| Home | About | Helping Us | Contact | Mailing List |
| Features: |
|
Although Ogg claims in his info page for OML that the list is unmoderated, and that "Messages emailed from members to the OML are automatically sent to all other members of the OML", this is in fact a lie. The truth is that the list is selectively moderated at Ogg's whim. Some members are deemed by Ogg to be "safe", and their posts do indeed go straight to the list. Other members, however, are deemed by him "unsafe", and their posts get redirected to Ogg, who then decides whether to suppress them, edit them to his liking, or forward them to the list. These interventions happen with no warning to the authors of the posts and no consultation with them.
It is one thing to honestly state up-front that one runs a moderated list, and simply bar certain posts, or ask the authors to rewrite them, but it is quite another thing to edit their texts at whim and then send them to the list in a distorted, incoherent form without giving the authors any means of defense. Moreover, in the case of Dr. Askanas, the post to which Ogg applied his censorship was a response to Ogg himself, and what he edited were challenges directed at him. It is hard to imagine a more petty and cowardly abuse of a listowner's power, or a better illustration of what passes for "public exchange" or for "research" on the Public Orgonomic Research Exchange.
From: J. Ogg Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 04:19:45 -0400 Subject: Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators Here is some fringe physics investigations that makes reference to Reich http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v1.html#abstractAS2-01
From: J. Ogg Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 04:23:33 -0400 Subject: Result for query "reich" http://www.aetherometry.com/cgi-bin/webglimpse/home/akronos/aetherometry-www?query=reich&errors=0&age=&maxfiles=50&maxlines=30&maxchars=10000&cache=yes [the rest of the message contains the results of doing a search for "reich" on the www.aethometry.com site]
From: Andrew Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:10:06 EDT Subject: Re: Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators Hello OML, Has there been any discussion on this list about the article in the magazine "Infinite Energy" issue of May 2001? I don't recall seeing anything about it. Quite a fascinating a revelatory expose on the temperature effect experiment with the accumulator done by well-respected scientists, once and for all (yeah, right) settling the argument tossed away so loosely by AE that it was simply a matter of convection. While I at first did not take kindly to the reference of the Einstein Affair as being "the Reich-Einstein Experiment," after reading the entire article I began to understand the context of the (mis)naming. Anyone care to add anything on the contents of this article? Andrew
From: G. Netten Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:33:57 +0200 Subject: Re: Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators Thanks! Never heard of these people before. If you click to http://www.aetherometry.com/ there's more, for instance an interview with the researchers. Gerrit >Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators > >Here is some fringe physics investigations that makes reference to Reich >http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v1.html#abstractAS2-01
From: Andrew Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:42:38 EDT Subject: Re: To-T article in Infinite Energy Doug, This article should be of interest particularly to you, having posted on this list as you have in the past. Anyone who reads it, and the associated editor's comments and articles in this issue should take notice of the efforts expended on validating the To-T differential and the conclusions that must now be taken seriously. I do not have the magazine with me, so therefore am unable today to post on this list the web address or email address of its editor. I will return to my home on Tuesday and if no one has posted this information on the list by then, will post it myself. The article written by the Correas in this well-respected magazine should not be taken lightly by anyone in their field. This "revelation" (not to WR and students of Orgonomy, of course) appears to be, perhaps the first "real" evidence of what Reich discovered to be true presented in a forum that demands that colleagues and interested parties alike sit up and take notice - and then provide further validation. As Reich asked to be proven wrong throughout his life as a researcher and scientist, it is now up to the scientific community at large to prove wrong the findings as they are so meticulously evidenced in the article about the temperature differential between air inside and outside of and orgone accumulator. This should be very interesting, don't you think? Andrew
From: D. Marett Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 02:15:16 -0400 Subject: To-T article in Issue #37 of Infinite Energy Hi, I tonight read the Correa's article in Infinite Energy entitled " The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich- Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions", Issue 37, page 12 - 21. Having read many of the attempted reproductions of the To-T experiment published in the Journal of Orgonomy, and having also performed this experiment many times myself (as can be seen on the Internet for some 5 years now), I can safely say that the Correa's have not herein offered much that is new. They report a To-T difference of 0.1 - 0.3 deg. C., which is smaller than expected from Reich's claims, as was shown previously by the Journal of Orgonomy papers as well as my own papers. However, the Correas dismiss the efforts of everyone before them as not worthy of mention. From the preamble I was expecting that this paper would reproduce all of Reich's control experiments in response to Einstein, including the tabletop above the accumulators, and the metal sheet below. This was not the case, and instead the Correas chose only to suspend the accumulators in the middle of a room with a control thermometer. Again, this idea in not new, and I myself performed lots of arrangements with accumulators suspended on small platforms, or raised above tables to various degrees, as I am sure that others have tried. The point really remains, that the temperature difference reported is very small, on the order of the vertical temperature gradient in a room over perhaps 15-30 cm, which is close to the dimensions of the actual accumulators. At such small