
        Subject: 5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV

        5 Airdates for One Hour Special Featuring Mike Ruppert on Canadian TV

        Canadian Mainstream TV to Air Roundtable of Experts, Govt Official, Discussing US Gov t Complicity in 9-11 Attacks

        b y

        Greta Knutzen, FTW Staff Writer

        TORONTO, Mar. 10, 2002(FTW) Michael C. Ruppert, editor and publisher of From The Wilderness , raised more than a few eyebrows, during a televised debate, when he presented a scathing indictment of US government complicity in the attacks of September 11. The program, producedby Vision TV, is estimated to reach 7 million North American homes. Vision TV Insight presents the special one-hour long edition of Mediafile, entitled “9/11 Roundtable,” that will air on Thurs., Mar. 14, at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET on the Vision TV network.

        Special added screenings have been scheduled for Mar. 15 at 7 AM and 1 PM and for Saturday Mar. 16 at 8 PM. All times are Eastern Standard Time.

        Six months after the attacks of September 11, the official explanation of events has been left largely unchallenged by mainstream North American media. The producers of Vision TV Insight have taken bold steps aimed at challenging the status quo, reminding us that the media does have a duty to inform and challenge its audience. The programme “9/11 Roundtable,” follows on the heals of Vision TV’s Medialfile host, Barrie Zwicker’s controversial six-part commentary which boldly examined the official narrative of the events of September 11 and found it to be “frankly implausible.” Zwicker’s series touched a nerve. The positive response it received indicates that there is a growing audience that does indeed want answers to the questions exposed by the official explanation of events of September 11 and its aftermath.

        The groundswell of opposition to the official narrative of 9/11 is reflected by Rupperts increasingly popular lecture series, bourgeoning FTWsubscription lists and massive sales of his video, “TheTruth and Lies about 9/11.” Increasing numbers of people in all walks of life, are clearly eager for alternative analysis of the events of September 11 and unwilling to accept the official narrative any longer.

        “9/11 Roundtable,” hosted by executive producer Rita Deverell, provides a forum for a long overdue yet refreshingly frank debate focusing on the question, whatreally happened on September 11? Ruppert faces an influential Canadian panel including Ron Atkey Q.C., former chairman of the Security Int elligence Review Committee, the agency responsible for CSIS (the Canadian intelligence community), journalist-educator Peter Desbarats, and ethicist Phyllis Creighton. Ruppert s insightful analysis challenged the panel to tackle thorny issues such as therelationship between illicit drug trade, oil and U.S. foreign policy; the long history between the bin Laden and Bush families; questions raised by the actions and inaction of the U.S. government prior to, and on, September 11; and the lack of plausibility and logic in the U.S. governments official explanation of those events.

        “9/11 Roundtable,” provides a valuable alternative to the passive and subservient post-9/11mainstream media coverage and deserves audience attention. Transcripts of the show and Zwicker s controversial series can be obtained from http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/insight.htm   

        Panel bios:

        Peter Desbarats was the Dean of Journalism at the University of Wester n Ontario from 1981-97. He sat on the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia and was later appointed as the Maclean Hunter Chair of Communications Ethics at Ryerson University.

        Ron Atkey Q.C. was a former Conservative Solicitor General and minister in the government of Joe Clark. From 1984-89, he was the first chairman of he Security Intelligence Review Committee, the agency responsible for CSIS (the Canadian secret service).

        Phyllis Creighton serves on the Health Canadaboard on reproductive technologies. She is a council member of the International Peace Bureau, the oldest peace organization in the world. She was a member of the group that produced “Just War? Just Peace !, an educational resource for the Anglican and Lut heran churches. 

        -----------end forwarded post
         
         
        Star Wars physics proponent Dr. Sarfatti's fantastics about his physics of consciousness and "the mind of God" are at http://www.stardrive.org along with latest draft of his almost-finished new book, "The Destiny Matrix" which might even get him on The Oprah Show with Gary Zukov for whom he ghost-wrote all the physics for "Dancing Wu Li Masters".  The Jackshifter's earlier book agent was the "famous now infamous" and currently extradited from France and imprisoned in Pennsylvania ex-Philadelphia "hippie guru" Ira Einhorn of "Unicorn Killer" fame purportedly framed for a 1979 murder (like Bill Tyree perhaps, see http://www.copvcia.com ) to discredit and shut him up about matters such as info at Ruppert's site which he was talking too much about in the 1970's while Sarfatti et al were working on CIA mind control theoretics and experiments and others in Einhorn info network purportedly worked on advanced electromagnetic energy weapons of mass destruction which some think are now nearly online http://www.cheniere.org or, as Sarfatti and Einhorn et. al. argue about, even perhaps reverse engineered or engineerable from crashed UFO's  http://www.cseti.com , while the new energy technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power available from this new science are apparently not being taken seriously in places like the California Energy Commission and CA Energy Czar's office which cancelled the appointment it made recently with Dr. Brian O'Leary for their briefing and have not responded in eight months since our visit to Governor Davis' office to deliver introductory materials on these technologies last August http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions perhaps due to "national security concerns".

        It's spelled "Zukav" BTW. I make no such argument about "reversed engineering". That's Colonel Phil Corso you fool not me. My work in this area is summarized in

        http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

        and it's all basically mainstream physics, no Tesla crap, no Einstein-bashing, just kosher physics. Brian O Leary is a complete incompetent idiot whose book is worthless. He has no understanding of physics. The book by Nick Cook is also very dubious. There is a massive anti-American disinformation operation using UFO Mania, Althernative Energy, and Ban Space Weapons to over excite all the fatuous New Age Imbecile Leftists like yourself to rabble rouse in the streets and be cannon fodder for more sinister forces allied with al Qaeda.
         
        How to resolve?  Truth-Amnesty-Reconciliation: Recognition and acceptance of the truth of the matter, sincere repentance of then understood wrong-doing/thinking, acceptance of pardon/amnesty, working together for the good thereafter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/truthamnestyreconciliation  "Forgive them for they know not what they do" -- but let's soon awaken from denial and get onto the right track to global peace now.

        David Crockett Williams
        for an American Peace Movement
        Science and Technology in Society and Public Policy

        -- 
        "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
         http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
         http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
         http://stardrive.org/
        
        

      • Jack Sarfatti
        This is The Real Schwartz Report, not that New Sewage Rumor Mongering on Inanities by The Other Schwartz and by Jeff Rense who has no sense at all of All The
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 12, 2002
          Stephen Schwartz on America's 5th Column & Axis of Evil This is The Real Schwartz Report, not that New Sewage Rumor Mongering on Inanities by The Other Schwartz and by Jeff Rense who has no sense at all of "All The News That's FIT To Print".


          A lot of these cruds are incensed when you won't let them be followers.

          Stephen Schwartz

          Karastjepa@... wrote:
          Sheehan is whore number one.

          Kucinich, with whom I have a lot of experience, not as a client, is whore number two.

          Do not allow anybody to attack His Holiness the Dalai Lama and especially do not assist this vermin Farley in circulating KGB/Chicom disinfo against H.H.  I have my own differences with the Dalai Lama but he is a major component in the worldwide alliance against evil.

          The Tibetans are true sacred warriors for the freedom of their people and of all sentient beings.  Tibetans are like Kosovars and Uzbeks -- they don't take shit, even if they are Buddhists.  I would be thrilled to see Farley spout this crap to some Tibetans.  They would knock his fucking block off, which is exactly what he deserves.  

          Stephen Schwartz
          I believe with absolute and perfect faith that the loudmouth enemies of the Bush administration, ranging from Big White Anthro Chief Littledick to Paul Zielinski, are, knowingly or not, accomplices of terror.  They believe that their need to spout disinformation in proving their anti-government creds is of greater importance to humanity today than the effort of Bush and colleagues -- myself and Jack Sarfatti included -- to prevent an eternal war between Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilization.  Littledick is the worst example -- he really thinks everything is about him having an absolute right to spout off insults against our leaders.  It isn't and he doesn't.  But Zielinski is clearly unable to let go of his compulsive need to prove I was wrong lo, these many years ago, when I told him he was a nobody and his opinions about Kosovo were of no significance whatever.  He is and they aren't.

          I also believe that George W. Bush is one of the greatest presidents this republic was ever favored with.  I thank God, Baruch Hashem and Alhamdilullah, that we have a leader like him in this time of trial.  No, he isn't Lincoln, but he is Truman.  

          By the way, I don't need to mention it a lot but I was in the target zone on 9/11 and I was fucking scared.  It was like being under the tread of a dinosaur.  My hands shook and I kept asking myself, are we next? Will I die today?  People around me were crying.  I wrote about it the next day in THE NEW YORK POST -- perhaps my greatest honor as a journalist -- a real journalist -- was that the POST asked me to write a column on the afternoon of 9/11. All this is in my book.  Littledick and the other pissants in places like Accidental College have no idea what that was like, or for that matter, what the anthrax scare, which I also went through, was like.  Richard Torre can tell you that during the anthrax crisis I told him I had begun to think it was all over, that civilization as we knew it would end.  At that point, I wasn't scared, but I was deeply depressed.  I looked back at the life I had led, the books I wrote, the women I loved, my life with my son, the places I visited. I thought it was all over.

