OPEN LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, HONORABLE ROBERT FROEHLKE ; A REPORT ON SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCY IN OUR NATIONAL DEFENCE, AS UNVEILED BY THE 'SLIDING PHASE' INCIDENT.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: January 20, 1972
• Content Type: REPORT

72 Gray St . Qpp ll i i el a gQ02/W?t4CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2 1-20-1972
OPEN LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, HONORABLE ROBERT
FROEHLKE ; A REPORT ON SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCY IN
OUR NATIONAL DEFENCE, AS UNVEILED BY THE "SLIDING PHASE"
by Dr. Harry E. Stockman, Harvard 1946
This Report , prepared as reading material for Congress-
men, and constituting a serious complaint, directed to the Govern-
ment, suggests that the American National Defence System, a re-
presented by the ARMY and USAF, be checked for ethics in its hand-
ling of scientific matters associated with Bid Proposal Evaluations.
The ARMY's failure to withdraw , upon my repeated requests, its
scientifically faulty Bid Proposal Evaluation of 4-15-70, and to
openly admit that its scientific "experts" were grossly in error
seems to violate even minimum requests of, ethics. Similarly, the
failure of USAF to admit that it was scientifically in error in
its Bid Proposal Evaluation of 3-10-70 falls in the same category.
Further, the failure of USAF to admit to its deliberate switching
of my two introductory technical statements in my "Sliding Phase"
Proposal of 2-1-70, thus rendering my Proposal a meaningless tech-
nical mess , contradictory beyond imagination, BUT NEVERTHELESS
OFFICIALLY "EVALUATED",IS UNQUESTIONABLE LACK OF ETHICS IN ANYBODY's
BOOK. I AM TALKING ABOUT LACK OF ETHICS IN OUR NATIONAL DEFENCE.
I am finding the same grossly erroneous scientific thinking in the
original MITRE Evaluation of my "SP" invention, and in the later
reviews of my submitted paper by the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS,
AIP, and by the INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS,
IEEE. In spite of the many scientific errors made by these three
Institutions, "SP" works and is 1001o scientifically correct, as is
today verified by Harvard and MIT. "SP" was always scientific
correct, as I always said, however overwhelming the odds were against
me.
If the fate of "SP" indicates a degradation of scientific values and
ethics in our National Defence, this should be a matter of immediate
and great concern for the new Secretary of Defence, Honorable Elliot
fhardson. Note that my criticism of the National Defence does not
Jude the NAVY, whose ethics has always been above reproach.
DD/SA%
, Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
F u F ILE ft&'-,4
 Approved For Release 2002/G%/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
PART A : GENERAL.
SCOPE OF REPORT.
This Report gives detailed evidence of gross scien-
tific incompetency, not only in our National Defence, but also in America's
two leading scientific bodies, AIP and IEEE. The incompetency pertain3 to
the field of my "SLIDING PHASE" invention, which belongs in the realms of
Wave Propagation and Electromagnetic Theory. The question appears whether or
not the reported incompetency reveals a more widespread degradation and dil-
lution of scientific values and scientific knowhow in America. If so, the
subsequent question appears what can be done about it. One shutters at the
very thought that the amateurish scientific mistakes the Government "evalu-
ators"of"SP" are guil ty of,extend to the Government's judgement of far more
important projects, involving perhaps billions of the taxpayer's money, and
pertaining perhaps to projects shielded and protected by high security
classification, for which there may not be any justification. Long before I
brought up the idea, other people alarmed by the Government's often lavish,
and sometimes unwise, and sometimes unjustified, spending of research money,
derived from taxation, on war projects, came up with the idea of CLOSE SUPER
VISION OF THE MILITARY BY CIVILIANS IN ALL SCIENTIFIC MATTERS CONCERNING OUR
NATIONAL DEFENCE. More specifically, when I worked for USAF, 1946-1948, as
Chief Communications Laboratory, AMC, Cambridge Field Station, one bright
engineer came up with the idea of a CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC SUPERVISION BOARD
founded on the well-known CPA*idea, and staffed by civilians. The
idea was most appropriate already at Cambridge Field Station because of the
Air Force use of research money there; a use sharply criticized by two of the
five Laboratory Chiefs, and I was one of the two. This "BOARD" must be initi-
ated and officiated by Congress WITH UNLIMITED RIGHT TO LOOK INTO ANY WAR
PROJECT IT WISHES TO EXAMINE, INDEPENDENT OF CLASSIFICATION. The "BOARD" sci-
entists must be selected from the cream of the crops of the body of American
scientists. There is no doubt in my mind, having seen at close range the
Government's wasteful use of research funding for some 25 years, that the very
first week of operation of such a "BOARD" would save the taxpayers millions
of dollars; just the removal of unnecessary duplication, and unjustified, un-
necessary, and harmful classification would save billions. Had such a "BOARD"
been in operation at the time I worked at MITRE, 1967-1970, as staff scien-
tist, none of the unbelievable things that happened to the Holography Research
Project, and to "SP't, could ever have materialized.
To prove that a "BOARD" with very highly qualified scientists can outdo
institutions with lesser qualified scientists, or poor scientists, I only have
to point to the case at hand, in which the world elite of scientists at Har-
vard and MIT just shattered the "scientific findings" at MITRE, US AH1Y,USAF,
AIP, and IEEE for the four winds. More specifically, the surefire statements
by incompetent scientists that "SP" did not work, and that my "range nulls"
did not obtain, etc., melted like butter in sunshine once Harvard and MIT
said what goes. They separated the men from the boys.
In view of what I have always said, and what now Harvard and MIT say,
one can begin to measure the depth of the displayed scientific incompetency
at MITRE, U S ARMY, USAF, AIP, and IEEE, revealing here and there most unethi-
cal actions. It is not a pretty picture, and perhaps we have real reason to
w rry about the future quality of our Nationa Defence, governing the safety
0 our country. However, only one infinitesimally small case, that of "SP",
has been examined, and it would not be fair to draw general conclusions from
this isolated case. Only a thorough investigation by Congress, and one may
be started by anyone of the many Congressmen reading this report, can verify
CPA: Certified ppj~,,b1,
Approved F"or K`e1eaAs9 NdfYbNh : CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/243 CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
1hether.or not the black picture from the "SP" incident is an isolated
case. Note that MITRE has some of the world's leading scientists in its em-
ploy, many of whom are my friends, people even on Nobel-Prize winners level.
MITRE has hundreds of highly competent scientists, anyone of whom could have
correctly evaluated "SP" in five minutes, but the men chosen for the evalua-
tion lacked the theoretical skill necessary for the evaluation of "SP", al-
though the subject matter of "SP" is not highly advanced; it is on BS level.
The "evaluators" failed to grasp the basic principle of "SP", which to no
extent inhibited them from issuing a "thumbs down" verdict. U S ARMY and USAF
similarly have outstanding American scientists on their payrolls, but I am
sure none of them had any control of the "evaluation" results, or these
re-
sults would have been scientifically correct! By the contrary, I have reasons
to believe that both the ARMY and USAF were influenced in their evaluation
thinking by the happenings at MITRE; for details see Part C. There is no
question in my mind that the ARMY was the innocent bystander, hurt by a local-
ly excecuted, sloppy, scientifi 1 error ~eous, but nevertheless officially
issued U S ARMY BID PROPOSAL EVALUATION OF "SP". It was done by two doctors,
thoroughly incompetent in the field of my invention. To prove that my prin-
ciple was wrong, and that my "range-nulls" , today verified by Harvard and
MIT. did not obtain with the method I described, these two doctors made a
mathematical analysis, so thoroughly in error that it was not worth the pa-
per it was written on. They just could not grasp the "SP" principle, which
to no extent hindered them from issuing an official Bid Proposal Evaluation.
Much worse, this amateurish mathematical derivation was almost line by line
similar to the one previously executed at MITRE, and if this was a coinciden-
ce, it was the coincidence of the centuryt Nevertheless, the ARMY leaders
are just as guilty as the two doctors and the INSTITUTE FOR EXPLORATORY RE-
SEARCH in Fort Monmouth, which officially issued the "evaluation". The Au=:Y
is 100) guilty until such a day comes when it officially discards and with-
draws this faulty Bid Proposal Evaluation, admitting openly that the reason
for the withdrawal is that the Evaluation is scientifically in error. This,
again, is a request to the ARMY to take such action, clearing the ARMY, and
ping the blame where it belongs, on the two doctors who failed so bitterly
in knowledge of elementary physics. THE SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION OF U ARMY
AND USAF IS AT STAKEI I have asked a number of Congressmen to follow this
development very closely, and you may hear from some of them.
As far as AIP and IEEE goes, the joke in the matter is that some of the
scientists who always said "SP" was correct may be members of both AIP and
IEEE. Then how can these two Institutions, with a world-wide reputation in
science, be in error? It is very simple. It is because of the unwise action
by the Alp and IEEE leaders, speaking for the entire body of member3, few of
whom ever heard of "Spit, and "proving" by means of official "reviewers", bad-
ly in need of a refresher course in High-School physics, that the "SP" prin-
ciple was"wrong"and that the "range nulls" I claim do not obtain. It is by
the use of amateurs instead of professionals as reviwers in the field of my
"SP" invention that AIP and IEEE arrived at grossly erroneous results,PROVEN
TOTALLY ERRONEOUS BY THE HARVARD AND MIT EVALUATIONSI I prepared and submitted
dozens upon dozens of pages , showing in detail the errors made by the "re-
viewers", but neither Institution was willing to admit to these errors, or
acknowledge the fact that the "reviewers" were incompetent in the quoted
field of physics. Th both refused to act on my constant demand for a compe-
tent reviewer. It is by the unwise refusal by the top leaders of AIP and IEEE
to admit the erroneous evaluation of "SP", and to submit my paper to a compe-
tent reviewer, who in the light of the Harvard and MIT findings would have
found "SP" scientifically correct, that the two Institutions prove themselves
scientifically incompetent in the field of my invention.
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/0/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
The year 1969 saw the initiation of one of the most debated
scientific matters in recent time; that of "SP" , today the subject matter of
Technical Monograph No.26, issued by the SERCOLAB COMPANY P.O. Box 78, Arling
ton, Mass., 02 174., and available for 5 cent. " " led to heated arguments
in many quarters, with celebrated scientists with a good background in physics
saying that indeed I obtained the "range nulls" I claimed, and equally cele-
brated scientists who were somewhat shaky on their physics fundamentals saying
just the opposite. A typical case is MITRE's Theoretical Physicist, Dr. Saul
Bergmann, who claimed that my "SP" principle was right as long as I worked at
MITRE , but upon my retirement in 1970 claimed precisely the opposite; that
my "SP" principle was wrong and that the "range nulls" I claimed with my me-
thod did not obtain. As "proof" he quoted this and that basic law and theorem
in physics. Such incompetency in physics is not a recommendation for MITRE in
as much as Dr. Bergmann stated he was the only Theoretical Physicist at MITRE,
THE MITRE Theoretical Physicist. In view of the evaluations by HARVARD and MIT,
Dr. Bergmann is totally and completely in error.