temperature differences, small thermal gradients in a room, such as unequal re-radiation of heat from walls or ceilings, becomes a major factor, and the placement of one box a little closer to a wall or door than another can make a difference in its baseline temperature. This has always been a problem to be struggled with in every arrangement that I have attempted, and I have also tried shielding groups of accumulators using cardboard walls, and using smaller accumulators to bring them closer together. Often the net effect of these controls is that the To-T measured becomes less and less significant. On page 15-16, the room in which the experiment was performed is described. The size of the room in not mentioned, nor the distance of each accumulator from either doors, windows, or walls. Further, it is winter, and the room was not heated, yet the room was generally in the 16-20 deg. C. range. Thus heat must have been partitioned fairly quickly from the heated parts of the building to the unheated room. This arrangement could lead to unequal temperature gradients in the room as heat partitions from one area to another through cracks in doors, etc. The Correas also claim that a suspended wooden box did not produce a To-T effect, but this data is always "not shown". Suspending a box of any kind in the air will likely disturb the vertical and horizontal temperature gradients in its vicinity, and it is important to demonstrate that the temperature difference measured is the result of the specific material arrangements (i.e. the metal box) and not the geometric arrangements (any box, or any heat conducting box). These controls are not addressed to any degree of satisfaction. A proper scientific investigation of To-T would likely have to document all these factors, including control thermometers in many positions throughout the room. I certainly did not go into this amount of detail in my own investigations, but then again, I have not claimed to have produced the "definitive" scientific report on To-T that the Correas have. This latest Correa paper is interesting, but it will not likely awake the interest of a sceptical scientific community. That's my opinion, for what it is worth! Doug Marett M.Sc. P.S. - business obligations will prevent me from picking up my e-mail in the next while, so I won't be able to respond if anyone has a rebuttle!
From: Andrew Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:09:44 EDT Subject: Response to To-T article in Issue #37 of Infinite Energy Doug and OML, I am not a researcher or scientist but an interested observer (unlike the Silent Observer a/k/a as WR.) As expected, having read the detailed posts from you and several older articles concerning your test results of your experiments, I would have been surprised to have seen a glowing endorsement from you of the Correas' research and the article that followed. However, while the magazine Infinite Energy is far from mainstream, those of us who have longed for validation and further proof of some or all of WR's research have to acknowledge this latest entry as progress. Anything positive, or suggestions that WR was onto something other than quackery or unreplicable conditions is good for the cause, I presume. If it stimulates any qualified researchers into thinking about doing additional studies and thus catalyzes a forward motion in the scientific community at all, then this article is not without merit, regardless of the holes that can be shot through it on any level. We need qualified, respected, talented, open-minded individuals to read this article and take the ball and run with it. You've been doing this for several years now. Maybe the snowball is starting to roll down the hill, the snow is wet enough to stick to it a little, and as it begins its descent, will gather enough steam to attract more than a few discerning eyes along the way. Wouldn't that be sweet for a change? Andrew
From: M. Askanas Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: To-T article in Issue #37 of Infinite Energy Dear List Members - This discussion of the Correas' essay in IE #37 seems to have missed the obvious: what's new about it. First, that it takes all that happened between Reich and Einstein and is relevant to the matter, as being part of the experiment (which, incidentally, is, by definition, an indoor experiment). Hence, the experiment described in the essay ends up, quite correctly, focused on the simple Faraday cage (read the second of the Einstein letters). Secondly, that it presents a simple but stringent control which neither Einstein nor Reich came up with: that of suspending the experimental devices -- and in particular the naked cage -- so that the effect of convection can be equalized over long periods, and Infeld's specific critical objection can be addressed. This suspension technique also has the virtue of eliminating the complications and artifacts introduced by table tops. Thirdly, to make the test even more stringent, all the devices, control or experimental, are suspended equidistantly from walls, floor and ceilings, in a closed and dark basement room, which is not heated directly, and whose four walls contact three cold rooms that buffer it, plus a tall unheated hall room. The test is also conducted during the winter. It is of course the case that heat will at any rate evolve from the walls and floor and ceiling. That is why the experiment concerns minimization of heat convection and heat radiation. But all things being equal - including equalization of convection current effects - there should be, according to established thermodynamics, no reason to see the solidly significant temperature difference reported by the Correas. The Correas do not claim they were the first ones to rediscover To-T. It looks like a lot of folks out there just cannot read properly. What they claim, and correctly so, is that the experiment which Reich conducted with Einstein was bungled up in large measure because the right control was never conducted, or at least reported, until the publication of this paper. If others had the same sequence of cogent thoughts and conducted such experiments, and found the same results, and treated them in the same analytic fashion, then it is just too bad they didn't publish them. The deeper 'reason why' the Reich-Einstein experiment has not been stringently replicated is not a scientific one. If Einstein fans discard orgonomy, the disciples of Reich are eager to see in this an armored characterological response that predicates a closed mind. But what to say of their own incapacity to address Infeld's objection? That, too, betrays an