Archive for February, 2014

Senate Banking Committee should question following witnesses on Stanley Fischer

February 27, 2014

The following people should be questioned as witnesses in the confirmation of Stanley Fischer.

  1. Franklin Fisher, Stanley Fischer thesis chairman.
  2. Duncan Foley, the 2nd Fischer thesis chairman.
  3. Sidrauski is dead, but Martha Sidrauski his widow may be alive.  Duncan Foley tells us she was an extreme leftist.
  4. Karl Shell who shared an office with Franklin Fisher at MIT and had the Hakansson paper.
  5. Robert C. Merton
  6. Kenneth Arrow
  7. Larry Summers
  8. DE Shaw people.
  9. LTCM people.
  10. Ben Bernanke.
  11. George Akerlof.
  12. Janet Yellen.
  13. Peter Diamond.
  14. Martin Weitzman.
  15. Martin J. Beckmann
  16. Eugene Dynkin at Cornell University.
  17. Berezovsky coauthors in US and UK.
  18. University of Manchester Russians.
  19. Sergei Novikov at UMD.
  20. Some other Russians in US.
  21. Some Chinese in US.
  22. Daniel Rubinfeld
  23. Several other academics.

The above are hypotheses or speculation. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Possible timeline in the Stanley Fischer plagiarism case

February 27, 2014

This is draft and preliminary and considers a scenario in which Stanley Fischer plagiarized Nils Hakansson in Fischer’s 1969 MIT thesis.