          Bush gave me strength, and Rumsfeld gave me strength.  You smart little professors who sit in your offices making fun of these men -- go for it.  Nobody is going to stop you.  But you will never know how grateful I was that our president in that hour was not a sophisticated Clinton or Gore who would fold in the face of such a threat.  We have a president who is simple in his views and that is what we need.  He knows the difference between good and evil.  You don't and that's too bad for you.

          I watched the 9/11 doc last night.  That French kid who was in the south tower when it collapsed -- he used his video camera light to guide the firemen out.  He was a hero beyond anything you can imagine.  The firemen were strong and calm and mad
          e their way to safety.  There will never be greater heroes.  I'm sure Littledick and Zielinski would have been of great use at that moment; they could have repeated all their insults against the president and spouted off about oil in Kosovo.  

          And the firemen would still have worked to save them, too, because that's how this country, my country, is.

          No liberty for the enemies of liberty!

          Stephen Schwartz




          Another of the more interesting things about this list is the distinction between the obnoxious types like Jack and me, and our critics, in terms of content.  I open Jack's docs and find physics and math.  Open my docs and you will find serious discussion of major political issues.  Of course, being irascible old guys, we throw a few insults here and there as well, especially when we have to put up with a steady stream of spam from the losers.  When you read what Anthrochief, Schwann, Zielinski, Farley and the rest put out, there typically is no there there, especially when they delve into politics.  Anthrochief really thinks that calling Bush a fool or referring to Lynne Cheney as a bitch (someone I am sure he has never met) is, like, real effective, man.  Schwann burbles around a bunch of insults and gossip. Zielinski depends on wisecracks and misinformation.  Farley is rumor all the way.  There is never any coherence to it.  There is no argument.  Just babbling by people who never left the high school cafeteria.

          Bottom line being that the trash talk to each other in this shorthand.  Calling Bush dumb or Lynne Cheney a bitch, or yapping about oil in Kosovo, is not communication, it's a mutual recognition sign among the scum.  It would make a good anthrolingo study; how dumbass, worthless, cowardly, stupid, lowlife lefties mutually reinforce each other's crap by repeating it as a litany.  It resembles the mutual recog codes among gays.  

          Stephen Schwartz  

          This is why I hate anthros.  Please redistribute.

          Article URL is http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/000/037tlvsy.asp


          Margaret Mead was deeply involved in the penetration of American academia by the KGB.  A shocking story in every respect.  She enabled Mark Zborowski, Stalin's most dangerous assassin, to gain credentials as, what else, an anthropologist.  
          Sorry, no moral equivalence allowed.  Stay in South Africa if you can't
          understand the difference between Russian imperialism and American
          imperialism.  Even Trotsky described American imperialism as benevolent.

          Stephen Schwartz

          More response to Littledick.

          I learned to fieldstrip and reassemble an M1 when I was in high school ROTC.  
          Hardly a major technical challenge.

          Littledick's brain is mush.  He wants the extermination of all Islamic
          fundamentalists.  Bush doesn't want that and neither do I.  What we want is
          to neutralize political support for terrorism.  Not the same thing at all.

          Then says he is a social democrat, vomits out a bunch of self-contradictory
          crap about world economy, and finally comes right out with it -- believes in
          UFOs a la John Mack.  The idea that universities continue to shelter these
          crazies is outrageous.   

          No more discussion with Littledick for me.  Let him fly away on his UFO.

          Schwartz

          Big White Anthro Chief Littledick (hereafter BWAC) speak with forked tongue
          again.  Idiot boy thinks that Bush is too dumb to know anything and is being
          fed lines by Powell.  In fact, Powell is largely out of the loop in DC --
          policy is being made by Bush and Rumsfeld with Powell as a spare wheel.

          Most revealing -- BWAC says he wants Mecca and Medina nuked!  The issue here
          really is incoherence.  Big Whitey doesn't know what his brain is for or how
          to think.  It does not occur to him that the point of the present policy,
          which is set by Bush, is to make distinctions between the Islamic extremists
          and mainstream Islam.  Powell's policy is one of sucking up to the Saudis,
          which is why there is a not-so-hidden split in the administration.

          The U.S. academy is filled with these little pricks.  Big White is supposedly
          65 or 70 years old, or so one would presume from his claim to have fought in
          Korea.  Once again, we see Big White's incoherence -- he claims to defend all
          sorts of nice intellectual dialogue and so forth and then makes it a matter
          of macho challenges.

          No, I didn't serve in the armed forces.  But I have looked down plenty of gun
          barrels as a revolutionary, a counter-revolutionary, a crime reporter, and a
          journalist in the Balkans.  I was there in 1991 when the Serbs first grabbed
          territory in Croatia, and they were stopping cars and waving guns.  But I
          also make a living honestly, not as a witch doctor promoting a genocidal
          pseudoscience called anthropology.  Anthros kill.  In fact, I know a
          fascinating case of an indigenous Central American culture wiped out with the
          complicity of Big White Anthro Chiefs.  Someday I'll publish that.   Anthros
          do something even worse than the Stalinist physicists did.  They claim to be
          scientists and humanists and objective and bla bla but they use their
          pseudoscience as a means of imposing genocidal ideologies on helpless people.
          The perversion of politics by ideology is bad enough but the corruption of
          science and art by ideology is worse.

          Here's the point, which is as relevant to your physics project as to our book
          and to my projects.

          Nobody would argue that we should not guarantee the right of people to
          express opinions.  But what BWAC, Schwann, and Zielinski are doing is not
          expressing opinions.  Opinion would involve first knowing what's going on,
          and then expressing differences or criticism of a policy.  Rather, they come
          into the public square with the claim that they have superior knowledge over
          the rest of us.  They don't try to change people's opinion.  They try to take
          over the debate and turn it into a platform for sedition.   BWAC, who has no
          idea what the relationship of positions and persons is in DC, constantly uses
          this bombastic vocabulary to try to assert that he knows more about Bush and
          the leadership than those of us who are here in DC.  Schwann is similar,
          claiming to know all sorts of things about you and me.  Zielinski, who has
          never done anything in his life except drink coffee and do petty grad student
          research, says he knows more than I do about Balkan history.   What I learned
          about the Balkans involved a decade of study and travels in the area.  And
          even now, I constantly point out to people that my views change as I receive
          new data.  BWAC, Schwann, and Zielinski's opinions do not change because they
          refuse to receive new data.

          This isn't a matter of their opinions.  It's rumormongering and propaganda
          recycled by the enemy's dupes.  They do not seek to express an opinion.   
          They seek to boost their own ego by claiming they know more than everyone
          else, when they actually know nothing or next to nothing.  Worse, they
          constantly seek to undermine public confidence in our government.   How can
          one imagine Big White Anthro Chief Littledick at Accidental College actually
          knowing anything about what's going on in DC?

          I believe that when the republic is under attack we have to moderate the
          (actually ridiculous) position that the number one American value is
          guaranteeing freedom to the enemies of freedom.  France and Canada have laws
          prohibiting rumormongering and false reporting.  France makes it a crime to
          question the Holocaust.   Canada has taken legal action against Holocaust
          deniers.  (Watch out, Hick Nurdbutt!)

          I increasingly favor legal and academic standards that would prevent people
          like Littledick from abusing their official academic e-mails to spew hatred
          of our leaders.  I was going to pillory him on one of the rightwing websites
          for his infamous comment demanding to know who Johnny Spann was -- does him
          credit as an alleged vet, I'm sure.  But in looking at the messages he has
          sent out I now think it would be better for me to file a complaint with his
          dean.   I suspect him of trying to feed a virus into my computer.  I can only
          imagine with the most extreme horror the kind of subversive guff he is
          doubtless shoveling out to his students.

          I am also in favor of legal restrictions on rumormongering.  

          This would mean a change in America that would make us more like Britain or
          France and less of a looney bin filled with idiots who think they can say
          anything they want under the protection of the constitution.  It would
          certainly lower the level of seditious noise.   But as was once said, there
          is no freedom to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.

          Stephen Schwartz


          It's important to realize that this article appeared in a Bosnian Serb newspaper and was then translated on a U.S. Serb website.  That is, there is no doubt of its veracity.  -- Stephen Schwartz

          Damir Glancer, a criminal police technician at the Police Station in Teslic,
          whose father Viktor was arrested, tortured and murdered by "Mice" [A Serb death squad-SAS] in the Police prison, relates his memories for Nezavisne Novine from Israel, where he lives in exile

          They Slapped me and Put me in Prison:
          They Thought I was a Croat


          Nezavisne Novine, Banja Luka, Srpska, B-H, October 6, 1999

          I was born in Teslic in a family which treated this town as its home town. None of the family members ever paid any attention to ethnic origin. My wife is a Serb, from Ruzevac, my brother's wife a Croat, my parents come from mixed
          marriages... Ethnic origin was never discussed in our house.