emotional armor on the part of self-styled Reichians against thinking the matter through. And -- why not? -- on the part of Reich himself. Only it so happens that he had very good reasons to hold back and feel hurt, which most of his followers don't. After all, every scientist does commit errors, but persistence in error betrays a deeper emotional disposition than merely a passing inadequacy of thought. In this context, Doug Marett's tirade is another example of systemic confusionism. The gist of the first paragraph of his deprecation is that the Correas only found a small temperature difference. But the Correas were not out to find a dazzling temperature difference, the kind of stuff to rivet Discovery Channel afficionados to their couches late into the night. On the contrary, they chose conditions as stringent as possible -- so that if there was a chance of altogether eliminating the temperature difference within the Reich-Einstein protocol, they would have found it. Instead, under those stringent conditions, they found that the difference was irreducible. Small, but irreducible. For those who want to know more about other experiments by the Correas where To-T is maximalized, in outdoor studies conducted in the shade or under full exposure to the sun, go to http://www.aetherometry.com and click on the abstract for AS2-05. If you want to see more than the abstract, you can order the paper itself by clicking on the order button. Be bold: it doesn't bite. The virtue of paper AS2-05 is that, once and for all, armed with experimental and theoretical ammunition, it deals a terminal blow to all those specious arguments of blackbody radiation and heat absorption thrown at Reich's findings of anomalous heat above and inside ORACs. Definitely not for the timid at heart. Doug should also be the one to talk about heat from walls and ceilings: I remember hearing a story of how he placed one of his ORACs in a cupboard under the stairs leading to a second floor, less than a foot from a hot water pipe passing above it. For all it's worth M. Askanas, PhD
From: J. Ogg Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 08:04:25 -0400 Subject: Re: To-T article in Issue #37 of Infinite Energy To all, Remember that the OML is not a place to do personal put-downs of the individuals on this list. I am uncertain if this is your real name "malgosia askanas" but your cutting comments concerning Doug Marret are uncalled for as he did not make any personal or similar comments about the Correas. He just stated some facts that are worth listening to. Here is what I refer to that you said: "Doug Marett's tirade is another example of systemic confusionism." and "Doug should also be the one to talk about heat from walls and ceilings: I remember hearing a story of how he placed one of his ORACs in a cupboard under the stairs leading to a second floor, less than a foot from a hot water pipe passing above it." These are the types of comments that are unnecessary here on the OML. Doug did not have a tirade and in the second part you put him down on something you heard second hand. Andy, your comment also is unnecessary in that you bring up some unrelated schism between Marret and Correas. There was quite a bit of inappropriate comments that were leveled during that and unfortunately some was posted on one of the two's web site. It serves no constructive purpose to bring it up here in this discussion further. Who did what then is old and now several years gone by. Marret purposely was polite and did not personally put down the researchers Correas as you put down Doug Marret. Again... To all, Remember that the OML is not a place to do personal put-downs of the individuals on this list. Marrett only brought up factual insights without any personal put-downs. Yes he said that the experimental findings were not anything dramatically new in the temp dif and that is true. I have the articles as well and found that it was interesting and it is nice to see another publication (even though it is a minor publication) printing repeats of Reich's experiments that confirm it. There is also a whole lot more to be done. It still is necessary to find other scientists to do the experiments, write up results and comment. The advertising in the magazine is mostly alternative science areas showing where the magazine gets its moneys and it support. The magazine "Infinite Energy" is in support of cold fusion discussion (see editorials and ads). Infinite Energy is also published by Cold Fusion Tech INC. I for one would like to know if anyone knows the circulation numbers of Infinite Energy and have the Correas published any of these findings in other scientific journals that have large circulation among other scientist. If not is it possible to encourage other magazines to publish it. The biog. on the Correas within the article states that he has been "published extensively in scientific journals in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis" and that they have 7 patents in advanced physics as well as 2 patents in medicine/biolgy"(sic) M. Askanas, you seem to know a lot about the Correas, Do you know any of the details on the patents and also the journals and what they have published that may enlarge our knowledge of their work? Your assistance on this would be very helpful. Also; thank you for bringing up some of the new items about the setup of the experiment. "Instead, under those stringent conditions, they found that the difference was irreducible. Small, but irreducible." They are helpful. As for the...... == For those who want to know more about other experiments by the Correas where To-T is maximalized, in outdoor studies conducted in the shade or under full exposure to the sun, go to http://www.aetherometry.com and click on the abstract for AS2-05. If you want to see more than the abstract, you can order the paper itself by clicking on the order button. Be bold: it doesn't bite. == Who operates this web site that asks for money for the papers??? Are you affiliated with this site?? Are the Correas affiliated with the site?? Who is?? I went to the site but it was not apparent or at least it is not readily apparent who operates the web site. Sorry for so many questions, yet I hope you can help... thanks in advance ...............Jogg
From: G. Netten Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:35:21 +0200 Subject: aetherometry, etc Here we go again... Having looked around in http://www.aetherometry.com and reading the interviews, I noticed that the authors, saying that the Reichian scene is full with quarrelling people, add to it themselves, without naming names.