  1. Karl Shell chairs the session in 1966 at which Hakansson presents his groundbreaking thesis results.
  2. Miguel Sidrauski and Stanley Fischer bond together as immigrants and as Zionists (Which Duncan Foley tells us for Sidrauski and Fischer in the Blanchard 2004 interview.)
  3. Sidrauski chairs Fischer’s thesis up to his death in second half of 1968.  Fischer starts the plagiarism.
  4. Robert C. Merton and Stanley Fischer share the same office and work together with RCM doing the continuous time version of the discrete time version that Fischer is doing.
  5. Duncan Foley becomes chairman and he or someone provides a copy of the Hakansson Yale working paper on uncertain lifetime extension of the 1966 Hakansson thesis.
  6. Foley stops being chairman (goes on sabbatical) and Franklin Fisher becomes chairman.
  7. Fisher is editor of Econometrica where Hakansson’s paper has been delayed by an anonymous (to us) referee since 1966.
  8. Franklin Fisher now makes Fischer insert citations to Hakansson and Leland but the footnote claims (falsely) that Fischer had not seen these prior to writing these parts.  (However, they mirror so closely we can infer he did see them.)
  9. Samuelson learns of the situation and greatly admires Robert K. Merton the father of Robert C. Merton.  They share similar bios to some extent.
  10. Samuelson decides he will publish a discrete time paper that basically claims many of the results of the Stanley Fischer as his own with Robert C. Merton as a companion paper to Samuelson’s discrete time purportedly.
  11. However, the RCM continuous time paper still mirrors the Fischer thesis and neither the Fischer thesis or Merton thesis resemble the Samuelson paper.  They were written earlier and their template is Hakansson which they mirror more than Samuelson.
  12. Samuelson’s paper provides cover for Stanley Fischer and Robert C. Merton.
  13. Chicago hires Stanley Fischer to help out MIT.  They know what has happened.
  14. Stanley Fischer publishes two papers based on his thesis. Both acknowledge Hakansson as prior in those papers.
  15. Fischer doesn’t cite his own two papers after that nor do others, except rarely at MIT or anywhere.  Bernanke doesn’t even as a Ph.D. student of Fischer.
  16. Hakansson is intimidated into silence.
  17. Russia learns of this and puts pressure onto Samuelson and Arrow to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ.  This happens.  Partly the pressures is applied at econ conferences in Poland in the early 1970s attended by some from MIT.
  18. Going forward, Hakansson is denied recognition by most.
  19. Everyone involved at MIT are showered with honors including a Nobel Prize for Peter Diamond.
  20. Others involved in covering up at other schools or ignoring it get honors including Nobel Prizes.  This includes those at Berkeley where Hakansson is a prof.  That includes Akerlof Nobel Prize and Yellen advancement.
  21. Boris Berezovsky works at the Institute of Control Sciences in the 1980s in Moscow which does the same math as in the papers above. He learns of this.
  22. In 1994, the Sudoplatov book is published to put pressure on physics profs to frighten the econ profs.
  23. In 1995, Summers and Fischer come across with large IMF loans to Russia.
  24. Berezovsky and other oligarchs get loans for shares as a reward for his thinking of this.
  25. LTCM and DE Shaw buy Russian government bonds knowing this history.
  26. Robert C. Merton, part of LTCM, writes false statements in his Nobel Prize autobiography in 1997 to conceal this.
  27. Russia defaults after giving the money to the oligarchs and in part because they want DE Shaw and LTCM to lose money.
  28. This is covered up in the LTCM cleanup.
  29. Russia continues to drop hints or write about misconduct in science.
  30. Harvard and MIT conceal this from USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.  Shleifer was a conduit from Chubais, who handled the IMF contacts for Russia, to Summers, Fischer.
  31. Hay gets a math Ph.D. from Steklov Institute in Moscow in 2003 while a defendant in case he loses his law license.
  32. Summers makes his statement that women are not good at math to frighten some women profs including one at Harvard law with an MIT econ Ph.D. to keep quiet while US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay is pending.
  33. Other people piggy back on this to engage in plagiarism and possibly sexual harassment of female junior faculty or grad students.
  34. Dominique Strauss Kahn uses this history to get away with sexual harassment at the IMF.
  35. This is concealed during the Larry Summers, Peter Diamond, Bernanke, Yellen, Fischer appointments.
  36. Putin makes his statement following the Boston Bombing that Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents. This is to put the blame for 1990s on the CIA and these profs.
  37. Russia leaks that it is investigating of Berezovsky’s death was faked by MI-5 to also put blame for 1990s onto CIA and MI-5 as a plot.
  38. Putin becomes increasingly bold as the Obama administration sinks itself deeper into the coverup.  This includes in Iran, Syria and Ukraine.  It also includes possibly the Volgograd terrorist incident from a group controlled by Moscow and possibly even some influence on Tamerlan Tsarnaev when he traveled through Russia.  If Snowden or his contacts had contact prior to Snowden coming to Russia, this also may have figured in Putin’s current plan.
  39. Putin now feels he has great leverage over Obama because Obama has appointed those involved in the coverup including Summers, Bernanke, Yellen and Fischer.

The above is hypotheses and speculation.  Restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.


Senate Banking Committee Hearing Stanley Fischer Questions to ask

February 26, 2014

Questions to ask Stanley Fischer at the March 4, 2014 Senate Banking Committee hearing.