          When it was requested in the Police that employees sign a loyalty oath to the
          newly proclaimed Republic of Srpska, I signed since I felt that I belonged in this town and with its people. I think that only three of us non-Serbs, signed this oath... Of course, I never thought there could be a war. I heard first time about "Mice" when the "war" in Doboj started. I remember that Predo Markocevic and
          Marinko Djukic talked about what "Mice" were doing in Doboj; they said that
          "Mice" should come to Teslic to "introduce order". I remember the day when
          "Mice" arrived to Teslic very well. I was returning from an investigation in Banja
          Vrucica. Passing through the town I realized that something unusual was going
          on. When we came in front of the Police Station, I saw that all employees had
          been chased out of the building and forced to line up in front of it. I saw that Police Chief Dusan Kuzmanovic, commander Predo Markocevic and chief of serious crime department M! arinko Djukic were standing on one side. I was stopped by a stranger in uniform. He carried a gun and demanded to see my official identification papers and my weapons. When he saw my name, he said "a Croat" and asked "What are you doing here?". Then he started to hit me. Finally he handcuffed me and ordered that I be taken to the prison.

          This was the most humiliating experience in my life. I cannot describe that... I was the first prisoner in the cellar of the Police Station, which would later be
          converted into a prison. After a while, a colleague came down and asked me what I was doing there. After I told him what had happened, he went to beg Predo and Marinko to intervene. They did not do anything, so that the colleague went to talk to chief Kuzmanovic. I found out that Kuzmanovic then went to see one of "Mice" and told them that I wasn't a Croat but a Jew. After that I was released after about three hours in captivity.

          I went home that day and did not say anything to anyone. I though that the whole thing was an accident and that it was just a passing phase. The following night at about three in the morning Predo called me to go on an investigation in Ruzevac. We finished our work without trouble and in the morning I went to work. At about 10am a group of Dobojlije [people from the town of Doboj] burst into the station together with my former colleague Milan Savic and inspector Dragan Gagovic. Savic approached me and said fairly politely. "Damir, you should go home". I turned over my official weapon, obtained a receipt and went home.

          On June 7, my mother told me that the father had been arrested. I asked who had taken him away. When she said that our policemen had taken him away, I thought "that's good, they know me, they know dad..." I tried to get in touch with my colleagues, to see what was going on. I couldn't find anyone, no one could tell me anything.

          Those days, life in Teslic was horrible. Curfew, I couldn't go anywhere, I could
          hear swearing through the window, no one was coming to visit... I prepared a
          propane bottle, to kill myself if they came to arrest me again.

          When "Mice" were arrested, a colleague of mine came and said that Pile wanted to talk to us. I went and he asked me whether I would be willing to return to work. Since we had already heard that some prisoners had been killed, I asked him about my father and he said that he would check. I talked to my mother and uncle Drago Jazbec about the job offer and accepted to return to the Police. I did not even think that my father was murdered by Serbs, but by criminals.

          I worked until the Police Station in Teslic again came under the jurisdiction of
          Doboj. When the people who had collaborated with "Mice" returned to the
          Station, I realized what could happen to me and started to weigh my options. I
          knew that they knew what I knew. When they told me "you are going to Vozuca" [a Serb majority town south from Doboj, the site of a Bosniak-Muslim offensive in 1995] I decided to leave Teslic. When I returned alive from Vozuca, I picked up my papers and went to Belgrade and then to Israel.

          Some people had told my father to leave before "Mice" arrived to Teslic. I
          remember that he responded by saying: "Why should we run away when we
          haven't wronged anyone, everyone knows me, they were all my pupils..." Once
          uncle Drago told dad: "Viktor, you, I and Boro are all on the list..." Father did not believe him.

          I heard that someone tried to hide father in an office when they were taking them from the prison to Borje and that policeman Aleksa Petrovic said that one
          prisoner was missing... That man took many people to death. He took my father and Boro Pastuhovic to prison. I've been told that he was one of the main collaborators of "Mice".

          Some of my colleagues swore that they did not know that my father was in
          prison. I know that Vlado Trifunovic and Milan Nedic assisted some people. I
          know that reserve policeman Aleksa Jovic was the only one to help prisoners as much as he could. I do not understand how and why no one was able to save my father.

          I found my father after seven years and now I at least know where his grave is. I had a hard time dealing with the fact that he was horribly tortured. An autopsy
          found out that he was missing half of his scull and that all of his ribs were
          broken. He was really bestially tortured.

          --
          "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
          http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
          http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
          http://stardrive.org/



        • Jack Sarfatti
          Copyright 2002, Jack Sarfatti Destiny Matrix http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.pdf Comments on Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen The City of Copenhagen has
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 12, 2002
            God, Man and Physics at The Templeton Foundation Copyright 2002, Jack Sarfatti "Destiny Matrix"
            http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.pdf

            Comments on "Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen"

            The City of Copenhagen has produced not one but two great spinners of
            Fairy Tales.

            Hans Christian Anderson and Niels Bohr who wrote "The Legend of The
            Smoky Dragon".

            http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/bellerm/qdialogue.htm

            Jack Sarfatti wrote:

            >Thanks Saul-Paul. I will redistribute this.
            >
            >From: "S-P & M-M Sirag " <sirag@...>
            >Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:20:54 -0800
            >To: sarfatti@..., ibison@...
            >Subject: Re: Templeton Prize on God as Physicist
            >
            >
            >Jack,
            >
            >Paul Davies wrote two books that got the attention of the Templeton Prize
            >people. They both have quite a lot about God in them--not just on the cover.
            >

            "My best conundrum wasted!" King Gama in "Princess Ida" G & S

            >
            >
            >*God and the New Physics* (Simon and Schuster, 1983) has the following
            >chapters which discuss God and the nature of reality:
            >    1. Science and religion in a changing world
            >    3. Did God create the universe?
            >    6. Mind and soul
            >    10. Free will and determinism
            >    12. Accident or design?
            >    14. Miracles
            >    17. The Physicist's conception of nature
            >
            >*The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World* (Simon and
            >Schuster, 1992) discusses the God question in the following chapters:
            >    1. Reason and belief
            >    2. Can the universe create itself
            >    7. Why is the world the way it is?
            >    8. Designer universe
            >    9. The mystery at the end of the universe
            >
            >Actually, these books philosophical rather than being theological; and they
            >contain a fair amount of contemporary physics.
            >

            My answers to these questions are in http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

            http://wwwsys.informatik.fh-wiesbaden.de/weber1/melchior/melsnd.htm
            click on
            Morgenlich leuchtend (prize song) (Die Meistersinger von N├╝rnberg,
            Richard Wagner), Lauritz Melchior, London Symphony Orchestra, cond. by
            John Barbirolli, 1931,

            Briefly in terms of Wheelerisms

            The Cipher of Genesis, Rabbi Sarfatti's Version (e.g. Solomon Ha
            Zarfati, Troyes, France 1040-1105)
            http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

            (See John Updike's "Roger's Version" and "The Witches of Eastwick")

            Wheeler's

            "It From Bit"

            What is "It"?

            What is "Bit"?

            You need Bohm's Version not Bohr's.

            It's Time To Slay "The Smoky Dragon!"

            The Emperor Has No Clothes.

            "It" is classical "material". Geometry is "material" in this sense of
            "It". "It" is a "system point" moving on a "landscape".

            Got It?

            Good.

            "Bit" is really "Qubit" not Shannon classical or c-Bit. "Qubit" is
            intrinsically "mental". It is the "pilot wave" landscape.

            "It From Bit" is It getting "its marching orders from" Bit.

            Examples

            psi = |psi|e^itheta  = Qubit Field of pure mentality -- physically real
            but nonclassical, non material.

            V = (h/m)Grad theta - (e/hc)A

            is an example of It (V) From Bit (theta).

            V is 3-vector velocity of "Bohm Hidden Variable" (particle) receiving
            its marching orders from the phase theta of (pilot wave) psi and also
            the 3-vector potential A if the particle carries electric charge e.

            A more profound example of "It From Bit" is the 4-dimensional equation

            guv(x) = (1/2)Lp^2{D*u,D*v}theta

            Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1 Bekenstein "Bit" of area 10^-66 cm^2.

            Detailed math definitions are in

            http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

            psi is the Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual infrared Goldstone
            tachyons in the macroscopic quantum phase transition from Flat World to
            Curve World.

            Flat World consists only of locally random virtual zero point
            U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) gauge force spin 1 massless bosons and massless spin
            1/2 quanta along with spin 0 quanta of mass M.  The macroscopic quantum
            phase transition is when M moves from real positive to imaginary axis
            through zero with an effective potential

            V(psi*,psi) = M^2 psi*psi + b(psi*psi)^2

            b > 0 always

            M^2 > 0 -> M^2 < 0 is the macroscopic quantum phase transition from
            virtual random spin 0 quanta to virtual nonrandom tachyonic
            Bose-Einstein condensate with local order parameter psi(x).  A local
            order parameter has long range quantum phase coherence, i.e. theta(x)
            field.

            The Landau-Ginzburg "Bit From It" equation is

            D^uDupsi + M^2psi + b|psi|^2psi = 0

            M^2 < 0, b > 0

            With scalar spin 0 nonlinear covariant D'Alembertian operator

            D^uDu + M^2 + b|psi|^2

            This solves Andre Sakharov's problem of 1967, i.e.

            How come gravity from zero point fluctuations?

            I complete Wheeler's fragments

            "It From Bit?"

            "Universe as Self-Excited Circuit?"

            http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/DrawingHands.html

            With the "equation"

            "It From Bit" + "Bit From It" = "Universe as Self-Excited Circuit?"