During my employment as Staff Scientist at MITRE 19.67-1970, I constantly
introduced my "SP" invention FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENCE. I never asked for any
compensation, I just tried to get research work started on "SP", well knowing
that once such research work was started, one application after another would
be found. In the process of trying to create an interest for my invention, I
found alarming incompetency at MITRE in the field of Wave Propagation and
Electromagnetic Theory, in spite of the fact that MITRE under its root' probab-
ly has as many, or more, real experts on electromagnetic theory as any similar
institution in the world. These real experts, however, were not linked into
the chain of events. leading. to the "evaluation fiasco" in the Office of the
Director for the Communications Division. It all begun in 1969, when I took
advantage of the yearly presentation of scientist's ideas to the famous MITRE
RESEARCH COMMITTEE, which included many outstanding experts, including experts
in the Wave Propagation and Electromagnetic Theory field. I issued a most
official Memorandum No. D91-M-361, dated 9-30-1969 of official subject: SUB-
MISSION OF FUNDING REQUEST ON "SLIDING PHASE" TO THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE".It
could not have been more direct and to the point than that. It was directed
to my Department Head,Dr. Herman Blasbalg, and referred to an earlier Memo
D91-M-341 of 9-19-69 . The Department Head bluntly refused to introduce my
"SP" proposition in the Research Committee on basis that the principle was
in error; this was the same principle that later Harvard and MIT found cor-
rect. He claimed that my method did not produce the "range nulls" I claimed,
and he stated that he could prove mathematically that this was the case. He
gave me an appointment in his office , and started to write out line after
line of a mathematical analysis, which however, was totally in error! It
turned out that he had just not grasped the basic idea of 11S P11. For every
equation he wrote down, I told him exactly what mathematical and other errors
he made, but he was so unfamiliar with the subject matter that he did not
understand my corrections. After having finished the "analysis", proving his
incompetency in this field, he ignored my technical objections, pointed to
his erroneous equations, and without blinking an eye concluded that here was
the "proof" upon which he based his decision not to forward my invention to
the MITRE Research Committee.
I thought this would be a very easy matter to have corrected, and ap-
proached the Department Head's superior, the Communications Division Director
Mr. Lewis Billig. He scolded me for critisizing a Department Head, sided with
him technically , and bluntly refused to give ",SP'11 any further consideration
with reference to the pending meeting in the MITRE Research Committee. It,
became evident during our conversation that the Division Head was even more
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/0/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
incompetent in this field than his Department Head. His refusal should be
seen against the fact that there were some hundred scientists right in the
Communications Division, entirely competent to evaluate "SP" correctly, so it
would have been a very simple matter for the Director to obtain a correct re-
view, but then , of course, the embarrassing scientific incompetency of the
Department Head would be verified, and stand out in big letters for everyone
to see. So, the Director choose not to correct the scientific error! Right
in the very corridor at MITRE where I worked, there was a dozen o scientists
who could have evaluated "SP" correctly in a matter of minutes.
At this time I had issued a large number of official Memos on "SP", many
through the MITRE PATENT COMMITTEE, proposing that MITRE make an official
scientific evaluation of "SP"; one of these Memos being sent to the Division
Director, asking for such an evaluation. Ultimately, the date for an OFFICIAL
DIVISION EVALUATION was set, but when 1 appeared at this Evaluation, held
10-3-69, I found to my very great surprise that the Director had not chosen
the two Evaluators from the ranks of MITRE scientists, distinguished scien-
tists working in the field of physics covering my invention, and publishing
in this field, but instead from the ranks of MITRE Department Heads, with
extensive administrative functions. More specifically, Department Heads wor-
king under the direct supervision of the Director, and therefore not very
likely to go against him in a scientific matter where the Director had al-
ready stated that the scientific principle to be evaluated was wrong. Neither
evaluator had the necessary background in physics to evaluate "SP", something
which became extremely clear once the session got under way. Also present
was Dr. Saul Bergmann , not belonging to the Communications Division, but.the
Director told me that he did not carry any vote. The Evaluators were Depart-
ment Head "L" ( Donald LeVine) and Department Head "D" ( David Dettinger).
Both had earlier failed bitterly in the investigation or evaluation of another
research project; MITRE RESEARCH PROJECT No. 9903, my previous assignment,
a HOLOGRAPHY PROJECT. Although both had been appointed for the investigation,
it turned out that neither one had sufficient background in Holography to
judge this rather special and theoretical field of science. This did not hin-
der them in any way from formulating devastating and scientifically fully
erroneous conclusions about the obtained research resu ts, none of which they
understood. As an example, the "Wild West" , highly unethical investigation
or evaluation of the Holography Project by Department Head "D" reflects most
unfavorably on MITRE research , and resulted in the official MITRE Memo
D9O-M-6$$ of 9-19-69, verifying that Department Head "D" had been given this
assignment most officially by the Communications Division Director, Mr. Lewis
Billig. My objections to MITRE to authorize an incompetent man to evaluate
years of research results on this project, some of them contributed by--p-r.
Zarwyn. and some published in Proc IEEE and in other journals, were ignored.
This black page in MITRE's research history, an outright "rape" of research
and research values, occurred just two weeks before the very same Department
Head "D" became appointed as "evaluator" in still another field of research,
"SP", about which he knew very little. Note: there was a witness present du-
ring the Holography Project "evaluation". This unfortunate Holography Project
suffered for a long time under the incompetency in the field by the precee-
ding Director for the Communications Division, and I once made an estimate
that much time and about 60f of the running project expencies could be saved
if. Dr. Zarwyn ( who headed up the project before I took over) and I would be
allowed to do the research right instead of being forced to follow MITRE's'
High-School level physics research "directives". When Mr. Billig, who knew
still less about Holography research, started to add his totally unacceptable
research "directives", Dr Zarwyn left the MITRE installation, and I can't
say that I blamed him. I HEREWITH CALL Da. BERTHOLD ZARWYN AS A WITNESS TO
EVERYTHING SAID ABOVEL I quote MITRE MATTERS No. 15,$-5-70, where Dep. Head
"D" was writt ?" theoretical physicist".
- N:
B zt at MITREpwasdcompetene0See Part C.
 Approved For Release 2002/0624: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
PART B: PROOF OF THE SCIENTIFIC CORRECTNESS
To save space I am only including the most important documents
and I am only quoting the most essential part of each document.
n, T1D V U DL'nL'D TT Q R DMV dated 11 Aug. 1971
This is an official lettertfrom "De-
partment of the ARMY, Headquarters
United States ARMY Electronics Command,Fort Monmouth, New Jersey,07703" ,
signed by Dr F.H. Reder, Actg Chief, Antennas and Geophysical Eff Rsch Tech
Area U.S. ARMY Electronics Tech and Devices Lab. Dr. Reder is one of Americas
most outstanding scientists in the field of my "SP" invention, which is Wave
Propagation and Electromagnetic Theory. Dr. Roder has a world reputation as
a scientist, and is equally well known as a truly outstanding scientist in
Europe. His contributions to science through many years of RID work are truly
outstanding. Every word above is true and can be verified.
Quote:" There is, of course, no doubt that your sliding phase method produces
range nulls -for the equipment set up you propose and if the propa-
gation medium is dispersive. -----The employment of a frequency trans-
lator at the receiver converts the situation of 2 waves of about equal
amplitude, different frequency and slightly different phase velocities
(due to dispersion) to the desired combination (for producing range
nulls) of 2 signals of equal amplitude, equal frequency and slightly
different phase velocities."
Note that Dr. Reder received the same paper that earlier constituted my offi-
cial Bid Proposal, dated 3-19-1970, and sent to U.S. ARMY, who trusted the
ARMY INSTITUTE FOR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH, Ft Monmouth, with the official eval-
uation. The Institute bitterly failed the ARMY's confidence in its professio-
nal knowledge in this field, and produced a thoroughly erroneous mathematical
"analysis" , signed by Dr. Ballard and Dr. Goubau, as discussed else where in
this report.
B2. DR. DAVID DEWITT. IEEE. IBM.
Dr. DeWitt is an outstanding and
well known scientist, and the only
introduction he needs is the version presented-here of his strikingly brief
and direct analysis of "SP" , and the sharpness of his mind allowed him to
"hit the nail on its head" and correctly describe my "Range Nulls" WITHOUT
making the same embarrassing pitfall as Dr. Ballard and Dr. Goubau made. Dr.
DeWitt is a former'editor of the IEEE SPECTRUM. His letter is dated 1-24-1972.
Quote :
t) 10, ( f- - r ) +
V (0j) ~j
If it were possible to have avQlable at r two signals ..... both at the
same frequency ...... but transmitted at v and v . They would dif-
fer in phase by wr(l/v - l/v2), and what + believe you mean by range nulls
Approve; For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
would occur in increments of r equal to
,r
the E would have been effectively transmitted at vl even though its
frequency ii w."
Dr.DeWitt uses a single trigonometric form, While Dr:s Ballard and Goubau use
a double term trigonometric form, which is immaterial. Similarly the two doc-
tors talk about "intervals of x", but here ends the similarity, wish Dr. Bal-
lard and Dr. Goubau taking off on an erroneous path. While Dr. DeWLtt absolu-
tely correctly acknowledges the receiver frequency conversion, and accor-
dingly comes out with ONLY ONE RESULTING ANGULAR VELOCITY w , precisely as Dr.
Reder above reasoned, Dr Ballard and Dr. Goubau blindly stumble on with inde-
ces "1" and "2", even in their last equation, totally ignoring the heart of
my "SP" invention, which is the receiver frequency conversion. Misled by their
faulty mathematics, the doctor's draw the false conclusion that my nodes, or
"Range Nulls" are "not stationary" , when in reality they stand sill,
within-; the accuracy of the used equipment, and the constancy of the index of
refraction. The result they arrived at can never be interpreted any other way
then being totally in error, since they add another paragraph, still more
scientifically erroneous, saying that "Stationary nodes are only obtained
if the two waves have the same frequency but are propagating in different
directions". Well, my waves do not propagate in different directions, but I
surely obtain stationary nodes in spite of the fact that the two doctors
plaim that I cannot
B3. LINCOLN LABORATORY.