  1. Did you see the thesis of Nils Hakansson or the working paper 101 version earlier than you admit to in your Ph.D. thesis at MIT?
  2. Did you get a copy of the working paper version of Hakansson’s paper on applying his methods to uncertain lifetime and which is equivalent to chapter 5 of your thesis?
  3. Did Hakansson invent multiple period portfolio theory?
  4. If so, why does Hakansson not get recognition for it?
  5. Why was Hakansson never made a Fellow of the Econometric Society?
  6. Was Paul Samuelson on the mailing list for the UCLA working paper series that distributed copies of the Hakansson working paper 101?
  7. Did Miguel Sidrauski and you agree you could use parts of Hakansson’s thesis without citing it?
  8. Did Duncan Foley provide you a copy of the Hakansson working paper from Yale on uncertain lives?
  9. Did Franklin Fisher suggest or make you cite Hakansson in your thesis?
  10. Was there a copy of any of Hakansson’s papers in the office you had with Robert C. Merton?
  11. Was that prior to the publication of the Robert C. Merton and Samuelson papers in August 1969?
  12. If you had seen the Hakansson paper before August 1969, didn’t you talk to Robert C. Merton about it since you shared an office with him?
  13. Did you and Robert C. Merton discuss that Samuelson and Merton should cite the Hakansson paper prior to the August 1969 Samuelson paper?
  14. Joe Stiglitz cited Hakansson in a January 1969 Cowles paper that thanked Samuelson for comments. Doesn’t that show Samuelson knew of the Hakansson paper before August 1969?
  15. Franklin Fisher was your 3rd Ph.D. Chairman, was on the Merton Ph.D. committee and was editor of Econometrica which had received the Hakansson paper in 1966 and published it in 1970.  Was he trying to clean up your act and make you and Merton cite Hakansson?
  16. On June 4, 1969, Econometrica sent Hakansson a letter acknowledging the receipt on May 5, 1969 of the final version of the Hakansson paper to be published in 1970 in Econometrica.  Did Franklin Fisher talk to you about the Hakansson paper in that time period, i.e. in May and June of 1969?  Did you then discuss it with Robert C. Merton?  Didn’t Franklin Fisher give you a copy of the Hakansson thesis and working paper 101 in May and June of 1969?
  17. Didn’t you show those and discuss those with Robert C. Merton?
  18. Why weren’t those cited by Samuelson and Merton in the August 1969 Samuelson Merton papers?
  19. Had you seen the Hakansson paper before May 1969?
  20. In 1968?
  21. In 1967?
  22. Wasn’t it discussed by others?
  23. Did Peter Diamond discuss the Hakansson paper with you in 1968?
  24. Did Karl Shell discuss the Hakansson paper with you while he was at MIT?
  25. When did you insert the note into your thesis that you had seen the Hakansson thesis after you had written the corresponding parts of your thesis?
  26. Had you also seen the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis on multiple period portfolio theory while writing your thesis?
  27. Earlier than you imply in your thesis?
  28. Samuelson says that his paper was based on the Bellman Beckmann Phelps methodology.  If Samuelson thought that and he was on your thesis committee, why didn’t you cite the Phelps paper as Samuelson did?
  29. Wasn’t it because you based your thesis on Hakansson and Leland and not on Phelps which was earlier and not as developed?
  30. When was your final thesis copy typed?
  31. “Since writing this chapter I have benefitted from reading work by Hakansson [16] and Leland [18] in this same area.  See also Fama[11]”.
  32. Was that written after you got to Chicago in fall 1969?  Did Chicago make you insert that?
  33. Did Fama in 1968 already cite Hakansson 1966?  So Chicago was able to compare your thesis and Hakansson and knew you had used Hakansson as a template and not Phelps or Samuelson?
  34. Wasn’t your thesis written before Samuelson wrote his 1969 paper?
  35. Didn’t Samuelson use your thesis along with Hayne Leland and Hakansson to write his paper?
  36. Didn’t you talk about the Leland, Hakansson papers with Robert C. Merton prior to the Merton Samuelson papers being conceived?
  37. Wasn’t Merton using your thesis and the Leland and Hakansson to do the continuous time version, and Samuelson’s paper somehow got added in as the discrete time version without citing the work of Leland, Hakansson or you?
  38. Did Russia learn of this set of events before the 1975 Nobel Prize for Koopmans and Kantorovich?