From: J. Ogg Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 11:07:35 -0400 Subject: Re: aetherometry, etc Hi Gerrit, I found this section via the below one you mention. http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05502354__ I attached an image from the patent of what looks to be a Vacor tube as Reich used. I imply no infringement on Reich by the Correas as Reich did not get any patents on his devices. In fact they do give Reich mention in several areas. The relation to Reich's work on this is easily seen by those who have studied Reich's work with illumination of orgone in pulsating phenomena. In correspondence with Correas about 6 years ago they told me they have done it different than Reich and they feel the phenomena is different. The WR Museum has a video of Reich's work with the Vacor tube which is breath-taking to watch. The orgone charge to the tubes was required prior to getting the results shown in the video. The video is not sold by the museum but is only able to be seen when you visit the Museum. I attach a file of a picture of Reich's pulsation as done by him. zvacor.jpg is an image Reich's work (not a very good one but one I was given) Reich did his first illumination of orgone energy in a vacuum tube in March 1948 see...Orgone Energy Bulletin Vol. 1 no. 1 January 1949; Orgone Institute Press; New York .............Jogg more below Gerrit Netten wrote: > Here we go again... > Having looked around in > > http://www.aetherometry.com > > and reading the interviews, I noticed that the authors, saying that > the Reichian scene is full with quarrelling people, add to it > themselves, without naming names. Yes Gerrit, I noted the same as you in that interview. http://www.aetherometry.com/labofex_int.html And then there was the nasty nature of there attacks on others that continue to be posted on the net even after 5 years have past. http://www.aetherometry.com/PAGD/CorreaReich.html I find what is said there as just plain rude, nasty, and unkind display of what ever you call it. My apologies to Marrett for bringing this up by way of link to show the real nature of Correas outside their scientific work. I personally find Marrett to be a genuinely positive person with good intentions. He has and is a welcome and good person to have as a member of the OML. His web site gives the public information and research that is well received by the internet community. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514/ This behavior or tendency to denigrate many is a very unfortunate part of the atmosphere in some of their writings and the interview. It is unfortunate that the science part should prevail without the innuendo. As you see I leave names out as well. No need to embellish in the negative side of this. All I can think is there is an evil side to trying to make money from Reich's work or to misuse it whatever the case may be. But that is my default since I am not a business entrepreneur. At least not yet. NOTE to OML, please remember to not follow behavior as is shown on these web links. It is OK to refer to other web sites and pages but do not languish in put downs of any members of OML when writing your message on the OML. Writing same on OML is against guidelines. Thanks. ...............Jogg
From: J. Ogg Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:48:24 -0400 Subject: Re: aetherometry, etc correction of last post.................. in reference to Correas.......I wrote "This behavior or tendency to denigrate many is a very unfortunate part of the atmosphere in some of their writings and the interview. It is unfortunate that the science part *should prevail* without the innuendo. As you see I leave names out as well." I meant to write This behavior or tendency to denigrate many is a very unfortunate part of the atmosphere in some of their writings and the interview. It is unfortunate that the science part *does not prevail* without the innuendo. As you see I leave names out as well. ......Jogg
Response from Dr. Askanas - original uncensored version, blocked from the list by J. Ogg From: M. Askanas Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Response to J.Ogg Re: Reich-Einstein and Aetherometry Jamerling Ogg wrote: > I am uncertain if this is your real name "malgosia askanas" but your cutting > comments concerning Doug Marret are uncalled for as he did not make any > personal or similar comments about the Correas. He just stated some facts > that are worth listening to. Let me be blunt. I represent an organization which is interested in assessing the current state of the "Reichian legacy" for the ultimate purpose of selecting people and work that are worthy of support. As is well known, Reich himself, in moments of what now seems highly unfounded optimism, thought that it would take 50 years for the world to become ready to accept his findings. That 50-year mark is approaching quickly. Is the world any more ready now than it was in Reich's time? This is the question that the organization I represent is trying to assess. The publication of the aetherometric work of the Correas is a test, and if what I have seen so far of the reaction from this so-called "Reichian community" can be taken as indicative, then the 50 years have brought absolutely nothing. One would imagine that the publication of this work, which, as far as I know, constitutes the first rigorous scientific investigation of Reich's discoveries, would be received with curiosity, excitement and appreciation by all those sympathetic to Reich, not to mention those who consider themselves Reichian scientists. So far I have seen not a trace of either curiosity, or excitement, or appreciation; much to the contrary. Ogg makes quite a show of defending the list against "inappropriate comments" that "serve no constructive purpose". He does not, however, find it inappropriate and unconstructive when a member of the list, like Marett, injects misinformation, deprecation and non-understanding in the guise of "expert information". The "facts" that Ogg calls "worth listening to" that Marett presents in connection with the #37 Infinite Energy article, show in fact no understanding of the contents of the article. But this lack of understanding does not stop Marett from vacuous and peremptory dismissiveness delivered with an air of great expertise; and Ogg approves and pronounces Marett "a genuinely