In a letter of 2-1-1972 this IEEE editor, Lin-
coln Laboratory,states: 11 ..... your letters are not
only candid but in many ways accurate. ..... After a thorough review of
your paper, I find that it is technically correct ..... it
B4. HARVARD UNIVERSITY: My letter to the President. Dr. D.C. Bok, asking
for an evaluation, was dated 11-30-1971. The reply
from the President, dated 2-14-72 , includes the statement:" My impression
from colleagues is that your method is basically correct ......" I was then
authorized by Harvard University to see the official evaluation,*made by a
selected Harvard scientist. He is an expert in this field of such high
status, and with such enormous contributions to science, that his findings
cannot be questioned by anyone, anywhere. I shall only quote a couple of
statements from the two page document:"I should state clearly that the ef-
fect described by Dr. Stockman does exist ....... addition of the two sig-
nals will yield a signal whose amplitude varies cyclically with distance
from the transmitter, having Stockman's "range nulls" at those distances
where the two multiples are in opposing phases ....... My conclusion,then,
is that the Stockman proposal is technically correct ..... 11
* dated 1-14-72
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
B5. M.I.T. My letter to the President Dr. Jerome Wiesner, asking for an
evaluation, was dated 11-30-71 . It is well known that the
President himself is an outstanding scientist. The actual evaluation was done
by Dr. L.D. Smullin, Head of the E.F. Department; an outstanding s ientist,
too well known to require any introduction. In his reply document Dr. Smul-
lin first acknowledged the assignment by Dr. Wiesner, and all I need to quote
from Dr. Smullin's technical statements is the following:"..... If the main
point is the production of range nulls, we must agree with you. .........
... letter to you on 11 August 1971 from F.H. Reder says the same thing."
There is no need for anyone to say any more than this. 4, dated 1-27-1972,
Anyone who is trying to upheld earlier destructive, amateurish, grossly erro-
neous statements that my "SP" method does not work, and that my "Range Nulls"
do not obtain, should forever hold his tongue. This advice is directed to:
USAF, MITRE, U.S. ARMY, American Institute of Physics, and IEEE.
PART C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
HOW U S ARMY GOT INTO TROUBLE.
I have described in Part A how Dr. Bias-
balg at MITRE wrote out a mathematical analysis to disprove "SP"; an analysis
with many serious errors. He never issued it as an official Memo, although I
challenged him to do so. Although Dr. Zarwyn had left the installation, I
maintained contact with him, and as an example we had a publication on Holo-
graphy in Proc. IEEE (April 196$). When Dr. Zarwyn learned about the troubles
I had to get my "SP" principle acknowledged as correct at MITRE, he suggested
that I submit my Bid Proposal to U.S. ARMY, more specifically to the INSTITUTE
FOR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH in Fort Monmouth. At this time, Dr. Zarwyn apparently
believed that this Institute was highly competent in the field of physics in
which "SP" belonged, since he assured me that this was the case; he said my
Proposal would be judged by real experts. Dr. Zarwyn, then in the ARMY, must
have been very much surprised to learn later that these "experts" were incom-
petent in the field of my invention, because the official Bid Proposal Evalua-
tion issued by the Institute was all in error. The salient point right here
is, however, that the mathematical analysis constituting the Institutes's
"evaluation" is a dead ringer for the above mentioned MITRE "analysis", made
by Dr. Blasbalg. The "evaluators", Dr. Ballard and Dr. Goubau, wrote equation
after equation , line after line, similar to those Dr. Blasbalg had written
at NITRE , and equally erroneous. Now the two doctors claim that the came
up with the analysis themselves ( which makes their case still worse) and
did not follow any Blasbalg analysis. If so, this is the coincidence of the
century. If the faulty Blasbalg analysis was transmitted to Fort Monmouth,
there were numerous ways in which this could have been done, because this was
half a year later, and many people travelled all the time between MITRE and
Fort Monmouth; one of those a fellow by name Harry E. Stockman. I spent con-
siderable time on synchronization and.timing problems, and many people knew
about my "SP" principle, and many of those, but not all of them, had been gi-
ven the illusion that it was wrong. Among those who wanted to know more about
my system was the OMEGA people, and I have an inquiry from them dated 6-3-69,
addressed to Dr. Blasbalg. From my discussions with these people I learned
that they knew everything there was to know about transmission in dispersive
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/249: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
media,-and, indeed, recently something has come out of all this. In the
future OMEGA Global Rescue Alarm System, the solution may be contributed by
DISPERSION; the very tool I am using in "SP". Another communication that pro-
ved how widely known "SP" had already become came from, you guessed it, Fort
Monmouth, dated 9-24-69, signed by Dr. F.H. Reder. He referred to standard
MITRE business, but also expressed interest in "your new system", a}'id set the
date of 10-14-69 for a meeting with him in Fort Monmouth. When I arrived, Dr.
Reder had been called away, but was represented by Dr. Hafner, another ARMY
scientist of great scientific reputation. In the second-day session, 10-15-69,
after the formal MITRE business had been concluded, I gave a briefing of "SP",
and from questions asked by Dr. Hafner , it was evident to me that he grasped
the basic principle of "SP" almost instantly.In this briefing I specifically
pointed out the pitfalls some people encountered in "SP" ( without reference
to MITRE). So inview of this briefing alone, the correct principle of "SP"
was quite well known to the top scientists at Forth Monmouth, but nevertheless
just a few months later the official "evaluators" , Dr. Ballard and Dr. Goubau
totally failed to understand the simple principle of "SP", thus producing a
mathematical "analysis" not worth the paper it was written on.
THE FAULTY ARMY "EVALUATION".
Let me describe in more detail the faulty
ARMY Bid Proposal Evaluation document, issued as a bona fide document by the
U S ARMY INSTITUTE FOR EXPLORATORY' RESEARCH, Forth Monmouth, under Dr. Ballard
This entire transaction was initiated by and handled by Dr Berthold Zarwyn,
with a view of aiding me in obtaining the qualified scientific judgement I was
seeking. There fore, it is only natural that the first of the two forwarding
letters accompanying the Bid Proposal Evaluation was issued by Dr. -.arwyn.
Dated 5-13-1970, this forwarding letter reads: HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES
ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, WASHINGTON DC , 20315, AMCRD-TF, addressed to me, and
transmitting the second forwarding letter, signed by the DIRECTOR FOR THE
INSTITUTE FOR EXPLORATORY RESEARCH, Dr. G.E.H. Ballard , followed by the
one page BID PROPOSAL EVALUATION proper, signed by Dr. Georg Goubau. In
his first forwarding letter, Dr. Zarwyn does not at all state that I am wrong
and Ballard/Goubau right, by the contrary, he asks for my comments. Dr. Bal-
lard's letter is dated 4-15-70, and starts with the specification "AMSEL-XL-D
(19 Mar 70) 1st Ind". Then comes a very confusing line referring to the "COM-
MERCIAL PATTERN DISCLOSURE". This is where the sloppiness characteristic for
this unfortunate Bid Proposal Evaluation begins. To conclude the description
of this three-page "evaluation" package, the first page is signed: BERTHOLD
ZARWYN, Ph.D. CHIEF , TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING BRANCH, RESEARCH DIVISION,
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE . The last entry on the
third page is:"GEORG GOUBAU, CHIEF, EM TRANSMISSION RESEARCH AREA, IER."
To begin with, I never submitted a Bid Proposal that even mentioned "Com-
mercial" and "Pattern". These are inventions by`the Institute, and apparently,
the Bid Proposal Evaluation was never proof read! This is evident from the
first line in Dr. Goubau's "analysis" where"commercial pattern" mysteriously
becomes "commercial patent", althought my Bid Proposal had nothing to do with
any "patent".Perhaps if the Institute had proofread its "Evaluation", "com-
mercial" would have become "communications", which is the term I used. Since
Dr. Goubau repeats "patent" at the bottom of his page, it is one good guess
that "commercial pattern" in a proofread edition would have been "communica-
tion patent". Dr. Ballard states: "DR. GOUBAU, AS A RECOGNIZED EXPEbT IN THE
FIELD, IS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED FOR SUCH A JUDGEMENT" There are two ways of in-
terpreting this, in view of the serious mathematical errors Dr. Goubau makes
on his "analysis" page , (1) either it is not true that Dr. Goubau is "emi-
nently qualified for such judgement", since the Harvard/MIT evaluation proves
that he is dead wrong, or (2) the Institutes knowledge in this field is so
poor a
yone can write a bunch of equations even if all of them are
wrong, is " er-Io~Q7sF~1A?2/0$a Czlp~@~~iA~~4tgtter by Dr.
 Approved For Release 2002/06/uu : CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
Ballard proves one thing.beyond any doubt; that neither one of the two doc-
tors was able to grasp the simple principle of my "SP" invention. The fact
that Dr. Goubau's mediocre "analysis" was heralded in the Director's forwar-
ding letter as something exclusive, a peak performance in science, is a slap
in the face of every competent ARMY scientist; gross scientific incompetency
in the field of my invention covered up by "carnival barking" in a forwarding
letter. Another reason why the ARMY should disqualify this entire document.
Let us take a closer look at Dr. G ubau's totally erroneous "analvssis"; the
heart of the "evaluation". Dr. Goubau makes the mistake of referring to w as
a " frequency". It is not a frequency, it is an angular velocity. Perhaps
this becomes more clear to Dr. Goubau if he considers a phasor which does not
quite describe a first revolution; then there is no frequency concept at all.
Technical slang should not be used in a mathematical analysis ntennced __toQ~~dis-
prove a new principle in physics. On the second line it says DISPERSIVE MEDi4
in other words, the author was fully aware from the very beginning_that "SP"
occurred in a dispersive medium. This is very important since attempts have
been made to whitewash Dr. Goubau, stating that his analysis is correct be-
cause it applies to non-dispersive media. It does not! The analysis is line
for line the same as Dr. Blasbalg's, and equallerroneous! As an example,
the author of the analysis fails to introduce the vital relation between
w1 and w2 , except that w > w , which is immaterial since one can also make
tFie opposite assumption. ALREADY IN HIS VERY FIRST EQUATION, DR GOUBAU PROVES
THAT HE NEVER GRASPED THE "SP" PRINCIPLE BY FAILING TO INTRODUCE A FIXED RE-
LATIONSHIP BETWEEN w1AND w 2, SUCH AS w1 = kw2, SUCH THAT IN THE RECEIVER
w VIA THE MULTIPLIER (1/k) CAN BE REDUCED TO w., , SO THAT THE HEART OF MY
INVENTION, THE RECEIVER INTERFERENCE PATTERN, CN BE OBTAINED. There is not
even the most remote hint of an interference pattern in Dr. Goubau's grossly
misdirected "analysis". Instead , Dr. Goubau stumbles on to the grossly erro-
neous findings that my "nodes" are not stationary , WHILE HARVARD AND MIT SAY
THAT THEY ARE: PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE SCIENTIFIC FINDING TO THAT OF DR. GOUBAU
whose mathematical "analysis" is a disgrace to the ARMY, and should be dis-
qualified. An additional reason why this should be done is that Dr. Goubau
claims on line 3 that my principle is based on a "misconception" and then
states "as shown by the following analysis". The fact that the Goubau "analy-
sis is totally in error, as I have shown above, proves that if there was any
"misconception", this "misconception" consists of the Goubau "analysis"..
Due to my violent complaints to the ARMY about the Institute's most offi-
cial but also most erroneous Bid Proposal Evaluation, I was granted a hearing
in Washington at the HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORY , with all my expencies paid.