  39. Kenneth Arrow arrived at Harvard in 1968.  Didn’t he discuss the Hakansson, Leland papers with Samuelson in 1968 and early 1969?
  40. Did Arrow and Samuelson nominate Kantorovich and Koopmans while they knew of this?
  41. Did Russia put pressure at conferences in Poland attended by Weitzmann?
  42. Did you tell Israel about this in the 1970s or 1980s?
  43. Did Russia put pressure on you again in the 1990s to get IMF loans?
  44. Wasn’t this why Long Term Capital Management heavily bought Russian government bonds? They knew this history and counted on you giving the Russians the loans they wanted?
  45. Is this why Berezovsky got loans for shares? Because he was a math professor at Institute of Control Sciences and knew of this?
  46. When Putin offered you a job, wasn’t he making a jibe about this?
  47. Did you tell Israel about this when you were hired as central banker of Israel?
  48. Was the announcement of your hiring as central banker of Israel at the end of the AEA meeting delayed so that no one at the meeting could raise this issue with the press?
  49. Did you or someone discuss Paul Samuelson withdrawing from giving his talk at that meeting because they feared someone attending the meeting would ask a question on this?
  50. Did you fear the press would attend the Samuelson session and repeat this and the FBI would hear of it? Or USAO Mass read of it in the press? Such as on PBS News Hour which covers these conferences?
  51. So did you or someone discuss with you or with Samuelson that Samuelson should withdraw to avoid that person asking a question about the Samuelson plagiarism of Hakansson and Russia’s use of it and the press reporting it and the FBI and USAO Mass learning of it by this channel?  So to avoid that, you or Summers or someone asked Samuelson not to talk at the meeting?
  52. Thus you or Summers or someone acted together with Samuelson to delay, impede or prevent the FBI and USAO Mass from learning of Russia’s possible use of plagiarism kompromat to get IMF loans in the 1990s? And the role of Shleifer as conduit?
  53. And this is what President of Putin of Russia was implying when he said Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents? Because Chubais handled the IMF negotiations with you and Summers for Russia?
  54. Do you agree now this is what Putin was implying when he made this statement in April 2013 after the Boston Bombing?
  55. Had you heard and others of your group heard that someone attending the AEA 2005 meeting had earlier asked for an investigation of Elsevier of related misconduct?
  56. Was that passed along to your group by Karl Shell?
  57. Did Daniel Rubinfeld also know of this at that meeting?
  58. Did that person attend the Rubinfeld session where Rubinfeld said that Elsevier was violating antitrust laws?
  59. Did your group discuss that the reason for this was that Elsevier had embarrassing info about the econ profs who run the Economic Analysis Group at the Antitrust Division of DOJ?
  60. Did the same person attend your session at that January 2005 AEA meeting?
  61. Did you stare at that person during your talk?
  62. Were you wondering if he would ask you about your plagiarism of Hakansson?
  63. That Russia used this to get IMF loans?
  64. In January 2005 the US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay case was still pending.  Were you afraid this person would raise these questions at this AEA meeting and that the USAO Mass would start investigating them?
  65. Did you have any discussions with anyone that you or that person did not want this information to become known to the FBI or USAO Mass prior to the ending of the case US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  66. Prior to your leaving for Israel?
  67. Did you make an agreement with any person to try to delay, impede or prevent any person from providing information to the FBI or USAO Mass about these matters?
  68. Did you discuss this with Israel?
  69. Did you or any person provide benefits to any person to try to delay, impede or prevent their providing info to the FBI or USAO Mass on these matters?
  70. Larry Summers later in that same month in a speech to the NBER said that women were not as good in math as men.  Was that intended to signal to women econ or law profs at Harvard, MIT or other schools that they should not go to the FBI or USAO Mass with information they knew?
  71. Did you or anyone discuss that a Harvard law prof with a Ph.D. in econ from MIT who had control of the NBER grant for law and econ research might be thinking about going to the FBI or USAO Mass?