            Einstein asked:  "Did God had any choice when He created the universe?"

            Hawking asked: "What is It that breathes life (fire) into the equations
            of physics?"

            Rabbi Sarfatti's answer: "God had no choice when He created the
            universe. He made Himself an offer He could not refuse."

            What else is there for an Omniscient Omnipotentate?

            "My Object All Sublime, I shall achieve In Space-Time"
            http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/song17.html
            http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/song17.mid

            >
            >Another philosophical book which deals with the God question has not
            >aparently come to the attention of the Templeton people. This is *The Whys
            >of a Philosophical Scrivener* by Martin Gardner --yes THE Martin Gardner ;-)
            >Here is a list of the chapters in Gardner's book (published by Quill, New
            >York, 1983, the same year as Davies first "God" book:
            >
            >    1. The World: Why I Am Not a Solipsist
            >    2. Truth: Why I Am Not a Pragmatist
            >    3. Science: Why I Am Not a Paranormalist
            >    4. Beauty: Why I Am Not an Aesthetic Relativist
            >    5. Goodness: Why I Am Not an Ethical Relativist
            >    6. Free Will: Why I Am Not a Determinist or Haphazardist
            >    7. The State: Why I Am Not an Anarchist
            >    8. The State: Why I Am Not a Smithian
            >    9. Liberty: Why I Am Not a Marxist
            >    10. The Gods: Why I Am Not a Polytheist
            >    11. The All: Why I Am not a Panthiest
            >    12. The Proofs: Why I Do Not Believe God's Existence Can be Demonstrated
            >    13. Faith: Why I Am Not an Athiest
            >    14. Prayer: Why I Do Not Think It Foolish
            >    15. Evil: Why?
            >    16. Evil: Why We Don't Know Why?
            >    17. Immortality: Why I Am Not Resigned
            >    18. Immortality: Why I Do Not Think It Strange
            >    19. Immortality: Why I Do Not Think It Impossible
            >    20. Surprise: Why I Cannot Take the World for Granted
            >    21. Faith and the Future: A Prologue
            >
            >There are extensive notes, and it is clear that Gardner has read very widely
            >on these topics.
            >
            >You mentioned Margo St. James. I used to visit Margo at her flat on upper
            >Grant (not far from the Trieste). She would always be standing at the top of
            >the stairs--completely nude.  That was in 1965 when I lived in North Beach.
            >I never had sex with her. We just talked about our religious backgrounds and
            >other topics in the news of the day. She like me was brought up as a
            >Fundamentalist Christian. I used to share my missionary Mother's letters
            >with her.  The first day I met her was shortly after she had to give up her
            >police dog--because it had bitten a policeman who had come to visit her.
            >The only time I met Herb Caen was in her back yard.  Herb wrote about Margo
            >frequently in his column in the Chronicle.  He called her "San Francisco's
            >favorite call girl."  He also described her New Year's eve parties, which
            >were crowed with many of the "movers and shakers" of the city. This
            >eventually evolved into the "Hooker's Ball." When I met Margo, she had a
            >large law library, and was studying law so that she could form a legally
            >constituted hooker's union.
            >
            >All for now.
            >
            >Saul-Paul  (March 12, 2002)
            >
            >

            --
            "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
            http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
            http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
            http://stardrive.org/





          • Jack Sarfatti
            Nazi Hick Nurdbutt engages in the classic gambit of the venomous, evil, anti-Jewish reptile. Neither Sarfatti nor Schwartz has ever written on Israel or the
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 13, 2002
              Re: Stephen Schwartz on America's 5th Column & Axis of Evil

              Nazi Hick Nurdbutt engages in the classic gambit of the venomous, evil, anti-Jewish reptile.  Neither Sarfatti nor Schwartz has ever written on Israel or the Palestinians, except that Schwartz has reported on news emanating from that area in a purely journalistic manner.  (In fact, Schwartz is known as a longtime advocate of improved Jewish-Muslim relations.)  But naturally Hick presumes that if we are Jews, that is our "issue."  So he sends out some bullshit about Israel and the Palestinians and then says it is way ahead of what we are doing.  OK, fine.  Then if I send out a recipe for carrot cake that answers Jack's physics and if Jack sends out a description of his new car, that answers my comments about Communism.

              >From every indication Hick Nurdbutt is a person in serious need of a lesson about hatemongering.  Namely, you attack the Jews with evil propaganda and you get punished.  You promote hate, you get hate back.  You incite violence, and violence strikes you.  I do not refer here to the Palestinians and their difficulties.  I refer to assholes in America who consider spreading anti-Jewish bile to be an acceptable contribution in the public square.  Gladstone had it right.  Sooner or later someone will go down to Boulder Crick, muscle Nurdbutt's Nazi boyfriends out of the way, and give him what he deserves.  

              Sarfatti and Schwartz do not live in Israel and have no reason to respond to idiotic polemics about the Middle East.  Nazi Nick has no moral standing to become involved in any such discussion.

              I don't get where all these Nazis come from.  Farley has also sicked some weirdo Jewbaiter on me.  I suggest Farley be cut off altogether.  These people need to be quarantined.

              Stephen Schwartz
            • Jack Sarfatti
              ... Wait, what Steve says about Schwann s Shallow Way is 100% accurate, What he says about Dicky Bird Farley, The Do Do of The Aviary, is at least 90%
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 13, 2002


                Paul Zielinski wrote:
                Stephen Schwartz wrote:
                Another of the more interesting things about this list is the distinction between the obnoxious types like Jack and me, and our critics, in terms of content.  I open Jack's docs and find physics and math.  Open my docs and you will find serious discussion of major political issues.  Of course, being irascible old guys, we throw a few insults here and there as well, especially when we have to put up with a steady stream of spam from the losers.  When you read what Anthrochief, Schwann, Zielinski, Farley and the rest put out, there typically is no there there, especially when they delve into politics.
                This is hilarious. We had a long e-mail debate about the new corporatism some weeks ago, before the
                Enron shit really hit the fan. Now that the covert revolving-door corporatism of the Enron scandal (which grows
                uglier and more malignant everyday) has been largely exposed, you make this silly statement that there is "no
                there there".

                Wait, what Steve says about Schwann's Shallow Way is 100% accurate, What he says about Dicky Bird Farley, The Do Do of The Aviary, is at least 90% accurate. About you I do not know since I have not been reading that stuff as it is beyond both my interests and definitely my competence I am not ashamed to admit. Unlike many of the poseurs I do not pretend to know things I do not know. I do wish you would study

                http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf


                Note two precognitions this week one close upon the other.

                1. Referring to http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf as the "natural born killer renormalization app" on Sunday only to read on Monday in SF Chron Science on "supervaccines" using a more primitive part of immune system of "natural born killer" cells.

                2. Referring to Dicky Bird as a Do Do on Tues only to read on Wed of article on the Do Do in NY Science Times from Tues.

                Retrocausation of mental process - two closely spaced data points since I never think of "natural born killer" or of "Do Do", though most of the remarks of most of the poseurs like Schwann, Farley, Crowell, Hurdbutt are "Doo Doo". So who do da doo doo? Da Do Do! Dat's who do da post-quantum voo doo. ;-)


                -- 
                "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
                 http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
                 http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
                 http://stardrive.org/
                
                

              • Jack Sarfatti
                The Real Schwartz Report ... The fact is that the New Age Imbecile Left out of est and Esalen primarily in the last 25 years is spreading these seditious
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 13, 2002
                  The Real Schwartz Report

                  Stephen Schwartz wrote:

                  FROM 'THE NATION' OF ALL PLACES!
                   
                  The Nation Magazine | March 1 2002 | David Corn

                  Please stop sending me those e-mails. You know who are. And you know what e-mails I mean.... Okay, I�ll spell it out -- those forwarded e-mails suggesting, or flat-out stating, the CIA and the U.S. government were somehow involved in the horrific September 11 attacks.

                  The fact is that the New Age Imbecile Left out of est and Esalen primarily in the last 25 years is spreading these seditious rumors all over the Internet. Abraham Lincoln did not tolerate sedition in 1861. Today we have a cultural Civil War with a numerically small but media savvy hip chic agents of influence spreading disinformation, misinformation and bald lies as if it were well researched news. Well that IS like crying fire in the theater when in fact there is no fire. Look I know many of these frauds since 1975. This is a 5th Column of Fatuous Seditors supporting the Axis of Evil. The fact is very clear. Responsible dissent is to be respected always, but those who cannot see the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible rumor mongering also cannot see the difference between George Bush and Osama Bin Ladin, they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. That's what the bogus spiritualism of the New Age out of Esalen since the 70's has wrought. It's not a pretty picture. I was there from the beginning on the inside. No fooling me. Ira Einhorn is not an isolated case. Look at Margaret Mead, at Gary Zukav, at Werner Erhard, at Nick Herbert - a clear progression of brain washing to create John Lindh as Marin County has been The Center of the Psi Clones.