The hearing was most officially held 2-2-71. It was quite formal and included
a dozen of people , top ARMY excecutives as well as top ARMY scientists. With
one exception, I have no complaints with reference to this meeting, which was
run in a most excellent manner, and lasted for hours. I was particularly
pleased that as soon as the meeting got under way, the participants agreed
with me 1004 that my "SP" principle was correct, and that the "range-nulls"
I claimed with my system indeed obtained, although there were many questions.
My single complaint is that the meeting did not extend to discuss the Fort
Monmouth "evaluation"; I was told that the meeting agenda did not include the
question whether Dr. Ballard and Dr. Goubau were right or wrong in their sub-
mitted "evaluation". Naturally, the ARMY has the full right to make up the
kind of agenda it approves of for a meeting, and then stick to it, but to me
the entire meeting was a waste of time, in e the proof of the scientific in-
competency o the two doctors was not made official; it was my scientific
standing against that of the two doctors, and apparently, the official ARMY
viewpoint was still that they were right, in spite of this meeting, which said
precisely the opposite to what the two doctors said in their "analysis", but
did not mention the doctors' names. This meeting, therefore, was a total
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/241:1CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
failure AS FAR AS THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE FAULTY ARMY BID PROPOSAL EVAL-
UATION WAS CONCERNED. It is hoped the ARMY,will do be.Vter this time, since
this time the ARMY's scientific reputation is-really-at stake. If the ARMY
continues to offer protection to the two doctors, who do not deserve it, the
general conclusion amongst Congressmen and others will be that the ARMY was
wrong THANKS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE HARVARD MIT EVALUATION. I did, receive
a confirmation o the meeting and the meeting results, but it might just as
well have remai ed unissued since it carefully avoided the acid question about
the faulty Bid Proposal Evaluation.
The Ballard/Goubau "evaluation" did a log., of harm
to my case, since non-technical people, such as Congressmen, could not possibly
believe that the glorious ARMY INSTITUTE OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH could be
wrong in a mathematical analysis on Freshman physics level. The authority of
the ARMY's INSTITUTE was so great that I was told more than once to "admit"
that I was wrong, because"this Institute is too advanced in science to make
petty mistakes of the nature claimed': In everybody's book, except for a
handful of scientists, I had lost the easy and this has been the situation up
to the day when the HARVARD/MIT EVALUATION appeared. The U S ARMY ought to
have a bad conscious, and should today try hard to make up for the harm it
once did. Apparently, it became one of America's favored indoor sports to get
the two doctors off the hook SOMEHOW , and I mentioned some attempts in the
earlier text. The most serious attempt to turn black into white goes as fol-
lows. Thoroughly justified from an educational point of view, I used "standing
waves" in quotation marks, to describe BY ANALOGY , the "nodes " 1 obtained.
Nowhere did I say that "SP" IS a standing wave phenomenon, or even associated
with standing waves. The analogy is well justified, because in both systems,
"nodes" indeed obtain, although of different nature. Now, the white-washing
claims ( and there have been several) state that mysteriously, if it was
"standing waves" that the two doctors evaluated, instead of the "SP" principlE
then their "analysis" is right. This is completely in error. NOTH1Nr ON EARTH
CAN MAKE THE INSTITUTE'S FAULTY "ANALYSIS" RIGHT. First of all, if the two
doctors analyzed "standing waves" instead of the assigned subject matter of
"SP", they did not follow the given assignment. If they copied a textbook page
about standing waves instead of evaluating "SP", they deliberately deviated
from the given assignment, which was to evaluate "SP". It is further clear
that Dr. Goubau by no means was analyzing "standing waves" from Dr. Ballard':
forwarding letter of 4-15-70, which says on line 8 :" THE COMMERCIAL PATTERN
DISCLOSURE WITH YOUR LETTER OF 19 MARCH 1970 HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY Dit. GEORG
GOUBAU, CHIEF, ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSMISSION AREA, INSTITUTE FOR EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH." So, this proves that indeed Dr. Gbubau was analyzing "SP" and
nothing else. In their concluding remarks, the two doctors mention the text-
book concept of standing waves .... PROPAGATING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, so
suppose for a moment that I would go along with the idea that the trio doctors
were analyzing "standing waves" instead of "SP", then I find that they jumped
from the frying pan into the fire. This is so, because on line 6, over Dr.
Goubau's signature, they burn this remaining ship by stating that THL TWO
WAVES PROPAGATE IN THE SAME DIRECTION. You can play semantics to the hilt,
but you can never hide the fact that the two doctors NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE
PRINCIPLE OF "SP", AND THAT THEIR "ANALYSIS" IS SCIENTIFICALLY IN EtROR TO
SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. This is why
it now has become a matter of scientific prestige for U S ARMY to withdraw
this unfortunate Bid roposa Evaluation on oasis a it is wrong. I have
asked a large number of Congressment to watch how this situation developes.
There has been accepted standard of ethics in America, since the days of Ben-
jamin Franklin, that when you are scientifically in error, and the error is
pointed out to you, you admit to itt Not so the two doctors. In a letter
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 200206/24 : CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
dated 5-1$-70 to Dr. Ballard, I described on three pages in the greatest
detail the scientific errors made by Dr. Goubau. In a subsequent letter of
12-12-70, sent through AMC, U S ARMY,I openly challenged the Director of the
Institute, Dr. Ballard, to disprove my charges of a scientifically faulty
Bid Proposal Evaluation in a document submitted DIRECTLY TO THE ARMY LEADERS
IN WASHINGTON, with copies to Dr Zarwyn and I , or, as the only possible al_,
ternative , ADMIT IN WRITING THAT HE AND DR. GOUBAU WERE GUILTY OF THE.SCI-
LivTIFIC ERRORS I HAD POINTED OUT. There was no answer; only silence. Is there
any further need of proofs? Of course, at that time Harvard and MIT were not
yet in the picture, but today, thanks to Harvard and MIT THE TWO DOCTORS HAVE
BEEN PROVEN WRONG , and it makes little difference whether they pretend to
be right. The thing that has not been done yet is the official ARMY withdrawal
of the faulty Bid Proposal Evaluation , with the officially given explanation
for the withdrawal that the 13 id Proposal Evaluation is scientifically in error.
THE USAF FAILURE.
After having encountered a number of MITRE's "Experts"
who for their lives could not graps the basic "SP" principle, I submitted an
Official Bid Proposal document -, dated 2-1-70 , to USAF . It was sent to the
nearby Hanscom Field, with wnich MITRE had extensive exchange of information.
Having worked at Cambridge Field Station, now moved to the Field, and having
visited the Field many times for MITRE, I knew many people at AFCRL and at
other units. I even gave a briefing on HOLOGRAPHY there. Again I stressed
that my Bid Proposal was submitted for our National Defence. While AFCRL has
some of the world's best scientists in its employ, right in the center of my
"SP" invention, it soon became evident that none of those had had any control
over the issued Bid Proposal Evaluation, dated 3-10-70 , or this Evaluation
would have been correct. This was the date of the forwarding letter, signed
by Colonel D.J. Flinders. The Evaluation was signed by Mr. C.J.Sletten, and
dated 3-5-70. The Evaluation was totally in error and represents a disgrace
to USAF. From the very first page the aim was clearly to denounce and disprove
as an invention, at any cost, including nonethical means. Both Colonel
Flinders and Mr Sletten were MITRE visitors, and as an example, during
an earlier visit by Mr. Slettei,, I gave him an extensive tour of the Hologra-
phy Laboratory. The names of the real authors of the Evaluation were,however,
withheld, and USAF steadfastly-refused to give their names. In the Evaluation
they were referred to as we", "us", and "ours". Specifically, I tried via
Congressmen to find out if anyone of "we", "us", and "ours" worked outside
of USAF, and if so where. Atleast two different typewriters were used in the
typing of the Evaluation, and there were three different kinds of English
used. Many of the objections stated against "SP" had been stated earlier at
MITRE, perhaps in different wordings. None of this proves any participation
by MITRE in this Bid Proposal Evaluation, although it is quite a coincident
that certain objections against "SP" came up here in about the same way as
they earlier entered in at FITRE. The Evaluation has many technical errors and
is highly contradictory between different paragraphs, probably the result of
the use of several "Reviewers"; one in making his point not bothering to read
what another "Reviewer" had already stated. It is a poorly composed document.
For details, see my extensive Rebuttal of 3-20-70.
Had my submitted version of my Bid Proposal of 2-1-70 been the one evalLt
ated, it would have been very difficult even for a highly biased "evaluator"
to deny the later Harvard/MIT finding that my "SP" principle was right. BUT
MY SUBMITTED BID PROPOSAL WAS NOT THE ONE EVALUATEDI To make sure that no one
could make technical sense out of my Proposal, MY TWO INTRODUCTORY TECHNICAL
STATEMENTS WERE SWITCHED, DELIBERATELY INTERCHANGED. SO THAT A NUMBER OF THE
FOLLOWING TECHNICAL STATEMENTS VN_ OTALLY ERRONEOUS. USAF has con-
stantly ignored the many attempts Ihave made through Congressmen like Edward M.
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24: c13A-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
Kennedy to bring this matter out in the open, with the USAF, (1), admitting to the deliberate switching.