  72. Was Summers’ statement intended to delay, impede or prevent that female law prof from going to the FBI or USAO Mass?
  73. Other women econ profs at Harvard or MIT?
  74. At the same meeting, did you hear of a Stanford professor putting up photos of a junior prof from Germany who was attractive and making comments about her appearance? (I am not completely sure this happened at this meeting, but strongly remember it that way.  I don’t know the name of the man. The Stanford prof who most fits the accent and age was not at this meeting it appears.)
  75. Of another junior prof from Germany who was going along with your group’s claims and not exposing them?
  76. Was the Stanford prof who did this taking advantage of this situation?
  77. Were Summers’ comments about women intended to put pressure on these two German female profs to keep quiet about what they knew?
  78. Did this impede, delay or prevent their providing information to the FBI or USAO Mass while US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay was pending?
  79. What about after the Boston Bombing when Putin said that Anatoly Chubais was advised by CIA agents?  Did you understand that to mean Shleifer?
  80. Was Shleifer passing info from Chubais to you and Summers that Russia knew of your plagiarism in the 1990s while you and Summers were giving them billions in IMF loans?
  81. Did Summers make his statements about women being bad in math because he feared that women were not part of the old boys club and might go to the FBI or USAO Mass with this information?
  82. Particularly the female Harvard law prof with a Ph.D. in econ from MIT?  Wasn’t Summers worried she would go to the FBI or USAO Mass with the information she knew?
  83. Didn’t you and Larry Summers conspire to obstruct justice during US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay in order to prevent this information from reaching the FBI or USAO Mass?
  84. Didn’t that conspiracy include Summer’s statement about women being bad in math to obstruct women in econ who knew of this from coming forward to the FBI and USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  85. US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay didn’t settle until August 2005, after you had left for Israel.  Didn’t you want to keep the FBI and USAO Mass from learning this until you were in Israel?
  86. Didn’t you and Paul Samuelson discuss that Samuelson would withdraw from speaking at this meeting so as to impede delay or obstruct the FBI and USAO Mass from learning of this during the pending case of US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  87. Have you discussed your testimony with others?
  88. Franklin Fisher received an email from the same person as who attended the January 2005 meeting in the questions above requesting Fisher to bring forward these matters. Did Franklin Fisher tell you this?
  89. Have you discussed that with others?
  90. Have you discussed with others what they might or did tell the FBI in any interviews or written documents or emails?  Did you receive copies of any such emails?
  91. Did the email sent to Franklin Fisher by the person above get forwarded to you?  Or the accompanying document?
  92. Did you discuss that the committee would probably ignore an attempt by the person to notify them of this?  (As actually happened.)
  93. Did you discuss your testimony with Peter Diamond?
  94. Did Peter Diamond get information from Hal Abelson in January 2013 that the person had made a request that MIT investigate these matters including your potential plagiarism in your Ph.D. thesis?
  95. Did you resign from your job in Israel unexpectedly because of this?
  96. According to Boris Berezovsky’s girlfriend, he was supposed to fly to Israel to meet her when he committed suicide instead.  Did Israel pass the word to Berezovsky that if he came to Israel he would be arrested for having used kompromat to pressure you to give IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s?
  97. Is the wealth of Roman Abramovich obtained as illicit gains from these loans and loans for shares?
  98. Of other oligarchs?
  99. Can the US and UK governments sue or seize the assets of Roman Abramovich or other oligarchs to recover ill gotten gains?
  100. Don’t you have a duty of loyalty as a prospective employee of the US government to tell about such a large recovery of billions of dollars?