                  There are e-mails about a fellow imprisoned in Canada who claims to be a former U.S. intelligence office and who supposedly passed advance warning of the attack to jail guards in mid-August. There are e-mails, citing an Italian newspaper, reporting that last July Osama bin Laden was treated for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and met with a CIA official. There are the e-mails, referring to a book published in France, that note the attacks came a month after Bush administration officials, who were negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban, told the Afghans "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

                  Get the hint? Washington either did nothing to stop the September 11 attacks or plotted the assaults so a justifiable war could then be waged against Afghanistan to benefit Big Oil. One e-mail I keep receiving is a timeline of so-called suspicious events that "establishes CIA foreknowledge of [the September 11 attacks] and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution." I won�t argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week e-mails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but Im irritated enough to try.

                  It�s a mug�s game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. Who can really know if anything that bizarre happened at a Dubai hospital? As for the man jailed in Canada, he was being held on a credit card fraud charge, and the only source for the story about his warning was his own word. The judge in his case said, "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations." But a conspiracy-monger can reply, "wouldn�t you expect the government and its friends in Canada to say that?"

                  So let�s start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

                  Anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions realizes that the national security bureaucracies of Washington do not work well together.

                  Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.). Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or, does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together.

                  Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policy-making circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin� sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

                  Not evil enough: This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material. Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That�s doubtful.

                  CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders. These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted, as they were). And, to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas.

                  Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms. I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....

                  Not gutsy enough: Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who�s going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers. Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry�s interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been! too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.

                  There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with "X Files"-like nonsense. By now, you�re probably wondering why I have bothered to go through this exercise. Aren�t these conspiracy theories too silly to address? That should be the case. But, sadly, they do attract people. A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner�s claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man�s account, that the paper reported that some observers "wonder if it isn�t just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There�s still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I�m not expe! cting a check.

                  Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with "X Files"-like nonsense.

                  Examples? There�s the intelligence services� failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of 15 to 20 local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or 20 or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest.

                  In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What�s a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?) Perhaps there�s a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there�s a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn�t it make sense? Doesn�t it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.

                • Jack Sarfatti
                  ... It won t be Schwann s Way (Subtitle, The Tao of Fatuity) I can promise you that. ... -- What I cannot create. I do not understand. Richard Feynman
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 13, 2002
                    Schwann wrote:

                    >Paul Zielinski to Steven Schwartz:::
                    >You are an intellectually bankrupt Cold War retread who is overdue
                    >for the scrapyard.
                    >
                    >Schwann:: This is very well put. When I heard Pres Bush on TV tonite
                    >saying how much he was looking forward to a closer relationship with
                    >Moscow, and compared it to Steven's statements on an imagined ongoing
                    >'Stalinist' plot, I'm wondering if Bush has lost it, or Steven.
                    >
                    >Actually, I think I'd vote for Bush if it came down to the two of
                    >them...Can you imagine what kind of book Sarfatti and Schwartz are
                    >writing? Springtime for Science?
                    >
                    >schwann
                    >

                    It won't be "Schwann's Way" (Subtitle, The Tao of Fatuity) I can promise
                    you that.