and (2), explaining why the switching was done, giving the name of the person who did it. There ds
not the most remote possibility that the switching was done by accident. Admittedly, a group of "Re-
viewers" were at work ( "we", "us", "ours"). In the very act of "reviewing", each individual must now
and then look back upon my initial technical statements, or he' would not know what thechnical statement
he is deliberating on. So , for the reason of an argument, let us say that four "Reviewers" were at
work. Assume that each one looked back ten times on myinitiel technical claims. That makes 40 look
backst SO, 40 CONSECUTIVE TIMES THE "REVIEWERS" READ MY TWO ENTIAL TECHNICAL STATEI-LENTS UPSIDE DOWN;
NOT ONCE DID A "REWLEWER" READ THE PLAIN ENGLISH IN THE ORDERI IT WAS TYPED. The probability for this
is about 1 to infinity. I dont think any court on earth can become convinced that the switching was
an accident. SOMEONE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF USAF DID THE SWITCHING DELIBERATELY FOR THE PLRPOSE OF DE-
FINITELY RUINING MY PROPOSAL, SINCE ALL REQUIRE , UTHLhWi6E, WOULD BE A COMPETENT REVIEWER, AND,
BINGO, HERE IS THE HARVARD/IM:IT EVALUATION, OBTAINED ALREADY IN 1970. Without accusing MITRE, I wish
to draw attention to the fact that MITRE would have lost scientific prestige had USAF found, just a
matter of months later, that the MITRE "finding" that "SP" was wrong, was wrong. Indeed, everything
about "SP" was right; MITRE just never understood how "SP" worked. One must not draw the conclusion
that someone from MITRE did the switching. Some friend of MITRE may have done it. But it surely is a
very queer thing. Anyhow, with the switching done, affecting several pages of my Bid Proposal, there
was enough technical contradictions for "SP" to be thrown out, and it was thrown out. This unethical
handling of an officially submitted National Defence Bid Proposal is a scandal of no small propor-
tions in our National Defence. It might well have shaken up the Air Force if appearing at some poli-
tically inopportune time. So far USAF has dodged this scandal BY THE VERY SIMPLE TACTIC OF TOTALLY
DODGING THE SUBJECT MATTER, EVEN WHEN THE INQUIRY CAME FROM A' CONGRESSMAN, WITH SOME CONGRESSMAN
TRYING MOST NCER BIND OUT THE TRUTH IN THIS SERIOUS GOVERNMENT MATTER . I have many re-
plies from the top USAF generals and .executives in Washington, totally dodging the switching issue,
but telling me how THOROUGHLY the matter has been investigated, proving there is NO FOUNDATION for
the made allegations, etc. I conclude that the "switching" must have been investigated-at least five
times by different authorities in USAF ( including the legal ones), but mysteriously, everything else
is discussed, except the "switching". This indeed is a sore point with the USAF; an "Achilles'h-eel "
One does not need any super intelligence and to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that USAF is
square GUILTY. But it will not admit its guilt' In my Rebuttal of 3-20-70 I spent 5 (five pages
on the switching issue alone, showing in the greatest detail JUST HOW THE SWITCHING WAS DONE. Senator
Kennedy was very helpful; he sincerely tried to help me, writing many letters. From this and other
experiences I, learned, however, that the individual Congressman is powerless against the USAF. He
just gets one or more of these smooth whitewashing letters from the USAF , whereupon he forwards
them to- me, and that is the end of the line. In my humble opinion, the only way a Congressman can
get anywhere against the USAF is to get the subject matter officially entered in one of the Congres-
sional Committees, with a strong charge of unethical handling of a Bid Proposal by USAF. But unless
Congress itself is involved, I would not be surprised if USAF would just chose to ignore the charge,
just as. it ignored, in the same meaning, the -inquiry from Congressmen.
Whether or not USAF admits to the "switching",it lost the scientific battle, because the net
result of the "evaluation", however it was done, was that my "SP" principle was wrong, BUT HARVA~~D
AND MIT SAY THAT IT IS RIGHT, SO, USAF HAS BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY INCOMPETENT IN THE FIELD OF MY
"SP" INVENTION. This means loss of scientific prestige for USAF; its scientific reputation is at
stake. The single person responsible for putting USAF in this jeopardy is COLONEL FLIN~D.i~RS~ HANSCOM
FIELD, who made the grave mistake in line of duty of issuing OFFICIALLY, as an OFFICIAL Aid Propo-
sal Evaluation, an unethical and scientifically erroneous "evaluation". Note that USAF did not have
to issue this "evaluation"; it could simply have excused itself. am under the impression that Co-
lonel Flinders' was most anxious to issue this "evaluation", going all the way back to Cambridge
Field Station days in his official forwarding letter of 3-10-70 , being very negative towards "SP".
Colonel Flinders was a frequent MITRE visitor; in fact I was in the same meetings he was in more than
once.
MITRE'S "KANGAROO COURT".
The famous MITRE RESEARCH COMMITTEE was still under Dr. Robert Naka
when the "SP" issue started. (Dr. Naka is now Deputy of the Air Force in Washington.) Every year
this Committee receives scores of scientific ideas from brilliant MITRE people, and no dubt some of
these ideas result in valuable contributions to our National Defence. Therefore, when a new principle
of physics, submitted directly for our National Defence, is prevented from reaching the Committee,it
is most serious even in the case when the preventive action is merely caused by scientific incom-
petency at MITRE. The Evaluation Meeting of 10-3-69 was held in response to my many complaints via
different MITRE channels to the amateurish "analysis" made by Dr. Herman Blasbalg, ruling out "SP"
from consideration by the Research Committee. One would therefore think that the Director of the
Communications Division , Mr. Lewis i ig, would lean over backwards to make up for the black spot
on one of his Departments ( D91) by chosing as Evaluator some real top MITRE scientist in the field,
and I have already mentioned that MITRE has scientists on Nobel-Prize winners level. INSTtiAD MR.
BILLIG PICKED THE VERY TWO DEPARTMENT HEADS WITH WHOM I WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN SERIOUS TECHNICAL
AND IN ONE CASE ALSO ETHICAL,DISAGt2EEMENTS, HAVING REPORTED BOTH FOR SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETEiCY IN THE
FIELD OF HOLOGRAPHY, AND ONE FOR UNETHICAL ACTION UNWORTHY OF A MITRE DEPARTMENT HEAD. On the other
hand, I do not think I had any other enemies at ~1TRE than these two. Accordingly, this was not a
scientific Evaluation Meeting, IT WAS A DELIBERATELY ARRANGED "KA rAROO COURT" WITH ONLY ONE AIM ; ;
TO GIVE THE DEATH BLOW TO "SP", with total disregard of scientific values. The Meeting "proved" that
"SP"does not work; also the opinion of Mr. Billig as expressed in his later.grossly erroneous Memo
D9-M2164 of 10- 7-1969; BUT HARVARD AND MIT SAY THAT IT DOES WORK'. More specifically, I entered the
? with points on my agenda, covering all asge d medical the ast point
in which my "r O~yap]c~kbPw ie 8862G92 t IR 4a: -Q -2 as ~e , 1 R b
firstpoint
 Approved For Release 2002/06/244 CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
because of the fierce attacks on "SP" the two in this field incompetent "evaluators" delivered.In
the word 3 of Dr. dergcnann, one of theca was "angry". '1'H13 "KANGARRO COURT" REPRESLNTS A BLACK Spar
ON A.ITRE'S RESEARCH IMM.AGE; ONE THAT CAN NEVER BE ERASED. At the end of this biased "evaluation" the
Director stated that he could not forward my "SP" invention to the Research Committee on basis that
I had been unable to convince the two Evaluators that my principle was right. HOW CAN YOU CONV1NG
ANY30DY ABOUT ANYTHING THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND? The entire evaluation was a big farce; all I
had been able to do was to merely begin to explain how the two waves were generated; my additional
five points had not been touched upon. This "evaluation" was not a recommendation for MITULI as a Go-
vernment "THINK TANK" , because no thinking went into this "evaluation" on the part of the "evalua-
tors", at least no scientific thinking. Further, this "evaluation" was not a recommendation for
MITRE as a link in our National Defence , and this was a project submitted for our National Defence.
The "evaluation" was a disgrace to MITRE!
On 10-7-69 the Director called me in for a continuation meeting, saying that he wanted to "em-
phasize" on certain aspects of "SP" which had not been given full consideration in the previous mee-
ting. There was nobody else present. The Director embarked upon a mathematical analysis on the
black board, dealing with the generation of the two waves; the subject matter I had started out with
in the preceeding meeting. HIS ANALYSIS WAS TOTALLY IN ERROR AND REVEALED VERY POOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF COA'MUNICATIONS, particularly with reference to the subject matter of frequency
and bandwidth. Instead of disproving "SP" , he actually proved it, but he did not know enough of the
physics fundamentals to understand this , although I immediately pointed out his errors to him, get-
ting nowhere. He said he would write up the analysis in a Memo and send to me. I asked if I could
reply to it, and he actually requested me to reply to it. This was fortunate, because when 1 later
replied to it, I was instantly refused a secretary, and I had to refer to'the Director's office to
get one. The administrative machinery under Mr. Billig was in many respects third rate, with an ad-
ministratively poorly trained Department Head ( D91; Dr. Herman Blasbalg) , and a still more poorly
trained Sub-Department Head (D91: Yr. Otto Cardinale). Denial of a secretary was the standard pro-
-cedure I encountered when my Memos included true statements not appreciated by the administration,
and to slow down my work for USAF on urgent Defence Matters , so that I could be charged with fal-
ling behind in my work, not delivering-in scheduled time the goods ordered from me. My complaints
to the Division Director only made my situation worse. I had numerous friends at MITRE who would
type anything for me, and some of them helped me out on several occasions, but then D91 used another,
much more powerful tool to stop a scientist who would not "fall in line"; REFUSAL OF AN OFFICIAL
b,EMO NUMBERS This indeed was a powerful tool. You could work for a long t me on a scientific problem,
t e urgency of which was indicated by the fact that several scientists in your own corridor worked
on the same or a similar subject matter, and you could get a rough draft typed, and even a final
typed, but being refused a Memo number, you had produced nothin . It was the ultimate weapon, that
could make you look as a total failure as a 1,, TttE scientist. still more powerful weapon to slow
down a scientist in D91 was to exclude him from the Project Meetings discussing the very subject
matter he was assigned to work on, leaving him to guess how his work for USAF tied in with the re-
quirements, rather than to go by fact. Fortunately, I had many friends, and I always had.a pretty
good idea of the progress in my assigned field. NOT ONCE IN D91 WAS I ALLOWED TO ATTEND A PROJECT
MEETING DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MY USAF ASSIGt&iENT, and complaints up the line failed to
remedy the situation. I have a ringbook full of evidence to prove what I have said above. And do not
let me forget the major D91 weapon against any scientist; the fireing list. I do not recall how
many times I was threatened to be fired just because I disagreed with the amateurish, semitechnical
instruction I received just how I should do my work, and ultimately I ended up on t eiireing list.
I had. to go all the way up to the MITRE President to get out of that one. Had I been fired, I would
have issued the content of my ringbook to every member of Congress. I mention all this to give a
true background to the D09 "Kangaroo Court"; to prove that it was a lot of "sand" in the Communica-
tions Division administrative"machinery" There was quite widespread dissatisfaction with both the
executives mentioned; apparently, I was not the only scientist who suffered because of their lack
of knowledge about administration.
Indeed Mr. Billig issued a Memo over his siggnature; a memaito over his incompetency in this com-
munications field. It was Memo D9-M2164 of 10-7-69,having most of the errors of his verbal presen-
tation that day. My. reply was a polite four-page Memo D91-M-408 of 10-20-69, in which I pointed out
his gross errors. I corrected his erroneous assumptions underlying his "proof", in which he wrote im-
possible mathematical relations. He did not even understand the well-known Wheeler's formula about
the proper frequency-bandwidth relation. He used this formula incorrectly, as I pointed out. I
showed by means of a Fourier analysis that when he tried to prove that "SP" was no good because of
enormous bandwidth requirements, he really showed instead mathematically that "SP" does not need any
bandwidth at all; the utopia of 1/f relationships. Mr. Billig was incompetent in the communications
field to the extent that he did not even understand his own formulas. I also suffered from Mr.
Billig's lack of technical knowledge in the Holography field; something I can prove with a reliable
witness; Dr..Berthold Zarwvn.
MORE MITRE SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCY.