positive person". In fact, Ogg has no hesitation to do the same himself. For example, on July 31 he posted to this list a message entitled "Subject: orgone - electroscopes-accumulators" saying: "Here is some fringe physics investigations that makes reference to Reich http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v1.html#abstractAS2-01" One has to assume that before Ogg posted this message, he had looked at the aetherometry website. Consequently, he must have had some awareness of the fact that the entire website is dedicated to research deeply relevant to Reich's work, and permeated with references to Reich. Yet what he posts, supposedly in the spirit of "information", is not the URL of the whole website, or even of a page within the site, but a link to one abstract. Moreover, Ogg is very aware of who the Correas are, because he has had encounters with them in the past. Yet he doesn't even mention their name, let alone provide any helpful introduction to their work, but attaches to his purported "information" the label "some fringe physics investigation". None of this does he regard as inappropriate or unconstructive, and one does not see him chastising himself for perpetrating putdowns on the list. In fact when Ogg finally does see fit to comment on the aetherometry website, what he chooses to concentrate on is the supposed "tendency to denigrate many", which he has to label as "unfortunate", as if he was a schoolmistress making an example of an unruly pupil. He has nothing to say about the science, which of course he hasn't read. Ah, but he does say something about the science. He says: "It is unfortunate that the science part does not prevail without the innuendo." How does Ogg know whether or not "the science part" prevails, when in fact he hasn't read any of it? It gets better. Ogg next deplores the fact that the Correas' "attacks on others [he means Marett] continue to be posted on the net even after 5 years have past". And in the same post he repeats exactly the same misinformed, ill-willed insinuations which, when posted by Marett 5 years ago, prompted the Correas to write the rebuttal that Ogg calls an "attack" (he forgets to mention that this so-called "attack" was a highly warranted response to a specious public accusation by Marett; instead, he re-insinuates this accusation). This obviously testifies not only to the wisdom on the part of the Correas in having left the rebuttal on the web these 5 years, but also to the necessity of leaving it there for all eternity, or at least for as long as there exist people like Marett and Ogg. To those who have read Ogg's little toxic excursion about the Correas' PAGD tube being "what looks to be a Vacor tube as Reich used", I would suggest as an antidote reading the text to which he so kindly provided a reference: http://www.aetherometry.com/PAGD/CorreaReich.html Reich did not invent the aluminum parallel plate tube and, sane as he was, never claimed to have invented any glow discharge, whether normal or abnormal. And what does it matter what the PAGD tube "looks like"? Perhaps Ogg should actually READ the Correa-Reich Affair so that he can finally understand why 'looking like' is so completely irrelevant. In his attack against the Correas, Marett stated that they had claimed as their own the discovery of the OR motor and patented Reich's Vacor tubes. After the Correas' public rebuttal, he promptly withdrew his accusation. But since Ogg chooses to insinuate along Marett's lines, he will undoubtedly be able to answer some very basic questions, especially now that 6 years have passed since these patents have been issued. The questions should be answered succinctly and to the point: 1. Since Reich's pulsating Vacor tubes were HIGH-VACUUM tubes that had to be treated by exposure to OR-rich environments, sometimes for months, how come the PAGD reactor immediately functions when attached to a pump at pressures greater by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude than Reich's Vacor tubes? 2. Did Reich not claim explicitly that he had gotten rid of any gas effects? Yet, the PAGD is a GAS discharge. How come? And if the PAGD is an ion-accoustic phenomenon, how does it tally with Reich's claims that Vacor pulsation is not an ion phenomenon? 3. Where in Reich's work does one find the circuits, or the experiments, or the profuse demonstrations of auto-electronic emission provided by the Correas in their PAGD patents and papers? 4. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is Function or Factor Y? 5. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is it shown how to produce, say, a PAGD, from the orgone energy of an ORAC? Or for that matter, a normal glow discharge from an ORAC? Or a vacuum arc discharge? Or any discharge? 6. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is it shown how to run a motor from massfree energy, say, from living systems, ie a human body? 7. How do the low pulse rates of the PAGD plasmas relate to the high pulsatory massfree energy frequencies encountered by Reich? 8. Where does Reich discuss vacuum arc discharges? 9. Where does Reich demonstrate pitting of his Vacor tube electrodes and discuss the autogenous mechanism of auto-electronic emission? Ogg ends his toxic disquisition with this crowning jewel: > No need to embellish in the negative side of this. All I can think is > there is an evil side to trying to make money from Reich's work > or to misuse it whatever the case may be. But that is my default since > I am not a business entrepreneur. At least not yet." The obvious insinuation here is that the Correas are evil and that this is so because they are trying to make a business out of Reich's work -- when in fact what the Correas are pursuing is obviously and legitimately their own work. I will only note that in a democratic society the kinds of libellous innuendos Ogg is engaging in are actionable. One can only wonder what gain Ogg derives from spreading such disinformation and confusion. In another breath -- to return to Ogg's post to me -- Ogg writes: > I for one would like to know if anyone knows > the circulation numbers of Infinite Energy and have the Correas published > any of these findings in other scientific journals that have large > circulation among other scientist. On this list, we are supposedly amongst those who should have the most interest in, as