                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    --
                    "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
                    http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
                    http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
                    http://stardrive.org/
                  • Jack Sarfatti
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 13, 2002
                      HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY.
                      >
                      > S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> On Oppenheimer and Bohm: a reply to Stephen Schwartz
                      >>
                      >> Since the relationship between Oppenheimer and Bohm is central to
                      >> your Hidden Variables history, you and Steve need to have the dates
                      >> (and other items) straight.  Steve's critique of the "popular" version
                      >> of the story is largely correct. However, he says, "he [Bohm] was
                      >> actually fired in a purge by Oppenheimer of 'Trotskyism in Physics'."
                      >> But this implies that Bohm's anti-Copenhagen papers of 1952, were the
                      >> cause of Oppenheimer's presumed actions against Bohm.  The dates of
                      >> the events suggest a very different picture.
                      >>
                      >> 1943 -- Oppenheimer reports to Captain DeSilva a list of "what persons
                      >> at Berkeley were in his opinion truly dangerous. He named David Joseph
                      >> Bohm and Bernard Peters as being so." (p. 150, In the Matter of J.
                      >> Robert Oppenheimer, USAEC [herinafter called AEC hearings of 1954],
                      >> MIT press, 1971).  In the 1954 hearing, when DeSilva's memo is quoted,
                      >> Oppenheimer denies having called Bohm a dangerous person (p. 151, of
                      >> AEC hearings).
                      >>
                      >> March 1943 -- Oppenheimer asks for a transfer of Bohm from Berkeley to
                      >> Los Alamos. The request is denied.
                      >>
                      >> 1943--Bohm recieves a PhD in physics from Berkeley.  Oppenheimer was
                      >> one of his professors.
                      >>
                      >> 1946 -- Oppenheimer helps Bohm get an appointment to Princeton
                      >> Physics department as assistant professor.  (AEC hearings, p. 151)
                      >>
                      >> May 1949 -- Bohm testifies before House Un-American Activities
                      >> Committee.  He invokes the 5th Amendment right to decline to testify
                      >> when asked about Communist Party membership and activities.  (AEC
                      >> hearings, p. 152)
                      >>
                      >> 1949-1950 -- Bohm is asked by Princeton to take a leave of absence
                      >> from teaching. However, he continues to receive his salary. He works
                      >> on the book, *Quantum Theory*.  He also talks to Einstein and shows
                      >> him his manuscript of the book.  Einstein declares that it is the
                      >> clearest description of Bohr's (Coopenhagen) interpretation of quantum
                      >> theory.  It contains a long section on the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky
                      >> thought experiment.  Bohm recasts the experiment in terms of particle
                      >> spin rather than position and momentum.  This is a crucial change
                      >> leading to the eventual work of John Bell and John Clauser, and Alain
                      >> Aspect in the testing deep aspects of quantum mechanics.
                      >>
                      >> 1950 -- Bohm's contract with Princeton is not removed. He gets an
                      >> appointment at Sao Paulo University in Brazil. Eugene Wigner, a very
                      >> close friend of Von Neumann,  (both very imaginative Coopenhagenists,
                      >> and very patriotic American immigrants from Hungary) hosts a going
                      >> away party for Bohm.
                      >>
                      >> [Oppenheimer says that he had nothing to do with Bohm's getting the
                      >> Sao Paulo position. But he said -- if asked to write a letter of
                      >> reference for Bohm -- "I am quite sure I would have written a letter
                      >> of recommendation about his physics (AEC hearings, p. 152). Note that
                      >> this is 2 years after Bohm published his anti-Coopenhagen papers.]
                      >>
                      >> 1951 -- Bohm's *Quantum Theory* is published by Prentice Hall.  He
                      >> says in the preface, "An appreciable part of the material in this book
                      >> was suggested by remarks made by Professor J.R. Oppenheimer in a
                      >> series of lectures on quantum theory delivered at the University of
                      >> California at Berkeley, and by notes on part of these lectures take by
                      >> Professor B. Peters.  A series of lectures by Niels Bohr, entitled
                      >> 'Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature' were of crucial
                      >> imortance in supplying the general philosophical basis needed for a
                      >> rational understanding of quantum theory."
                      >>
                      >> [Remember that according the the AEC hearings (1954), Oppenheimer had
                      >> reported to Captain DeSilva that both Bohm and Peters were "truly
                      >> dangerous" persons.  Further according to DeSilva's memo, "Oppenheimer
                      >> stated, however, that somehow he did not believe that Bohm's
                      >> temperment and personality were those of a dangerous person and
                      >> implied that this dangerousness lay in the possibility  of his being
                      >> influenced by others.  Peters, on the other hand, he described as a
                      >> 'crazy person'  and one whose actions would be unpredictable. He
                      >> described Peters as being 'quite a Red' and stated that his background
                      >> was filled with incidents which indicated his tendency toward direct
                      >> action." In followup questioning, Oppenheimer denied ever having said
                      >> that Bohm was dangerous.  As Oppenheimer put it: "I recall the
                      >> conversation, though I don't recall these as accurate words. I
                      >> remember only being asked by DeSilva, among these people, and I think
                      >> there were four, which do you thiink is the most dangerous, and saying
                      >> Peters." (AEC hearings, p. 150)]
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> BTW there is interesting information on the development of Bohm's
                      >> anti-Coopenhagen position in Max Jammer's book, *The Philosophy of
                      >> Quantum Mechanics* (Wiley, 1974) on page 279. Jammer makes the same
                      >> mistake about McCarthy and HUAC that Steve points to -- in fact this
                      >> passage may be the source of some of these mistakes, since this book
                      >> is the most detailed compendium on the philosophy of quantum theory.
                      >> Jammer writes concerning Bohm's *Quantum Theory* book of 1951:
                      >>
                      >> "Still, on closer inspection, the critical reader of Bohm's book
                      >> could not have failed to note that some explanations--in particular in
                      >> the treatment of the process of measurement--did not fully reflect the
                      >> spirit of Bohr's philosophy. Bohm sent copies to Einstein, Pauli, and
                      >> Bohr. 'Einstein liked the book,' Pauli likewise expressed his
                      >> appreciation, but Bohr remained silent!
                      >>
                      >> "At that time, as a result of the crusade launched by Senator
                      >> Joseph Raymond McCarthy, chairman  [sic] of the United States
                      >> Congressional Committee on Un-American Acitivities, Bohm was suspended
                      >> from his position. Taking advantage of his involuntary vacation,
                      >> before leaving for the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, he
                      >> 'experimented with physical concepts,' as he later liked to call it.
                      >> Stimulated by his discussions with Einstein and influenced by an essay
                      >> which, as he told the present author, was 'written in English' and
                      >> 'probably by Blokhintsev or some other Russian theorist like
                      >> Terletzkii,' and which criticized Bohr's approach. Bohm began to study
                      >> the possibility of introducing hidden variables. During the next few
                      >> weeks he wrote a paper on his suggested interpretation of quantum
                      >> mechanics, preprints of which he sent to his colleagues as well as to
                      >> Pauli. Pauli rejected the paper, saying that it is 'old stuff, dealt
                      >> with long ago.' Prompted by these remarks Bohm wrote a sequel paper in
                      >> which he proposed a new theory of measurement in conformity with his
                      >> hidden variable theory."
                      >>
                      >> [Reference: D.Bohm, "A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory
                      >> in terms of 'hidden variables,' Parts I and II," *Physical Review* 85,
                      >> 166-179; 180-193 (1952); received July 5, 1951.]
                      >>
                      >> According to a footnote by Jammer, it is not clear which paper Bohm
                      >> could have been referring to. However, Blokhinsev was definitely
                      >> anti-Coopenhagen.  On pp. 176-7 of Jammer's book, we read:
                      >>
                      >> "In Reichenbach regarded hidden variables as a logically possible,
                      >> but physically inappropriate, assumption. Dimitry Ivanovich Blokhinzev
                      >> of Moscow's Lomonosov State University considered it an open question
                      >> to be decided by future research. In a paper published in Russian but
                      >> soon translated into French and German, in which he severly criticized
                      >> the 'subjective-idealistic conceptions' of the Coopenhagen school, he
                      >> also referred to von Neumann's proof [of the incompatibility of hidden
                      >> variables with quantum mechanics], calling it 'not satisfactory' since
                      >> it is based on the formalism of quantum mechanics. In his view a
                      >> consistent hidden variable theory may be established only if these
                      >> variables are not accommodated within the usual formalism of quantum
                      >> mechanics."
                      >>
                      >> Apparently Blokhinzev's anti-Coopenhagen views were widely held within
                      >> the Soviet Union. However, there were other eminent Soviet physicists
                      >> who supported Bohr's views--for example, Vladimir Foch and Lev Landau
                      >> (who in fact spent some time at Bohr's institute).
                      >>
                      >> Bohm's career after Princeton:
                      >>
                      >> 1950-1955 -- University of Sao Paulo, where he was visited by J.-P.
                      >> Vigier and R. Feynman.
                      >>
                      >> 1955-1957 -- Haifa Institute of Technology, where he began writing
                      >> papers with Yakir Aharonov.
                      >>
                      >> 1957 -- *Causality and Chance in Modern Physics* (published by
                      >> Routledge & Kegan Paul)
                      >>
                      >> 1957-1961 -- Bristol University, UK, where with Aharonov he wrote the
                      >> seminal Aharonov-Bohm
                      >> effect paper (1959)
                      >>
                      >> 1961-1983 -- Birkbeck College, University of London, where we wrote a
                      >> series of papers with Basil Hiley, culminating in the book, *The
                      >> Undivided Universe* published in 1993 after his death in 1992.
                      >>
                      >> 1964 -- John Stewart Bell, publishes his theorem building on the work
                      >> of Bohm and leading to the laboratory experiments of Clauser, Aspect,
                      >> etc. (This paper and Bohm's 1952 papers and many other relevant papers
                      >> are collected in *Quantum Theory and Measurement* edited by Wheeler
                      >> and Zurek (Princeton, 1983).  J.S. Bell was a strong supporter of
                      >> Bohm's anti-Coopenhagenism, and his papers are collected in *Speakable
                      >> and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics* (Cambridge, 1987).
                      >>
                      >> In 1961 he met Krishnamerti and became an active supporter of his
                      >> teachings.  This is reflected in some of his more mystical writings,
                      >> such as *Wholeness and the Implicate Order* (RKP, 1980)
                      >>
                      >> In 1987 a festshrift for Bohm's 70th birthday was published,
                      >> *Quantum Implications, edited by B.J. Hiley and F. David Peat.  There
                      >> are two papers by Bohm himself as well as an introductory chapter on
                      >> Bohm's life and work.  In that chapter there is a two paragraph
                      >> description of Bohm's political difficulties:
                      >>
                      >> "It was while writing this book [*Quantum Theory*] that he came
                      >> into conflict with what eventually became known as McCarthyism. A year
                      >> or so after arriving at Princeton he was called to appear befor the
                      >> Un-American Activities Committee, a committee of the House of
                      >> Representatives. He as asked to testify against colleagues and
                      >> associates. After taking legal advice he decided to plead the Fifth
                      >> Amendment. A year or so later, while he was in the middle of his book,
                      >> his plea was rejected and he was indicted for contempt of Congress.
                      >> While awaiting trial, the Supreme Court ruled that no one should be
                      >> forced to testify if the testimony is self-incriminating, provided no
                      >> crime had been committed. Since no crime had been committed the
                      >> indictment against Bohm was dropped.
                      >> "During this period the University advised Bohm to stay away, on
                      >> of the few benefits to emerge from this whole sordid affair.  During
                      >> his enforced isolation he was able to complete the book far sooner
                      >> than he had anticipated. After that, however, with his contract at
                      >> Princeton expired, he was unable to obtain a job in the USA and was
                      >> advised by Oppenheimer to leave the country before the full force of
                      >> McCarthyism took effect.  Fortunately he had some friends in Brazil
                      >> whe were able to offer him a professorship in the University in Sao
                      >> Paulo. He held this post from 1951 to 1955."
                      >>
                      >> Note that in 1950, Oppenheimer had no reason to try to "disprove Bohm"
                      >> since the book he was working on was largely based on Oppenheimer's
                      >> own Berkeley lectures, as well as Bohr's writings--and so was
                      >> considered as a strong, and clear, Coopenhagenist textbook.
                      >>
                      >> All for now.
                      >>
                      >> Saul-Paul (March 13, 2002, on the eve of Einstein's 123rd birthday)
                      >>
                      >> ----------
                      >> From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
                      >> To: Paul Zielinski <pzielins@...>, Jack Sarfatti
                      >> <sarfatti@...>
                      >> Subject: HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS
                      >> IN THE 20TH CENTURY.
                      >> Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 9:40 AM
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> From a website article:
                      >>
                      >> "David Bohm: Princeton University; Fellow of the
                      >> Royal Society of London; a former student of
                      >> Oppenheimer. Bohm declined to testify at
                      >> Oppenheimer's hearing before Senator Joseph
                      >> McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee
                      >> in the 1950s for fear that his words might be
                      >> twisted against his former mentor and he emigrated
                      >> to England."
                      >>
                      >> 1. Bohm did not "decline to testify at
                      >> Oppenheimer's hearing before Senator Joseph
                      >> McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee
                      >> in the 1950s."
                      >>
                      >> a. No such hearings took place.  Oppenheimer
                      >> hearings were held by the AEC.  Bohm was not
                      >> called as a witness.
                      >>
                      >> b. Senators do not lead or sit on House
                      >> committees.  This is one of the commonest
                      >> shibboleths found in the liberal/left media
                      >> today.  Dozens of times I had to correct the
                      >> SFCHRONICLE on this.  I always began the
                      >> discussion by asking: "Did you take civics in high
                      >> school?  Do you grasp the difference between the
                      >> Senate and the House?"
                      >>
                      >> c. McCarthy never participated in the Senate
                      >> Internal Security Subcommittee, the Senate
                      >> equivalent of the House Committees.  He held
                      >> hearings through the Permanent Investigations
                      >> Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
                      >> Governmental Operations.
                      >>
                      >> d. Bohm did appear before the House Committee.  He
                      >> refused to answer questions about a Communist
                      >> functionary and KGB agent, Steve Nelson.  His
                      >> motivation was a need to conceal his own
                      >> relationship with this individual.
                      >>
                      >> From another site:
                      >>
                      >> "In 1952, the young Princeton physicist [Bohm]
                      >> presented a "hidden variables" formulation of
                      >> quantum mechanics. For various reasons, none of
                      >> the formulations were good. Bohm and his work were
                      >> both dismissed from the university. J. Robert
                      >> Oppenheimer had been Bohm's mentor, but he,
                      >> perhaps, more than any other physicist, was
                      >> responsible for Bohm's being "buried alive,"
                      >> according to Ms. Goldstein. Oppenheimer has been
                      >> quoted as suggesting "if we cannot disprove Bohm,
                      >> then we must agree to ignore him."
                      >>
                      >> "Bohm was an embittered man, betrayed by the
                      >> physics community  though Einstein had early on
                      >> declared Bohm his successor, added Ms. Goldstein.
                      >> Bohm spent a great deal of his life in obscurity,
                      >> spending his last years teaching night college in
                      >> London."
                      >>
                      >> Line above in bold is pure Stalinism. Many
                      >> websites out there reporting that Bohm was fired
                      >> from Princeton for refusing to testify against
                      >> Oppenheimer, when he was actually fired in a purge
                      >> by Oppenheimer of "Trotskyism in physics."
                      >>
                      >> The point of our book will be to clean all this
                      >> crap out of the minds of the scientific public.
                      >> Obviously, the title should be HIDDEN VARIABLES:
                      >> THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE
                      >> 20TH CENTURY.
                      >>
                      >> Stephen Schwartz
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                    • Jack Sarfatti
                      This is the list of David Crockett Williams who is a New Age Imbecile Leftist spreading seditious disinformation, misinformation, Cargo Cult pseudoscience not
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 14, 2002
                        HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY. This is the list of David Crockett Williams who is a New Age Imbecile Leftist spreading seditious disinformation, misinformation, Cargo Cult pseudoscience "not even wrong" (W. Pauli) claims on UFOs, zero point energy, and other issues that help The Axis of Evil in their attempt to demoralize America and build a Fifth Column in a vast cultural Trojan Horse Operation starting at est and Esalen in the mid-70's. This explains for example, Esalen Leader Nick Herbert's AKA "Dr. Jabir" Lord Haw Haw propaganda that began years before 911. "Jabir" consistently writes apologetics supporting the "no Holocaust" view of David Irving and pro-terrorist views on Palestine. Dr. Jabir's view is typical however of the New Age anti-American influence operation in UFO Disclosure, Ban US Space Weapons, Bogus Free Energy claims etc. Although this was started by the KGB, the former KGB agents are now free lance selling themselves to the highest bidder, i.e. Axis of Evil. The bogus New Age front organizations are nodes in a financial network that seeks to subvert the Bush Administration's efforts in Homeland Security and the complete physical annihilation of the international terrorist network.