The scientific incompetency revealed with reference to my
"SP" invention was not limited to the MITRE Communications Division. Early in 1969 I took my "SP"
invention to the top MITRE scientist, Dr. Robert Naka, who seemed very interested , and agreed that
my principle was correct and that "SP" worked. Later, however, when my disagreement with the Commu-
nications Division Director developed, and when Dr. Naka had become Deputy of the Air Force in
Washington, he denied via the MITRE Patent Committee that he had ever said "SP" was right. At the
time I first approached him, however, he was most helpful, and sincerely tried to help me make head-
way with "SP" at MITRE. Accordingly, he authorized a meeting with the Director for the Radar Division,
Yr. Ed Key, D08. DurApr d1F gledsdd 2/O24eYCIAcRDPT5 1414000 0' 6?4 in physics fun- --
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24 :101A-RDP751300514R0001001-90004-2
damentals, and during our conversation he made several worthwhile suggestions, proving to me that he
understood the "SP" principle almost instantly. What I was looking for was Microwave Experimental Fa-
cilities, and he sent me to an administrator, who was very helpful, and again sent me to the radar ex-
perts; the ones supposed to look into the technical matters. Here, however, I run into severe scien-
tific incompetency. While some of these people were very quick; in writing down electromagnetic theory
equations, it was apparent that some of them, at least, had not grasped the true meaning of Maxwell's
equations; the interpretation they gave of these equations were sometimes in error. Of course, for
each one of these people, MITRE has ten outstanding radar experts , thoroughly familiar with Maxwell's
equations, but those were not the people I had been steered to. My first contact ultimately arrived
at the grossly erroneous conclusion that , dispersive space or' not, you cannot obtain "range nulls"
with two waves sent in the same direction. Due to my objections, however, he offered to take my pro-
posal to two other radar experts, I do not know their names, and a week later, he presented me with
the verdict that indeed my "SP" principle was wrong; the three had considered this scientific matter
in very great detail, and agreed that I could not obtain the "range nulls" I claimed with the method
I described, he said. BUT HARVARD AND MIT TODAY SAY I CAN, proving that ..these three "radar experts"
were very poorly trained in electromagnetic theory, and did not know what they were talking aboutt
They just could not grasp the simple "SP" principle in spite of my detailed explanations to their
spokesman. I proceeded to the next radar expert, who also said that the "SP" principle was wrong. When
1 got to the fifth and last "expert" and found him saying the same thing, I gave up, and never retur-
ned to the MITRE E-Building. The last "expert", however, made the very serious mistake of transmitting
his erroneous findings to me in the form of a signed letter, dated 10-2-69, from which I quote:"-----
range nulls cannot be achieved by forward waves -)nly". BUT HARVARD AND MIT SAY THEY CAN t Note that
this scientist most definitely was dealing with dispersive space; in fact the dispersion formula he
used appears on the same page I quoted from. There is no way on earth in which this scientist can
get around the fact that HIS ANALYSIS WAS-TOTALLY IN ERROR; the written evidence will stand up in
court.
LOSS OF SCIENTIFIC PRESTIGE FOR THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS. On 10-2-70 I submitted my "SP"
manuscript to the AMERICAN JOUR-
NAL OF PHYSICS, in which I had published several scientific contributions through the years. With re-
ference to the submitted paper, however, my dealings soon extended to the American Institute of Physis,
AIP, which is fully responsible for the third-rate editorial policy displayed by the journal. The
amateurish handling of my paper is perhaps to some extent evident from the abnormally drawn-out edi-
torial proceedings, with received letters from the Journal dated: 10-5-70, 1-7-71, 2-22-71, 4-6-71,
5-7-71, 7-16-71. Slowing down the editorial progress to almost a standstill, with the Institute
stretching its editorial decisions over almost a year, the responsible party tried desperately to get
itself out of the hole it had fallen in by officially submitting A FULLY OFFICIAL AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF PHYSICS OFFICIAL REVIEW , thoroughly and completely in error, not worth the paper it was written
on. One way of dodging the issue was by not answering letters, or not answering them in time, and when
answering my letters, TOTALLY DODGING MY REQUEST FOR A COMPETENT REVIEWER REPLACING THE INCOMPETENT
ONE, WITH THE ISSUED OFFICIAL "REVIEW" OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWN FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS SCIMITIFICALLY
IN ERROR. The scientific incompetency of the First Reviwer was beyond the wildest imagination. He was
so totally lacking knowledge in fundamental physics pertaining to waves that he would not even get
beyond an "F" as a High-School senior. How the American Institute of Physics could lower itself to use
such an amateur scientist in the field of my "SP" invention is impossible to understand. I described
his frightful scientific error IN AN 8,000 words DOCUMENT, dated, 6-1-71, and sent to the AIP Chair-
man and other AIP officials. THERE WAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST ATTEh.PT BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
TO ADMIT TO THE GROSS SCIENTIFIC ERROR OF ITS OFFICIAL FIRST REVIE' t., OR EVEN TO DISCUSS HIS ERROR,
AND TO WITHDRAW THE FAULTY '"REVIEW", AND TO APPOINT A COMPETENT ZEVIEWER AS REPLACEMENT FOR THIS IN
THE FIELD OF MY "SP" INVENTION POORLY TRAINED "EXPERT". In this 8,000 words Document I showed in the
greatest detail how this incompetent "Reviewer" had totally failed to grasp the basic principle of
"SP", and could not even understand the concept of composite w ve? clearly a High-School level su-
bject matter. To illustrate the decree of incompetency of this First Reviewer, let me go back for a
moment to a statement made By MITRE's Mr. Billig. He said that "SP" simply could not work BECAUSE ONE
CANNOT PRODUCE TWO WAVES WHICH ARE ALWAYS OUT OF PHASE AT THE TRANSMITTER. My reply to Mr. Billig and
to others coming up with the same statement constantly was:"WHO IS TRYING TO PRODUCE TWO WAVES ALWAYS
OUT OF PHASE AT THE TRANSMITTER: I AM NOT". I claimed "range nulls" with waves vexing in and mt ofphase.
Now this "expert" officially chosen by AIP as its First Reviewer out of the clear sky comes out with
the same st teme !Specifically he says that MY PAPER CAN BE PUBLISHED ONLY AFTER I HAVE PROVEN EXPE-
IniEPTAL of all things) THAT I CAN PRODUCE FREQUENCIES WHICH ARE ALWAYS OUT OF PHASE AT THE TRANS-
MITTER. Where did he get this worn-out MITRE slogan from? Was there any tie-in between this "Reviewer"
and MITRE, or rather, with anyone working at MITRE? The AIP "Reviewer" was not even in the same ball
park as my submitted paper. He committed a deadl sin as a reviewer of submitted a ers namely TO
CLAIM A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT, WHICH NEVER A E . F, SUBMITTED PAPER, AND Ei HIS "REVIEW"
ON THIS STATEMENT, WHICH HE HIMSELF HAD INVENTED, TREATING IT AS A BONA FIDE PART OF NNY PAPEit. The
truth in the matter is that I obtain my "range nulls" with the two waves doing JUST THE OPPOJITE TO
BEING "ALWAYS OUT OF PHASE", NAMELY VEXING IN AND OUT OF PHASE ALL THE TIME. This amateur scientist
in the "SP" field, serving as an official "Reviewer", pu words in my mou h that I had never utte-
red, IMPLANTING UPON MY METHOD A WAVE-STARTING CONDITION WHICH DID NOT EXIST, THUS FA L N TO REVIEW
MY SUBMITTED PAPER, AND INSTEAD REVIEWING A PAPER CONTAINING HIS. WILLFULLY INTRODUCED Cf_IiaG:S. Note
that in his submitted "review" this AIP "Reviewer" clearly states that he is reviewing my basic method
of creating "range nulls" , although he refers to them as "standing waves", which is perfectly accep-
table. If he was reviewing something else, he should have stated what this"something else?was, for
example, laser beam "SP" requires quite a special generation technique, in Ultrasonics "JP" the wave
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24:CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
generation is completely different, and if interference reduction is the aim, the simple "SP" scheme
for the creation of "range nulls" is not used at all, and is replaced by a rather complicated system.
3ut, this "expert Reviewer" by his own admission is "reviewing" just one thing, and that is my
"range null" system, and here he makes the monumental error of the specific assumption that I must
have waves "always out of phase" or I cant do it, WHIL3 HAXVA!D AND MIT SAY THAT IADlrEn I CAN DO IT
gITH IAVE.S WHICH CONSTANTLY V3X IN AND OUT OF PHASE. This "Reviewer" is a disgrace to the American In-
stitute of Physics. A still greater disgrace are the two AlP editors I were dealing with, who refused
to admit to the gross scientific error made by this amateur scientists in the field of "5P". Nor di
AIP admit to this gross scientific error when I made it extremely clear to the AIP leaders via my ex-
tensive :tebuttal, the outstanding message of which was MY BEQUEST FOR A COr?.PETENT REVIEWER REPLACING
THE INCOMPETENT ONE. The AIP:s reaction to this request is unbelievable. One would think that after
its major fiasco in the reviewing of a scientific paper, that AlP would look all over America for
a real expert on Wave Propagation and Electromagnetic Theory, to make up for its failure . It looked
for months, but not for the kind of Second Reviewer I had expected. THEY CAME UP WITH ONE WHO KNEW
STILL LESS ABOUT THE "SP" FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS THAN THE FIRST REVIEWER, and of course, they did not
tell me the name of either "reviewer". After I had pointed out the frightful scientific errors of the
"Second Revier", AIP followed the same policy it had applied to the "First Reviewer", namely to re-
fuse to admit to his errors.Like the "First Reviewer", the "Second Reviewer "totall( failed to under-
stand the "SP" principle. He attempted to prove that "SP" was using part of a previously pu lsheu
technique, employed in a well-known navigational system, described in a paper discussing the famous
OMEGA and other systems. The basic principle for the OMEGA system, invented by the famous Harvard
scientist Jack Pierce , and my "SP" system, have practically nothing in common, but the poorly trained
"Second Reviewer" never discovered that. He did not even discover that in the OMEGA system, the two
waves have the SAME frequency, but DIFFERENT directions, while in my "SP" system, the two waves have
DIFFERENT frequency, but go in the SAME direction. But this "expert" stumbled on to a much worse error.
He failed to understand that OMEGA and "SP" are as different as day and night for the special additio-
nal reason that (1KEGA employs NON-DISPERSIVE SPACE while "SP" employs DISPERSIVE SPACE. Further this
OFFICIAL AIP REVIEWER failed to grasp the concept of the INTERFERENCE PATTERN I employ in my receiver.