Ogg puts it, "these findings". Yet, as far as I can see, the interest here is miniscule. Why, then, is it important to ask whether the findings have been published in journals that have a "large circulation"? Would the response be any more exciting? > If not is it possible to encourage other magazines to publish it. What kind of encouragement does Ogg propose? Marett's assessment? His own assessment? If these are the encouragements, we will have to wait not another 50 years, but another 500 or more before the world is ready for these findings. It is hard not to be reminded, when one sees these reactions of "fellow Reichians", of a passage from Reich's "Listen, Little Man!": "You don't believe that _your_ friend could ever do anything great. You despise yourself in secret, even -- no, especially -- when you stand on your dignity; and since you despise yourself, you are unable to respect your friend. You can't bring yourself to believe that anyone you have sat at the table with, or shared a house with, is capable of [a] great [discovery]. [...] But when the discovery comes out in the paper, little man, then you believe it whether you understand it or not." > The biog. on the Correas within the article states > that he has been "published extensively in > scientific journals in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis" and that > they have > 7 patents in advanced physics as well as 2 patents in medicine/biolgy"(sic) > M. Askanas, you seem to know a lot about the Correas, Do you know any > of the details on the patents and also the journals and what > they have published that may enlarge our knowledge of their work? Everybody could easily enlarge their knowledge of the Correas' work by reading the papers that are published on the aetherometry web site. And if one wants to find out about the patents, there are links to some of them on the web site, while others can undoubtedly be found on the web site of the patent office. As for the papers "in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis", I am attaching a list of those at the end of my post. Finally, Ogg wants to know: > Who operates this web site that asks for money for the papers??? Why the three question marks? Is it so astonishing that the Correas, or their publisher, would ask for money for their publications? Is it acceptable to give money to the Disneys and the Warners and the Steven Hawkings and the Toys R Us, but not to Reichian researchers, with whom Ogg supposedly is in a relationship some kind of solidarity? A strange inversion. > Are you affiliated with this site?? Are the Correas affiliated with the > site?? Who is?? I went to the site but it was not apparent or > at least it is not readily apparent who operates the web site. It is most readily apparent to anybody who has given an even most cursory glance at the site. The site is operated by Akronos Publishing, a small independent electronic publishing house. Yes, both the Correas and my organization are associated with the site, and my organization is in contact with the Correas, just as it is in contact with a number of other researchers whose work we consider serious and worthwhile. "Many results in science [...] illustrate an observation of the late Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, discoverer of vitamin C, to the effect that research is to see what everyone else has seen and to think what no one else has thought." (Sidney Fox) M. Askanas, Ph.D. ------------------------------------------------- Papers by Paulo Correa in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis: Correa PN (1987) Erythropoietin receptors on Friend-Polycythemia virus-induced erythroleukemia cells purified by counter-current centrifugal elutriation. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Correa PN, Bard V, Axelrad AA (1990) Specific binding of 125I-rErythropoietin to Friend polycythemia virus-transformed erythroleukemia cells purified by centrifugal elutriation. Int J Cell Cloning 8:39. Correa, PN (1991) An improved serum-free medium for the growth of normal human circulating erythroid progenitor cells and its application to the s tudy of erythropoiesis in Polycythemia vera. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Oliveri NF, Grunberger T, Ben-David Y, Ng J, Williams DE, Lyman S, Anderson, DM, Axelrad AA, Correa PN, Bernstein A, Freedman MH (1991) Diamond-Blackfan Anemia: Heterogenous response of hematopoietic progenitor cells in vitro to the protein product of the steel locus. Blood, 78, 9:2211. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1991) Production of erythropoietic bursts by progenitor cells from adult human peripheral blood in an improved serum-free medium: role of IGF-I. Blood, 78, 11:1. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1992) Retinyl acetate and all-trans-retinoic acid enhance erythroid colony formation in vitro by circulating human progenitors in an improved serum-free medium. Int J Cell Cloning, 10:286 Freedman M, Grunberger T, Correa PN, Axelrad AA, Dube ID, Cohen A (1993) Autocrine and paracrine growth-control by GM-CSF in acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells. Blood, 81:3068. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1993) A two-tiered basal and growth/ differentiation-promoting serum free medium for the cultivation of human circulating erythroid progenitor cells, other hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, and leukemia cells. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1993. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1994) Circulating erythroid progenitors in Polycythemia vera are hypersensitive to IGF-I. Blood, 83, 1:99. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1995)"Serum-free basal and culture medium for hematopoietic and leukemia cells", Mar. 14, USPTO, Pat.# 5,397,706, U.S.A. Mirza A, Correa PN & Axelrad AA (1995) Increased basal and induced tyrosine phosporylation of the IGF-I receptor b subunit in circulating mononuclear cells of patients with Polycythemia vera. Blood, 86, 3:877. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1999)"Cell culture medium", October 10, Can Pat. #2,123,094. Axelrad AA, Eskinazi D, Correa PN, Amato D (2000) "Hypersensitivity of circulating progenitor cells to megakaryocyte growth and development factor (PEG-rHu MGDF) in essential thrombocythemia", Blood, 96:3310.