                        The information below is good information.

                        The true story of "zero point energy" and "antigravity propulsion" is in

                        http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

                        under construction

                        "Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen"

                        The meeting today in Princeton on "Ultimate Reality" by the religious Templeton Foundation, who put their mouth where their money is, is based on John Archibald Wheeler's Bohr based vision that Bohm showed was not necessary. Wheeler is, nevertheless, a great physicist and Bohr made great errors but also had many important insights. Copenhagen boasts two great Fairy Tale writers, Hans Christian Anderson and Niels Bohr.

                        >
                        > "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D." wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:
                        > Jack, I have put in a few corrections and clarifications. Please distribute
                        > this version.
                        >
                        > ----------
                        > From: "S-P & M-M Sirag " <sirag@...>
                        > To: sarfatti@...
                        > Subject: Re: HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN
                        > THE 20TH CENTURY.
                        > Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 6:02 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Oppenheimer and Bohm: a reply to Stephen Schwartz
                        >
                        > Since the relationship between Oppenheimer and Bohm is central to your Hidden
                        > Variables history, you and Steve need to have the dates (and other items)
                        > straight.  Steve's critique of the "popular" version of the story is largely
                        > correct. However, Steve says, "he [Bohm] was actually fired in a purge by
                        > Oppenheimer of 'Trotskyism in Physics'." But this implies that Bohm's
                        > anti-Copenhagen papers of 1952, were the cause of Oppenheimer's presumed
                        > actions against Bohm.  The dates of the events suggest a very different
                        > picture.
                        >
                        > 1943 -- Oppenheimer reports to Captain DeSilva a list of "what persons at
                        > Berkeley were in his opinion truly dangerous. He named David Joseph Bohm and
                        > Bernard Peters as being so." (p. 150, *In the Matter of J. Robert
                        > Oppenheimer*, USAEC hearings of 1954, MIT Press, 1971 [herinafter called AEC
                        > hearings]).  In this hearing, when DeSilva's memo is quoted, Oppenheimer
                        > denies having called Bohm a dangerous person (p. 151, of AEC hearings).
                        >
                        > March 1943 -- Oppenheimer asks for a transfer of Bohm from Berkeley to Los
                        > Alamos. The request is denied.
                        >
                        > 1943--Bohm recieves a PhD in physics from U.C. Berkeley.  Oppenheimer was one
                        > of his professors.
                        >
                        > 1946 -- Oppenheimer helps Bohm get an appointment to Princeton Physics
                        > department as assistant professor.  (AEC hearings, p. 151)
                        >
                        > May 1949 -- Bohm testifies before House Un-American Activities Committee. He
                        > invokes the 5th Amendment right to decline to testify when asked about
                        > Communist Party membership and activities.  (AEC hearings, p. 152)
                        >
                        > 1949-1950 -- Bohm is asked by Princeton to take a leave of absence from
                        > teaching. However, he continues to receive his salary. He works on the book,
                        > *Quantum Theory*.  He also talks to Einstein and shows him his manuscript of
                        > the book.  Einstein declares that it is the clearest description of Borh's
                        > (Coopenhagen) interpretation of quantum theory. It contains a long section on
                        > the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment of 1935.  Bohm recasts the
                        > experiment in terms of particle spin rather than position and momentum.  This
                        > is a crucial change leading to the eventual work of John Bell, John Clauser,
                        > and Alain Aspect in testing deep aspects of quantum mechanics.
                        >
                        > 1950 -- Bohm's contract with Princeton is not renewed. He gets an appointment
                        > to Sao Paulo University in Brazil. Eugene Wigner, a very close friend of Von
                        > Neumann,  (both very imaginative Copenhagenists, and very patriotic American
                        > immigrants from Hungary) hosts a going away party for Bohm.
                        >
                        > [Oppenheimer says that he had nothing to do with Bohm's getting the Sao Paulo
                        > position. But he said -- if asked to write a letter of reference for Bohm --
                        > "I am quite sure I would have written a letter of recommendation about his
                        > physics (AEC hearings, p. 152). Note that this is 2 years after Bohm published
                        > his anti-Copenhagen papers.]
                        >
                        > 1951 -- Bohm's *Quantum Theory* is published by Prentice Hall. He says in the
                        > preface, "An appreciable part of the material in this book was suggested by
                        > remarks made by Professor J.R. Oppenheimer in a series of lectures on quantum
                        > theory delivered at the University of California at Berkeley, and by notes on
                        > part of these lectures take by Professor B. Peters.  A series of lectures by
                        > Niels Bohr, entitled 'Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature' were of
                        > crucial imortance in supplying the general philosophical basis needed for a
                        > rational understanding of quantum theory."
                        >
                        > [Remember that according the the AEC hearings (1954), Oppenheimer had reported
                        > to Captain DeSilva that both Bohm and Peters were "truly dangerous" persons.  
                        > Further according to DeSilva's memo, "Oppenheimer stated, however, that
                        > somehow he did not believe that Bohm's temperment and personality were those
                        > of a dangerous person and implied that this dangerousness lay in the
                        > possibility  of his being influenced by others.  Peters, on the other hand, he
                        > described as a 'crazy person'  and one whose actions would be unpredictable.
                        > He described Peters as being 'quite a Red' and stated that his background was
                        > filled with incidents which indicated his tendency toward direct action." In
                        > followup questioning, Oppenheimer denied ever having said that Bohm was
                        > dangerous.  As Oppenheimer put it: "I recall the conversation, though I don't
                        > recall these as accurate words. I remember only being asked by DeSilva, among
                        > these people, and I think there were four, which do you think is the most
                        > dangerous, and saying Peters." (AEC hearings, p. 150)]
                        >
                        >
                        > BTW there is interesting information on the development of Bohm's
                        > anti-Copenhagen position in Max Jammer's book, *The Philosophy of Quantum
                        > Mechanics* (Wiley, 1974) on page 279. Jammer makes the same mistake about
                        > McCarthy and HUAC that Steve points to -- in fact this passage may be the
                        > source of some of these mistakes, since this book is the most detailed
                        > compendium on the philosophy of quantum theory.  Jammer writes concerning
                        > Bohm's *Quantum Theory* book of 1951:
                        >
                        > "Still, on closer inspection, the critical reader of Bohm's book could not
                        > have failed to note that some explanations--in particular in the treatment of
                        > the process of measurement--did not fully reflect the spirit of Bohr's
                        > philosophy. Bohm sent copies to Einstein, Pauli, and Bohr. 'Einstein liked the
                        > book,' Pauli likewise expressed his appreciation, but Bohr remained silent!
                        >
                        > "At that time, as a result of the crusade launched by Senator Joseph Raymond
                        > McCarthy, chairman  [sic] of the United States Congressional Committee on
                        > Un-American Acitivities, Bohm was suspended from his position. Taking
                        > advantage of his involuntary vacation, before leaving for the University of
                        > Sao Paulo in Brazil, he 'experimented with physical concepts,' as he later
                        > liked to call it. Stimulated by his discussions with Einstein and influenced
                        > by an essay which, as he told the present author, was 'written in English' and
                        > 'probably by Blokhintsev or some other Russian theorist like Terletzkii,' and
                        > which criticized Bohr's approach, Bohm began to study the possibility of
                        > introducing hidden variables. During the next few weeks he wrote a paper on
                        > his suggested interpretation of quantum mechanics, preprints of which he sent
                        > to his colleagues as well as to Pauli. Pauli rejected the paper, saying that
                        > it is 'old stuff, dealt with long ago.' Prompted by these remarks Bohm wrote a
                        > sequal paper in which he proposed a new theory of measurement in conformity
                        > with his hidden variable theory."
                        >
                        > [Reference: D.Bohm, "A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms
                        > of 'hidden variables,' Parts I and II," *Physical Review* 85, 166-179; 180-193
                        > (1952); received July 5, 1951.]
                        >
                        > According to a footnote by Jammer, it is not clear which paper Bohm could have
                        > been referring to. However, Blokhinsev was definitely anti-Coopenhagen. On pp.
                        > 276-7 of Jammer's book, we read:
                        >
                        > "If Reichenbach regarded hidden variables as a logically possible, but
                        > physically inappropriate, assumption, Dimitry Ivanovich Blokhinzev of Moscow's
                        > Lomonosov State University considered it an open question to be decided by
                        > future research. In a paper published in Russian but soon translated into
                        > French and German, in which he severly criticized the 'subjective-idealistic
                        > conceptions' of the Copenhagen school, he also referred to von Neumann's
                        > proof [of the incompatibility of hidden variables with quantum mechanics],
                        > calling it 'not satisfactory' since it is based on the formalism of quantum
                        > mechanics. In his view a consistent hidden variable theory may be established
                        > only if these variables are not accommodated within the usual formalism of
                        > quantum mechanics."
                        >
                        > Apparently Blokhinzev's anti-Copenhagen views were widely held within the
                        > Soviet Union. However, there were other eminent Soviet physicists who
                        > supported Bohr's views--for example, Vladimir Foch and Lev Landau (who in fact
                        > spent some time at Bohr's institute).
                        >
                        > Bohm's career after Princeton:
                        >
                        > 1950-1955 -- University of Sao Paulo, where he was visited by J.-P. Vigier and
                        > Richard. Feynman.
                        >
                        > 1954 &1957 -- 2 papers by Bohm and Vigier resulted from this visit:
                        > "Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with
                        > Irregular Fluctuations," Physical Review 96:1, 208-217 (1954).
                        > "Relativistic Hydrodynamics of Rotating Fluid Masses," Physical Review 109:6,
                        > 1882-1891 (1957).
                        > [Both of these papers are reprinted in the collection, *Jean-Pierre Vigier and
                        > the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics* edited by Stanley Jeffers,
                        > Bo Lehnert, Nils Abramson, and Lev Chebotarev, Apeiron, Montreal, 2000.]