His comparison between interference in the "SP" system and interference in the system he uses for' com-
parison is shattered into smitherins for the simple reason that THE OTHER SYSTEM DOES NOT HAVE ANY
INTERFERENCE AT ALL ; IT IS A "TIME-SHARING" ?SYST_'; ONE WAVE IS OFF WHEN THE OTHER ONE IS ON. This
kind of amateurish mistakes did not stop the "Second Reviewer" from throwing out my paper, stating
that it "contributes nothing new", and,"does not merit publication". The use of two consecutive offi-
cial AIP "Reviewers" with amateurish knowledge in the field of the review subject, does not speak well
for AIP. The Institute's refusal to admit to the gross errors of the two "Reviewers" does not speak well
for the AIP. The Institutes use of two Editors, none of whom discovered the "Reviewers"' serious er-
rors but bluntly mailed out this scientific trash as bona fide SUBMITTED PAPER REVIEWS does not speak
well for AIP. THE HARVARD-MIT FINDINGS PROVE THAT AIP IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCOMPETENT IN THE FIELD OF MY
"5P" INVENTION. THE SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION OF THE AT STAKE IN VIEW OF
THE FINDINGS OF,HARVARD AND MIT. Still, the AIP members never heard of "SP", they constute the elite
of the world's experts on Wave Propagation and Electromagnetic Theory. IT IS THE AIP LEADERS WHO FAILED,
NOT THE MEMBERSHIP BODY, BUT THE AIP LEADERS SPEAK OFFICIALLY FOR THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP.
NOTE: My "SP" paper was submitted to the AIP office at Darthmouth College. Dr. D.V. Ragone
at Darthmouth College was at this time also a TRUSTEE of NITRE. I do not know if Dr. Ragone and
MITRE had anything to do with all this. I would say that an Editor or Reviewer seeking information
from outside experts about the subject matter of a submitted paper should be complimented; he is
doing the right thing. But suppose he receives erronous technical information, and is not suffici-
ently well oualifed to discover this, then he is in trouble.
LOSS OF SCIENTIFIC PRESTIGE FOR IEEE. The AIP "review" of my submitted "SP11"paper marks a black page
in America's history of editorial policy with reference to technical editing. When I subsequently sub-
mitted the same paper to IEEE, where (in Proc.IRE,IsiE) I have published many scientific papers,I found
the page contributed by IEEE to the history of the reviewing of scientific papers in America to be
"blacker than black". To the extent possible, the IEEE "review" contained still worse technical errors
than the AIP "review"" produced by an amateur scientist in the field of my "SP" invention; a fellow
who did not even master High-School trigonometry, as I shall prove below. The "review" came in three
installments, dated: 8-17--71, 9-30-71-, and 11-24-71. With the many letters I wrote to numerous IEEE
officials, for example demanding -a comp ten. reviewer, this submitted paper "review" extended over many
months, and fills a ringbook. I got absolutely nowhere: IEEE REFUSED A COMPETENT REVIEWER AND IT RE-
FUSED TO ADM1IT TO THE GROSS SCIENTIFIC E1tRO:f.S MADE BY THE OFFICIAL, BUT IN THIS FIELD TOTALLY INCOMPE-
TENT,"REVIEWER". Ultimately, IEEE used additional "Reviewers", contributing "reviews" WHICH I -WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO SEE and then on basis of these additional "reviews" ruled out my paper from publication.
One additional "review" got into my hands; as I had expected, it was totally in error. I can only con-
clude that all originators of SECRET ADnITIONAL IEEE OFFICIAL "REVIEWS" were equally scientifically
incompetent in the quoted field. IN VIEW OF THE HARVARD AND MIT EVALUATIONS, IEEE 1S sciL,taiFiCALLY
INCOMPETENT IN THE FIELD OF MY "SP" INVENTION. iEIE's SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION IS A S Al . Space only allows me to give a+'ew examples of the unbelievable scientific incompetency of this
official IEEE "Reviewer"; my Rebuttal of 11-27-71 ALONE is 28 pages long,spelling out every scientific
error in greatest detail, and sent to THE IEEE D11{=AS, THE IEEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE , SEVERAL PAST
PRESIDENTS, SCORES OF IEEE EDITORS, AND TOP IEEE OFFICIALS, etc. NOTHING WAS DONE TO REMEDY THE SITUA-
TION. IEEE would not even discuss the scientific errors, not to mention admitting to them, Of course,
the IEEE members, some of them Nobel-Prize Winners in physics, I`agm sure, knew nothing a out all this.
correct.
Just ONE review by 0 f M r ldajse2v1~1`~ Ora -il d G VeR6poy 005114RsOc~0e1n00190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/241:"CIA-RDP75B00514R0001001.90004-2
Here are some unbelievable "tid bits" , all verified by official IEEE "Review" do uments.Already
in his first "review" this poorly trained "Reviewer" proved his incompetency in the field of Wave Pro-
pagation by stating that two waves propagate with the DIFFERENT velocities v and v , but, mysterious-
ly, AFTER SOME TIME BOTH HAVE GONE THE SAME DISTANCE x. Then he writes a formula which can only be de-
signated as idiotic ( page 9 in my Rebuttal). Now he has forgotten his original assumption, and surpri
singly proves that v v . No one caught this error.As if this was not enough, the official IEEE '
"Reviewer" uses his T1igh-Sgchool level physics knowledge in the field to prove that "x and t are line-
arly related". They are not; this is?another totally erroneous conclusion on the part of this "expert"
(See page 10 of my Rebuttal). In direct response to this "First Review" I pointed out his errors to
IEEE, AND THIS WAS THE POINT WHERE IEEE SHOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED THIS INCOMPETENT "R~'V)EWER" AND RE-
PLACED HIM WITH A COMPETENT ONE. Nothing doing, apparently the IEEE editors at work were just as incom?
petent in this field as the "Re"viewer",because they failed, tofind the errors AFTER I HAD POINTED THEM
OUT[ The "Reviewer" apparently got somewhat worried, however3 and in his "Second Review" he set out to
PROVE that he was right, ALL WITH THE FULL BLESSING OF IEEE 1 which could have refused to officially
issue this scientific trash in the form of a most official-IEEE review; the second one ). To my great
surprise", this "expert" in his "Second Review" produced a trigonometric formula which indeed proved
that my "nodes" never stand still in space. What decides whether my "nodes" stand still or not is the
sign between the two last terms in the equation ( See page llttof my Rebuttal). The "Reviewer" had a
+ sign here, BUT HE HAD MADE A BAD SIGN ERROR; IN A CORRECT DERIVATION THE SIGN COMES GUT - , AND NOW,
JUST AS I ALWAYS CLAIMED, MY "NODES" STAND STILL, IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE LATER HARVARD AND MIT
FINDINGS. THIS IS HIGH-SCHOOL LEVEL TRIGONOMETRY THAT THE OFFICIAL IEEE "REVIEWER",AND THE IEEE EDITOiiZl
AT WORK,ARE FAILING INSHow IEEE can issue such scientific trash in the form of a SECOND "review" after
I had proven the scientific incompetency of this official IEEE "Reviewer", is very hard to understand.
I can only conclude that the aim of the entire editorial "reviewing" was to kill off "SP" AT ANY COST:
Then IEEE would'isinguthe same"song"previously"sung"by MITRE, USAF,U S ARMY, .and Al?. After had cor-
rected this unbelievable "hoppla" officially issued by IEEE as the official"SECOND REVIEW", I felt con-
fident that IEEE would replace this amateur in the field of Wave Physics by a competent Reviewer. To.
my surprise, IEEE KEPT THIS "EXPERT" ON THE JOB AS THE OFFICIAL IEEE REVIEWER, AND GAVE ITS FULL CON-
SENT TO THIS THREE-RING CIRCUS OF ERRONEOUS "REVIEWING"BY ALLOIING HIM TO ISSUE A THIRD "RL!IEW",this
time a "Review" with so frightful errors in mathematics and physics that the previous ones seemed very
slight in comparison. Apparent y, this time the 'Reviewer" was mad because I had reported his equations
as being wrong to IEEE, so he starts out with the bold statement ".... THIS REVIEWER DID IOT MAKE ANY
MISTAKE". He surely did; he made numerous mistakes. HOW CAN IEEE ALLOW A "THIRD REVIEW" TO GO OUT WITH
THE "REVIEWER'S" STATE'1ENT THAT.HE WAS RIGHT, AFTER I HAD PROVEN HIS OBVIOUS NATHENIATICAL AND OTHER
ERRORS? Where the IEEE editors so poorly trained in-mathematics that they could not even understand
simple corrections of High-School level trigonometric equations? Don't tell me they sent out three
consecutive-official "Reviews", KNOWING that the official "Reviewer" was all wrong all the time$
The fact in the matter is that the "Reviewer' deliberately made an untrue statement, anis ; a-
IEEE EDITORS TRANST.,ITTED AN UNTRUE STAT3 ENT IN LINE OF DUTY BY ISSUING A "THIRD REVIEW" -, WITH WORSE
MATHEMATICAL ERRORS AN THE TWO PREVIOUS "REVIEWS" PUT TOGETHER. Now the "Reviewer" claims that he
is going to repeat "THE DETAILED STEPS" , but here he makes a second untrue statement, BECAUSE HE
DOES NOT REPEAT "THE DETAILED STEPS? WITHOUT SAYING A WORD HE SECRETLY CHANGES THE FAULTY SIGN SO -
THAT THAT TM EQUATION CANNOT BE FURTHER CRITICIZED SIGN-WISE, but in doing so he introduces another er-
ror in the same equation, and then proceeds to disprove "SP" bya mathematical relation cerived from
the equation under discussion,"PROVING" THAT INDEED MY "NODES" FLY ALL OVER THE MAP AND THAT THERE
FORE MY "SP" PRINCIPLE IS WRONG. Now just how did this glorious OFFICIAL IEEE "REVIEWER" get from
an equation which sign-wise at least proves that my "nodes" stand still, to an equation on the next
line that groves just the opposite? Such an achievement really requires the skill of a Nobel-Prize
Winner in mathematics. This one really required ingenuity by this "expert Reviewer", but, he measured
ug to the task, by INVENTING A NEW TRIGONOMETRIC FORMULA,-PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF BY MANKIND. It goes
like this:
cos (A-B) - cos (A-B) - 2sinAsinB.
And with. this handy-dandy home-made super-practical formula, this"expert" and official IEEE "Re-
viewer" without.blinking an eye "PROVES" that my "nodes" do not stand still. THIS WITH THE FU
BLESSING OF THE RESPONSIBLE IE2E EDITORS SELLING THE SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION OF IEEE DOO+rn THE AIVERI
Perhaps a change of IEEE editors is indicated? However, there seems to have been some doubt in the
mind of this Junior High-School level "Reviewer", because he goes on to "prove" his result by deri-
ving it via a different route, addin another pane of erroneous Hi-h-Schoo- level mathematics. I had
always indicated with reference to "S " that there are two prime starting conditions for the two
waves; either you consider the moment when they are in phase, or the moment they are out cf phase.
In the first case , after half a period of "sliding", a real "range null" appears. In the second case,
a maximum appears; the sum of unity amplitude becomes 2. Now this hopelessly confused amateur in the
field of Wave Propagation treats the opposite case, without n, but not making a sign error in this
parallell derivation, God help him, he finds my "nodes" standing still. Well, how to get out of this
one? He quickly invented another handy-dandy trigonometric formula which goes like this:
cos (A-B) + cos (A-B) - 2cosAcosB.