Note that some sources incorrectly state that US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay ended in 2004.  They confuse a judge’s ruling with the actual final settlement of the case, which did not occur until August 2005 after the above meeting of the American Economics Association.

Jan. 7, 2:30 pm

On the 75th Anniversary of the Opportunity Cost Formulation of Comparative Advantage

Presiding: RONALD JONES, University of Rochester

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology–1925-1950 Elizabethan Age for Pure Trade Theory

ALAN DEARDORFF, University of Michigan–How Robust is Comparative Advantage?

DANIEL BERNHOFEN and JOHN BROWN, Clark University–Comparative Advantage: From Theory to Data

Discussants: RONALD JONES, University of Rochester
WILFRED ETHIER, University of Pennsylvania
PRAVIN KRISHNA, Brown University

Samuelson canceled for ill health.

Jan. 8, 10:15 am

The Economics of the Presidential Election (Lectures)

Presiding: ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

PETER DIAMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

STANLEY FISCHER, International Monetary Fund

ALLEN SINAI, Decision Economics, Inc.

Jan. 9, 10:15 am

Competition Policy for Journals

Presiding: ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

AARON EDLIN and DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley–Bundling Electronic and Print Journals: An Antitrust Analysis

AVIV NEVO, DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley, and MARC McCABE, Georgia Tech–The Demand for Economics Journals by Academic Libraries: An Econometric Analysis

MARC McCABE, Georgia Tech, and CHRISTOPHER SNYDER, George Washington University–Open Access and Academic Journal Quality

AARON EDLIN and DANIEL RUBINFELD, University of California-Berkeley–title to be announced

Discussants: V. KERRY SMITH, North Carolina State University
ROBERT HALL, Stanford University

Citigroup’s Fischer to Head Israel’s Central Bank (Update2)
By Jonathan Ferziger – January 9, 2005 12:26 EST

(Too late to be known to most attendees and after the sessions where it could have been raised.)

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2005

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference’s papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I’ll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

So the Harvard law female prof with the MIT Econ Ph.D. and NBER grant was being told her math was not at the level of Paul Samuelson, so she should keep quiet about what she knew or lose her grant?  The German female prof from Stanford was being told to keep quiet about photos of her being shown at the conference and her physical appearance commented on.  Who knows what was going behind the scenes.  The other female German prof being pressure to go along with this in her papers was also pressured by this?  All while US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay were pending?

Harvard Settles Suit For $26.5 M
Settlement brings end to five-year suit against Harvard, Shleifer
By Zachary M. Seward, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER August 5, 2005
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 1
Harvard will pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government to settle a five-year-old lawsuit that implicated two University employees, including its star economics professor, Andrei Shleifer ’82, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

Shleifer, who is Jones professor of economics, emerged far less scathed in the settlement, agreeing to pay just $2 million. He had faced damages of up to $104 million for conspiring to defraud the government while advising a U.S.-funded program to privatize the Russian economy in the 1990s.

Jonathan Hay, another advisor to the program, will pay between $1 million and $2 million, depending on his future earnings, the government said.

As indicated above this case had a final settlement in August 2005 and not in 2004. So actions in January 2005 to delay, impede or prevent witnesses coming forward to the FBI or USAO Mass would be obstruction of justice?

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Tom Sargent textbook on Dynamic Macro gives credit to Levhari Srinivasan

February 26, 2014

Thomas Sargent’s textbook on Dynamic Macroeconomic Theory gives credit to Levhari Srinivasan instead of to Nils Hakansson for the infinite horizon one risky asset multiperiod consumption savings investment decision.

Page 68 of text. Search on Levhari

The exercise manual shows this on page 6. Search on Levhari or Srinivasan in the book.

The Hakansson paper published in 1970 contains this as a special case and this was in the 1966 working paper sent to a distribution list by UCLA.

Thomas Sargent won the Nobel Prize.  He got his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1968 the same year as Hayne Leland.  Leland’s thesis was on intertemporal dynamic programming. He is now at Berkeley.   Has Sargent known Hakansson was the real inventor the entire time?

Published by Harvard University Press in 1987.

Leland O’Brien Rubinstein (LOR) made a fortune pushing portfolio insurance before the Crash of 1987.  Portfolio insurance not only did not work but many claim it helped cause the crash.

LOR Portfolio Insurance

Did Stanley Fischer also use the 1968 Hayne Leland thesis in Fischer’s 1969 MIT thesis?  Robert C. Merton claims he was unaware of the Leland thesis because according to Merton, Leland was a graduate student “at the time”.  But Merton was published in 1969, when Leland was no longer a graduate student.  Is this also to help cover for Stanley Fischer using it in Fischer’s thesis?  Merton and Fischer shared an office at MIT.