                        All these people visited ISSO Science funded by Joe Firmage who is now essentially bankrupt.
                        ISSO Science still lives on in my and Saul-Paul Sirag's theoretical work and in Creon Levit's experimental work.

                        >
                        > 1955-1957 -- Haifa Institute of Technology, Israel,  where he began writing
                        > papers with Yakir Aharonov.
                        >
                        > 1957 -- *Causality and Chance in Modern Physics* (published by Routledge &
                        > Kegan Paul)
                        >
                        > 1957-1961 -- Bristol University, UK, where with Aharonov he wrote the seminal
                        > Aharonov-Bohm effect paper, Physical Review 115, 485 (1959).
                        >
                        > 1961-1983 -- Birkbeck College, University of London, where Bohm wrote a series
                        > of papers with Basil Hiley, culminating in the book, *The Undivided Universe:
                        > an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory* published in 1993 after his
                        > death in 1992.
                        >
                        > 1964 -- John Stewart Bell, publishes his theorem building on the work of Bohm
                        > and leading to the laboratory experiments of Clauser, Aspect, etc. (This paper
                        > and Bohm's 1952 papers and many other relevant papers are collected in
                        > *Quantum Theory and Measurement* edited by Wheeler and Zurek (Princeton,
                        > 1983).  J.S. Bell was a strong supporter of Bohm's anti-Copenhagenism, and
                        > his papers are collected in *Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*
                        > (Cambridge, 1987).
                        >
                        > In 1961 Bohm met Krishnamerti and became an active supporter of his teachings.  
                        > This is reflected in some of his more mystical writings, such as *Wholeness
                        > and the Implicate Order* (RKP, 1980).
                        >
                        > [Note: In 1979 Saral Bohm told me that in 1961 in a London bookstore she had
                        > come across a book by Krishnamurti, called *The Observer and the Observed*,
                        > and showed it to David. They subsequently discovered that Krishnmurti lived in
                        > London, and that this helped David to decide to take the offer of a position
                        > at Birkbeck College rather than a rival offer of a position in Paris. I would
                        > guess that this latter offer was made by J.-P. Vigier.]
                        >
                        > In 1987 a festshrift for Bohm's 70th birthday was published, *Quantum
                        > Implications*, edited by B.J. Hiley and F. David Peat. There are two papers by
                        > Bohm himself as well as an introductory chapter on Bohm's life and work.  In
                        > that chapter there is a two paragraph description of Bohm's political
                        > difficulties:
                        >
                        > "It was while writing this book [*Quantum Theory*] that he came into conflict
                        > with what eventually became known as McCarthyism. A year or so after arriving
                        > at Princeton he was called to appear befor the Un-American Activities
                        > Committee, a committee of the House of Representatives. He as asked to testify
                        > against colleagues and associates. After taking legal advice he decided to
                        > plead the Fifth Amendment. A year or so later, while he was in the middle of
                        > his book, his plea was rejected and he was indicted for contempt of Congress.  
                        > While awaiting trial, the Supreme Court ruled that no one should be forced to
                        > testify if the testimony is self-incriminating, provided no crime had been
                        > committed. Since no crime had been committed the indictment against Bohm was
                        > dropped.
                        > "During this period the University advised Bohm to stay away, on of the few
                        > benefits to emerge from this whole sordid affair. During his enforced
                        > isolation he was able to complete the book far sooner than he had anticipated.
                        > After that, however, with his contract at Princeton expired, he was unable to
                        > obtain a job in the USA and was advised by Oppenheimer to leave the country
                        > before the full force of McCarthyism took effect. Fortunately he had some
                        > friends in Brazil whe were able to offer him a professorship in the University
                        > in Sao Paulo. He held this post from 1951 to 1955."
                        >
                        > Note that in 1950, Oppenheimer had no reason to try to "disprove Bohm" since
                        > the book Bohm was working on was largely based on Oppenheimer's own Berkeley
                        > lectures, as well as Bohr's writings--and so was considered as a strong, and
                        > clear, Copenhagenist textbook.
                        >
                        > All for now.
                        >
                        > Saul-Paul (March 13, 2002, on the eve of Einstein's 123rd birthday)
                        >
                        > ----------
                        > From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
                        > To: Paul Zielinski <pzielins@...>, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
                        > Subject: HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE
                        > 20TH CENTURY.
                        > Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 9:40 AM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > From a website article:
                        >
                        > "David Bohm: Princeton University; Fellow of the Royal Society of London; a
                        > former student of Oppenheimer. Bohm declined to testify at Oppenheimer's
                        > hearing before Senator Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Activities
                        > Committee in the 1950s for fear that his words might be twisted against his
                        > former mentor and he emigrated to England."

                        >
                        > 1. Bohm did not "decline to testify at Oppenheimer's hearing before Senator
                        > Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s."

                        >
                        > a. No such hearings took place.  Oppenheimer hearings were held by the AEC.  
                        > Bohm was not called as a witness.

                        >
                        > b. Senators do not lead or sit on House committees.  This is one of the
                        > commonest shibboleths found in the liberal/left media today.  Dozens of times
                        > I had to correct the SFCHRONICLE on this.  I always began the discussion by
                        > asking: "Did you take civics in high school?  Do you grasp the difference
                        > between the Senate and the House?"

                        >
                        > c. McCarthy never participated in the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee,
                        > the Senate equivalent of the House Committees. He held hearings through the
                        > Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Governmental
                        > Operations.

                        >
                        > d. Bohm did appear before the House Committee. He refused to answer questions
                        > about a Communist functionary and KGB agent, Steve Nelson.  His motivation was
                        > a need to conceal his own relationship with this individual.

                        >
                        > From another site:
                        >
                        > "In 1952, the young Princeton physicist [Bohm] presented a "hidden variables"
                        > formulation of quantum mechanics. For various reasons, none of the
                        > formulations were good. Bohm and his work were both dismissed from the
                        > university. J. Robert Oppenheimer had been Bohm's mentor, but he, perhaps,
                        > more than any other physicist, was responsible for Bohm's being "buried
                        > alive," according to Ms. Goldstein. Oppenheimer has been quoted as suggesting
                        > "if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him."

                        >
                        > "Bohm was an embittered man, betrayed by the physics community  though
                        > Einstein had early on declared Bohm his successor, added Ms. Goldstein. Bohm
                        > spent a great deal of his life in obscurity, spending his last years teaching
                        > night college in London."

                        >
                        > Line above in bold is pure Stalinism. Many websites out there reporting that
                        > Bohm was fired from Princeton for refusing to testify against Oppenheimer,
                        > when he was actually fired in a purge by Oppenheimer of "Trotskyism in
                        > physics."

                        >
                        > The point of our book will be to clean all this crap out of the minds of the
                        > scientific public.  Obviously, the title should be HIDDEN VARIABLES: THE
                        > SECRET HISTORY OF PHYSICS AND POLITICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
                        .

                        >
                        > Stephen Schwartz
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.