Censored version of the above text, as posted to the list by J. Ogg From: M. Askanas Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Response to J.Ogg Re: Reich-Einstein and Aetherometry (This post has been edited by OML moderator i.e. sections deleted) Jamerling Ogg wrote: > I am uncertain if this is your real name "malgosia askanas" but your cutting > comments concerning Doug Marret are uncalled for as he did not make any > personal or similar comments about the Correas. He just stated some facts > that are worth listening to. Let me be blunt. I represent an organization which is interested in assessing the current state of the "Reichian legacy" for the ultimate purpose of selecting people and work that are worthy of support. As is well known, Reich himself, in moments of what now seems highly unfounded optimism, thought that it would take 50 years for the world to become ready to accept his findings. That 50-year mark is approaching quickly. Is the world any more ready now than it was in Reich's time? This is the question that the organization I represent is trying to assess. The publication of the aetherometric work of the Correas is a test, and if what I have seen so far of the reaction from this so-called "Reichian community" can be taken as indicative, then the 50 years have brought absolutely nothing. One would imagine that the publication of this work, which, as far as I know, constitutes the first rigorous scientific investigation of Reich's discoveries, would be received with curiosity, excitement and appreciation by all those sympathetic to Reich, not to mention those who consider themselves Reichian scientists. So far I have seen not a trace of either curiosity, or excitement, or appreciation; much to the contrary. snip...when Ogg finally does see fit to comment on the aetherometry website, what he chooses to concentrate on is the supposed "tendency to denigrate many", which he has to label as "unfortunate", as if he was a schoolmistress making an example of an unruly pupil. He has nothing to say about the science, which of course he hasn't read. Ah, but he does say something about the science. He says: "It is unfortunate that the science part does not prevail without the innuendo." The questions should be answered succinctly and to the point: 1. Since Reich's pulsating Vacor tubes were HIGH-VACUUM tubes that had to be treated by exposure to OR-rich environments, sometimes for months, how come the PAGD reactor immediately functions when attached to a pump at pressures greater by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude than Reich's Vacor tubes? 2. Did Reich not claim explicitly that he had gotten rid of any gas effects? Yet, the PAGD is a GAS discharge. How come? And if the PAGD is an ion-accoustic phenomenon, how does it tally with Reich's claims that Vacor pulsation is not an ion phenomenon? 3. Where in Reich's work does one find the circuits, or the experiments, or the profuse demonstrations of auto-electronic emission provided by the Correas in their PAGD patents and papers? 4. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is Function or Factor Y? 5. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is it shown how to produce, say, a PAGD, from the orgone energy of an ORAC? Or for that matter, a normal glow discharge from an ORAC? Or a vacuum arc discharge? Or any discharge? 6. Where in the Correa PAGD patents is it shown how to run a motor from massfree energy, say, from living systems, ie a human body? 7. How do the low pulse rates of the PAGD plasmas relate to the high pulsatory massfree energy frequencies encountered by Reich? 8. Where does Reich discuss vacuum arc discharges? 9. Where does Reich demonstrate pitting of his Vacor tube electrodes and discuss the autogenous mechanism of auto-electronic emission? In another breath -- to return to Ogg's post to me -- Ogg writes: > I for one would like to know if anyone knows > the circulation numbers of Infinite Energy and have the Correas published > any of these findings in other scientific journals that have large > circulation among other scientist. On this list, we are supposedly amongst those who should have the most interest in, as Ogg puts it, "these findings". Yet, as far as I can see, the interest here is miniscule. Why, then, is it important to ask whether the findings have been published in journals that have a "large circulation"? Would the response be any more exciting? > If not is it possible to encourage other magazines to publish it. What kind of encouragement does Ogg propose? ..... If these are the encouragements, we will have to wait not another 50 years, but another 500 or more before the world is ready for these findings. It is hard not to be reminded, when one sees these reactions of "fellow Reichians", of a passage from Reich's "Listen, Little Man!": "You don't believe that _your_ friend could ever do anything great. You despise yourself in secret, even -- no, especially -- when you stand on your dignity; and since you despise yourself, you are unable to respect your friend. You can't bring yourself to believe that anyone you have sat at the table with, or shared a house with, is capable of [a] great [discovery]. [...] But when the discovery comes out in the paper, little man, then you believe it whether you understand it or not." > The biog. on the Correas within the article states > that he has been "published extensively in > scientific journals in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis" and that > they have > 7 patents in advanced physics as well as 2 patents in medicine/biolgy"(sic) > M. Askanas, you seem to know a lot about the Correas, Do you know any > of the details on the patents and also the journals and what > they have published that may enlarge our knowledge of their work? Everybody could easily enlarge their knowledge of the Correas' work by reading the papers that are published on the aetherometry web site. And if one wants to find out about the patents, there are links to some of them on the web site, while others can undoubtedly be found on the web site of the patent office. As for the papers "in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis", I am attaching a list of those at the end of my post. Finally, Ogg wants to know: > Who operates this web site that asks for money for the papers??? Why the three question marks? Is it so astonishing that the Correas, or their publisher, would ask for money for their publications? Is it acceptable to give money to the Disneys and the Warners and the Steven Hawkings and the Toys R Us, but not to Reichian researchers, with whom Ogg supposedly is in a relationship some kind of solidarity? A strange inversion. > Are you affiliated with this site?? Are the Correas affiliated with