Russia’s comments on plagiarism and their possible uses

February 26, 2014
  1. Luzin Affair 1936.  Enhance the pressure from their leverage on Dirac and protect the Max Born spy ring. “(iii) claiming his pupils’ results as his own (in particular, those of Suslin and Novikov)” Novikov’s son is at UMD and also comments on priority and plagiarism writings of Logunov, see below.
  2. Kapitsa 1937 obit Rutherford.   Same.  See Collected Papers volume 3, page 20, 22, 73. “Fairness in acknowledging the originality of the work and ideas of his pupils kept a very healthy spirit in the laboratory” p 20.  Page 34: “When any of his disciples manifested even the slightest lack of conscience in anything — be it an incorrect representation of their results or by not quoting the source of their ideas and so by attempting to represent their work as an original whereas in fact the idea of the work was taken from elsewhere,–Rutherford lost interest in such men.” “Rutherford himself was extremely accurate in giving credit where credit was due.  When any of his disciples carried out their work on their own ideas, he noted in particular that the work was performed on the idea of the disciplie.”  Heisenberg likely sent the Born Jordan preprint to Fowler, son in law of Rutherford, who gave it to Dirac to copy in 1925.  In 1926, Rutherford as President of the Royal Society made Niels Bohr and Arnold Sommerfeld Fellows of the Royal Society.  Kapitza likely told him what happened and suggested this.  The Rockefeller Foundation sent a man round to fund the Germans and Danes in physics and this was a signal to Rockefeller Foundation to give their money to these men.  Born wrote to Bohr to give Jordan a Rockefeller stipend to work at the Bohr Institute in 1926.
  3. Kapitsa letter to Bohr in 1944 asking him to come to Moscow did not mention it explicitly but he knew about it. Same with 1946 Terletsky Meeting.
  4. Fock Letter 1947. “A Note on the paper Second Quantization and Representation Theory”. “In a recent number of this journal, Dr. Corson published a paper with the above title. On examination this paper bears a close resemblance to a paper of mine entitled Konfigurationsraum und Zweite Quantelung which was published in 1932.” “Without exception all of the results found by Dr. Corson are contained in my paper. There is a close parallelism not only between the formulas but the texts of the two papers.”  Maintain discipline in their spy ring, get Nobel Prize nominations for Vladimir Fock, and confuse issues.  [Similar remarks could be made in part about the Paul Samuelson 1969 paper and Hakansson’s 1966 thesis at MIT since 1966 and the thesis of Stanley Fischer at MIT in 1969.] Corson Reply: “The author (Corson) sincerely hopes that his work far from detracting from the credit which is due Fock, will rather serve to direct attention to the very important contribution Fock has made in this field.”  Corson may have been acting for Russia with just this intention.  See here.
  5. Tamm 60th birthday 1955.  Veiled remarks and refusal to cite Dancoff as an implied message to Americans.  Also meant to get Nobel Prize nominations for Tamm.  Tamm got the Nobel Prize in 1958.
  6. Vladimirov in his book on several complex variables in 1960s calls it Bogolyubov Edge of the Wedge Theorem.  English translation 1966.  Vladimirov and Boygolyubov were both heads of the Steklov Institute of Math.
  7. Another talk by Kapitsa in the 1960s. Vol III page 225 Collected Papers.  Proc Roy Soc A 1966 September 20, 1966 294 1437 123-137;  Page 232 collected papers: “Rutherford was very particular to give credit for the exact authorship of any idea. He always did this in his lectures as well as in his published work. If anybody in the laboratory forgot to mention the author of the idea Rutherford always corrected him.” This was meant to push Kapitsa’s own nominations for the Nobel Prize which worked. He got it in 1978.  This was linked to the Kantorovich econ prize in 1975.  Pressure on MIT in physics and econ were linked in effect.
  8. Vainshtein 1970 that Leontief was not first on input output but Soviets were. English translation in  Matekon c. 1970.  This was to help get nominations for Kantorovich to win the Nobel Prize in economics.  Martin Weitzman of MIT (now Harvard) was part of Matekon and would see this and pass it on presumably.
  9. Two conferences in Poland in 1970s before the 1975 Nobel Prize for Kantorovich had attendants from the West and Russia who were involved.  Martin Weitzmann of Harvard was at one.  Eugene Dynkin from Russia now at Cornell was at one.  Valery Makarov was at one. Makarov was head of Central Economics Mathematical Institute (CEMI) and later the New Economic School Moscow.
  10. Sudoplatov book Special Tasks 1994 was not about plagiarism but it was meant to provoke the physics professors into a huge response to frighten the econ profs, Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer, to give IMF loans to Russia.
  11. Albert Shiryaev  Essentials of Stochastic Finance book in 1999 contained sly references.
  12. Putin offers Stanley Fischer a job to imply he had seen his file and that Fischer might need to leave the West.
  13. A. A. Logunov 2004. On the Hilbert Einstein priority contest. Logunov was a coauthor with Bogolyubov.
  14. Sergei Novikov made critical remarks Logunov and possibly the Logunov paper on Einstein Hilbert and the current version of the Logunov paper may be revised? Sergei Novikov is the son of the Novikov mentioned in the Luzin affair. He has a joint appointment at Univ of Maryland and also as head of a department at the Steklov Institute in Russia. The same institute awarded Jonathan Hay a Ph.D. in math in 2003 while he was, a codefendant in US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay. Stanislav Ivanovich Pohozaev  was adviser.
  15. Dec 2005. Russia and later China post a document that can be used to show misconduct by Darrell Duffie of Stanford.  This links to the earlier 1969 events at MIT.  Darrell duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript”
  16. A.A. Logunov 2006.  Poincare and Relativity.  Tends to emphasize Poincare getting credit. “It is also shown that the special theory of relativity has been created not by A. Einstein only but even to a greater extent by H. Poincare.”
  17. Todorov another co-author with Bogolyubov.  On the  Bohr Heisenberg Copenhagen meeting.  Heisenberg and Bohr may have discussed Max Born being a Communist and Oppenheimer a Communist. This is not in the paper, but this may be another subtle pressure act.
  18. In July 2008, Oehme gave his version of his discovery of Edge of the Wedge in Wiki.  In September 2008 a former Sec of Air Force and nuclear weapons physicist Thomas C Reed in Physics Today cited this blog on Russia’s use of plagiarism to get atomic secrets. In December 2008, Tamtamar rewrote the Wiki page on Edge of the Wedge to give credit to Bogolyubov in the manner of Vladimirov.
  19. Igor Fedyukin investigation starting 2013 in Russia of wide spread plagiarism.  Abandoned in 2014 from pressure.