Like kefore he now derives a f.nal fortaiul and Horay, the IEEE honor is saved, this derivation re-
sult acks the previous derivation result i00/u. U;ow the "nodes" fly all over the' map again.IEE: pro-
ved the "SP" principle wrong, ~ust as MITRE USAF US ARMY and Al? had done previously. But this in-
competent "Reviewer", and the IEEE response 1c editors for!,ot ?When uou I de the waves it,
the equation yielding the sum, should not come out 0, but 2. So, after all this mathematical fraud
IEE1Eproved me right without knowing it; as Harvard and MIT essay, my "nodes" or "range nu .s" stand
Approved For Release12602/ 24 : CIA-F 75f 14R 900004 Zarvar-I 1946
 iN~b'~r or. Release 2002/06/24,x,:CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
SC1E
AMERICAN
January 1973 Volume 228 Number 1 When the soft iron rotor is given a
t t es to turn at a speed that
nu
t
tion as a "parametric motor.
physicist investigating phenomena The core of the electromagnet can be
mathematically occasionally writes bent from a strip of flat iron 1/8 inch
an equation that suggests a novel device thick and one inch wide, making a flat-
of no obvious use. An example of such bottomed U with upright legs about 2%
a device is an electric motor invented inches long. The rotor can be bent from
recently by Harry E. Stockman of Ar- 1/2-inch stock. The ends of the rotor
lington, Mass. The machine consists es- should be bent upward to form legs 1/2
sentially of a rotor in the form of a soft inch long that leave an air gap of about
bar of iron supported at its middle by 1/32 inch at each end when the rotor
a vertical shaft that is free to turn be- is placed between the poles of the mag-
tween the poles of an electromagnet net. The dimensions are not crucial.
[see bottom illustration at left]. The The solenoid can be made of approxi-
magnetic field is provided by a solenoid mately 2,700 turns of No. 26 enameled
that operates on alternating ctirrent. copper wire. The assembled electromag-
When the solenoid is energized by a net will have an inductance of about .3
60-hertz current, the polarity of the henry. Stockman connects a capacitor of
magnet reverses 3,600 times per minute. eight microfarads in series with the sole-
If the rotor consisted of a thin strip noid and energizes the unit through a
of hard steel instead of the soft iron bar, variable-voltage transformer. The ca-
and if the strip were given an initial spin pacitor is not strictly necessary, but the
at the rate of 3,600 revolutions per min- operation is greatly facilitated by taking
ute, the steel rotor would become per- advantage of resonance. The motor will
manently magnetized, fall into lockstep operate on about five volts. The speed
with the alternating magnetic field and is nonsynchronous and roughly propor-
continue to rotate synchronously with I tional to the applied voltage up to about
the field. The synchronous motors of 10 volts. At higher voltage the machine
Approt *triorblRdlea r2O02ii06t/i94 P A-RDP75B005I4R000s1001*010004e2 with the frequency
ciple. Stockman's motor runs asyn- of the power source and to operate as a
position of the rotating bar of iron. For
rotor
, r con r
star
varies roughly with the applied voltage.
The tips of the rotor experience a strong
force of attraction as they approach the
poles of the magnet. The force decreases
as the rotor moves away from the poles.
The variation of the force is explained
by a similar variation in the inductance
of the solenoid, reflecting the property
of solenoids, which is to oppose electric
current. The inductance of the coil is
maximum when the poles of the, magnet
are bridged by the soft iron bar.. The
current and the magnetic force of at-
traction decrease.
Conversely, when the iron bar turns
away from the poles, the inductance
approaches the minimum and the ex-
citing current and the force of attraction
increase. In actuality the force of attrac-
tion does not become minimum at the
instant the bar reaches its middle posi-
tion between the poles of the magnet.
The field cannot change instantly. Ac-
cordingly the bar is strongly attracted as
its ends swing toward the poles of the
magnet and less strongly attracted as
they coast away.
Inductance is known as a parameter
of electric circuits: a quantity that is
normally constantbut that can be varied
by circumstance. In the case of this de-
vice the determining circumstance is the
Harry E. Stockman's parametric motor - that reason Stockman refers to his inven-
 I Approved For Release 2002/06/22?CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
rrcorab
P. 0. BOX 78 1- 20- 7 3
AN APPROPRIATE LETTER ON PK TO THE PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN SCIENTIST.
SERCOLAB recently celebrated its 20:th year of supplying American univer-
sities with ingenious models for the physics classroom. Apparently our models
have fullfilled highest scientific requirements, because they have been writ-
ten up in the world's leading scientific and technical journals, both in Ame-
rica and in Europe, for example in American Journal of Physics, Proc. IRE,
and Proc. IEEE. The latest write-up of one of our models appears in this
month's issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN; America's most distinguished scientific
journal. You cannot buy this kind of publicity for any money in the world.We
have been honored with this kind of write-ups because our models reflect ori-
ginal research work, aiming at highest educational value in the field of phy-
sics.
We tackle the unconventional in science, and try to come up with new
things that nobody else has, and naturally this has led to some formidable
clashes with reference to patents, and also with reference to science in gene-
ral and scientific thinking. A shining example here is the "SLIDING PHASE"
controversy, in which we won out against overwhelming odds, proving that op-
posing statements by MITRE, U.S.A.F., U.S. ARMY, AMER. INST. OF PHYSICS, and
INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, IEEE,were all in error. x
Some of these people went as far in scientific incompetency as +.o issue ma-
thematical "analyses" , supposed to prove that the "range nul19"characteris-
tic for my invention , obtained with the physical apparatus I described, do
not obtain. These "analyses" are not worth the paper they are written on.
What, makes it particularly bad for the opposition is that one of these high-
school level physics "analyses" was issued by the Government as a most offici-
al part of a most official Bid Proposal Evaluation. My requests to the Govern-
ment that this evaluation be withdrawn on basis that it is totally in error
have been met by silence. Well, you can't win them all.
Today "SLIDING PHASE" is acknowledged by t4e real authorities as comple-
tely scientifically correct. Of cause it is correct, precisely as I stated
from the very beginning. But SERCOLAB is today entering into a scientific ar-
gument of far greater importance than that pertaining to "SP". The task ahead
is TO PROVE THE TRUE EXISTENCE OF THE PSYCHOKINESIS,PK, VECTOR FIELD AND TO
OUTLINE THE AVENUE OF APPROACH FOR UTILIZATION OF THE PK FORCE IN PHYSICS AND
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING; ELECTRONICS. The odds against proving this is probab-
ly 1,000 to 1; not at all because of technical difficulties, but because of
the resistance against establishing of the truth. The proof has been fully
established for years, to the PSYCHIC, or SENSITIVE, who performs the experi-
ment, and to the onlookers. What SERCOLAB is talking about is something very
different; an unquestionable, fully official proof to the scientific society
of America, leaving NO ONE who can say that is fraudulent, without being
corrected by everybody around. We do not mind when we write Psychology Departments and electronics journals about PK and fail to receive answers, but we
do mind when people claim PK to be trickery, and at the same time refuse to
look at the acid tests now available, proving that certain people can move
table-top items by"thought power': In the PK force field, the PK force combine
SERCOLAB TECHNICAL MONOGRAPH No. 26,
Price 50 ARprovedd?j- "aA a ? 1PU l"=kRQ0 i MiW0190004-2
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24 2e1A-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
with conventional and better known forces in full agreement with Newtonts.
laws ( amply demonstrated by our Model SD11B). The PK force is a concept in
Freshman physics; it has nothing to do with mystics and the occult. While
different from the physiological e-m field that surrounds man and animal,the
PK field, controlled by the mind, has certain associations with the e-m field.
In this field, the strongest component under certain conditions is a variatio-
nal one, and is due to the Helmholtz "'Streaming Potential", associated with
the Zeta Potential, well-known to bio-physics scientists.(As a popular illu-
stration, think of the friction electricity due to the blood rush.) At night
time, when the lights are on, and your dog moves from one room to the next,
your lights will brighten up a little, or dim a little, due to the current
change originated by the dog. You cannot see this effect, because it is deeply
imbedded in noise, but it is nevertheless there.
Non-direct PK (Placement Tests) were proven years ago. The reason why
non-direct PK is not called fraud today is that the test results were publi-
shed years ago by America's top psychologists in America's top medical jour-
nals. By analogy, direct PK (the moving of table-top items by "thought power")
ought to be equally well acknowledged once our top psychologists describe the
successful tests in our top medical journals. The men in process of doing
this deserve our admiration. Sercolab is following a somewhat different line;
proposing the utilization of PK for the creation of new electronics devices,
and attempting to get the American electronics industry interested in develo-
ping such devices. The breakthrough in electronics and communications was
established by one of America's most outstanding scientists in the field of
parapsychology, Professor Evelyn M. Monahan, a well-known PSYCHIC and SENSI-
TIVE. During 1972 she succeeded to operate two of Sercolab's PK models, es-
sentially proving the following: rotation of a magnetic needle, inducing an
emf, demonstrating the principle of STIMULANCE injection in an electric cir-
cuit, and proving ENERGY CONVERSION OF MIND ENERGY INTO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL
ENERGY, AND HEAT. Through her, the university in which she teaches, the Geor-
gia State University, has made a major contribution to the scientific field
of parapsychology. The above merely marks the beginning of what this talented
professor can do. If you can get together a group of scientists, and go to
Atlanta, and obtain an appointment with this outstanding scientist, she might
also show you other things, such as rotating a wheel, and "command" a paper
clip lying on the table to move. Do not forget to bring a movie camera, be,
cause, otherwise, most people will tell you that you were hypnotized, and that
it all was trickery.
Our Model ME65B allows the Sensitive to put in rotation a large magnetic
needle in front of a large inductor. If you bring your own Voltohmyst, a peak-
to-peak reading of roughly 0.1 volt is obtained, with the power in a matching
resistor approaching 1 ,pW. Ask the Sensitive to produce more violent rota-
tion on even minutes , and less rotation on odd minutes, and the output power
will vary accordingly. You now have an example of PK AMPLIFICATION. While
such demonstrations with mechanical devices are interesting, it is the DIRECT
CONTROL OF CARRIERS WITH PK FORCE which is of interest for the development of
new and revolutionizing electronics devices. One of our models for direct car-
rier control is presently submitted for testing. It is not surprising that we
soon will be able to build new kinds of amplifiers and oscillators this way
in view of the fact that PK particle control was already proven years ago by
Placement Tests.
Unfortunately, PK and ESP have the potentiality to provide powerful war
weapons, and the Government scientists who work on associated problems in the
service laboratories are highly advanced. There is only one way in which you
can stop PK from becoming a war weapon; encourage the research centers in the
private industry to beat rate~ ore in the service laboratories.You
cannot classixora~e -- 11919bift0 4e electronics
journals. 5ea Harty E. Stockman arvard, 1946
 Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2
4Q
6
ui n
0
Q W
W rji
a
O N f
N O
N U'
z
A
rc
Approved For Release 2002/06/24: CIA-RDP75B00514R000100190004-2