the > site?? Who is?? I went to the site but it was not apparent or > at least it is not readily apparent who operates the web site. It is most readily apparent to anybody who has given an even most cursory glance at the site. The site is operated by Akronos Publishing, a small independent electronic publishing house. Yes, both the Correas and my organization are associated with the site, and my organization is in contact with the Correas, just as it is in contact with a number of other researchers whose work we consider serious and worthwhile. "Many results in science [...] illustrate an observation of the late Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, discoverer of vitamin C, to the effect that research is to see what everyone else has seen and to think what no one else has thought." (Sidney Fox) M. Askanas, Ph.D. ------------------------------------------------- Papers by Paulo Correa in the fields of oncology and hematopoiesis: Correa PN (1987) Erythropoietin receptors on Friend-Polycythemia virus-induced erythroleukemia cells purified by counter-current centrifugal elutriation. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Correa PN, Bard V, Axelrad AA (1990) Specific binding of 125I-rErythropoietin to Friend polycythemia virus-transformed erythroleukemia cells purified by centrifugal elutriation. Int J Cell Cloning 8:39. Correa, PN (1991) An improved serum-free medium for the growth of normal human circulating erythroid progenitor cells and its application to the s tudy of erythropoiesis in Polycythemia vera. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Oliveri NF, Grunberger T, Ben-David Y, Ng J, Williams DE, Lyman S, Anderson, DM, Axelrad AA, Correa PN, Bernstein A, Freedman MH (1991) Diamond-Blackfan Anemia: Heterogenous response of hematopoietic progenitor cells in vitro to the protein product of the steel locus. Blood, 78, 9:2211. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1991) Production of erythropoietic bursts by progenitor cells from adult human peripheral blood in an improved serum-free medium: role of IGF-I. Blood, 78, 11:1. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1992) Retinyl acetate and all-trans-retinoic acid enhance erythroid colony formation in vitro by circulating human progenitors in an improved serum-free medium. Int J Cell Cloning, 10:286 Freedman M, Grunberger T, Correa PN, Axelrad AA, Dube ID, Cohen A (1993) Autocrine and paracrine growth-control by GM-CSF in acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells. Blood, 81:3068. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1993) A two-tiered basal and growth/ differentiation-promoting serum free medium for the cultivation of human circulating erythroid progenitor cells, other hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, and leukemia cells. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1993. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1994) Circulating erythroid progenitors in Polycythemia vera are hypersensitive to IGF-I. Blood, 83, 1:99. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1995)"Serum-free basal and culture medium for hematopoietic and leukemia cells", Mar. 14, USPTO, Pat.# 5,397,706, U.S.A. Mirza A, Correa PN & Axelrad AA (1995) Increased basal and induced tyrosine phosporylation of the IGF-I receptor b subunit in circulating mononuclear cells of patients with Polycythemia vera. Blood, 86, 3:877. Correa PN, Axelrad AA (1999)"Cell culture medium", October 10, Can Pat. #2,123,094. Axelrad AA, Eskinazi D, Correa PN, Amato D (2000) "Hypersensitivity of circulating progenitor cells to megakaryocyte growth and development factor (PEG-rHu MGDF) in essential thrombocythemia", Blood, 96:3310.
Dr. Askanas' attempt to make the uncensored text available. Blocked from the list by J. Ogg Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:11:01 -0400 From: J. Ogg To: Malgosia Askanas Subject: Re: MODERATE -- Malgosia Askanas posted to OrgonomyMail-List Your below message is not approved for the OML see guidelines.of group...... > This message requires your approval for one of the following reasons: > * Your group is set to moderate all messages from this user, OR > * Your group is set to moderate messages from all users > > Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups as your email group > service for the OrgonomyMail-List group. > > Regards, > > Yahoo! Groups Customer Care > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: [OrgonomyMail-List] Response to J.Ogg Re: Reich-Einstein and Aetherometry > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:48:42 -0400 (EDT) > From: M. Askanas > To: OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com > > To the Orgonomy List, > > The message that J.Ogg posted this morning to this list under my name > is not the message I wrote. Ogg, without my permission or any consultation > with me, deleted large sections of what I wrote, without any attention to > the fact that the text as he left it doesn't make any sense; then he proceeded > to post it under my name. > > I have made the text that I actually wrote available at > > http://www.panix.com/~ma/ogg.html > > M.Askanas, Ph.D.
Message by Dr. Askanas on Aug 7 - uncensored version, blocked from the list by J. Ogg From: M. Askanas Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Notice To the Orgonomy List, I would like to let everybody know that I will not engage in any more dialogue on this list. The post that J.Ogg sent this morning as presumably coming from me, was radically altered by him without my approval and without any attempt at warning or consultation. I will not send any posts to a list where what I write can be subject to arbitrary distortions without my permission. If anybody has anything worthwhile to discuss with me, please write to me off-list. M. Askanas, Ph.D
Censored version of the same text, as posted to the list on Aug 9 by J. Ogg From: J. Ogg Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:26:23 -0400 Subject: Notice below was emailed by M Askanas to OML Aug 7th at about 11pm and was subject to deleted (2 words) text by OML-moderator ======================= Subject: Notice To: OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:00:35 -0400 (EDT) FROM: M. Askanas To the Orgonomy List, I would like to let everybody know that I will not engage in any more dialogue on this list. The post that J.Ogg sent this morning as presumably coming from me, was radically altered by him without my approval and without any attempt at warning or consultation. I will not send any posts to a list where what I write can be subject to .............(deleted 2 words)... without my permission. If anybody has anything worthwhile to discuss with me, please write to me off-list. M. Askanas, Ph.D