The above are speculation and hypotheses.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Evidence in relation to whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his MIT PhD

February 25, 2014

This post is draft and preliminary on the topic of whether Stanley Fischer committed plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis “Essays on assets and contingent commodities.” at MIT in 1969.  Paul Samuelson, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were his committee.  Miguel Sidrauski was chairman until he died in 1968, then Foley and then Fisher.

Stanley Fischer in his 1969 thesis claims that he did not see the Hakansson 1966 thesis until after he wrote the parts of his thesis relevant to the issue of copying.

Paul Samuelson also told through intermediaries to Hakansson that he had not seen Hakansson’s thesis but felt guilty.  Samuelson’s 1969 paper was part of a group of 4 papers published in 1969 linked to the MIT Econ group.

Samuelson Paul 1969 “Lifetime portfolio selection by dynamic stochastic programming” MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 239-46

Robert C Merton Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case.  MIT Press in its journal Review of Economics & Statistics. Volume (Year): 51 (1969) Issue (Month): 3 (August) Pages: 247-57

Optimal Savings under Uncertainty    Levhari, David    Srinivasan, T N  Review of Economic Studies. Volume (Year): 36 (1969) Issue (Month): 106 (April) Pages: 153-63.

Levhari was a coauthor with Samuelson and co-author of Franklin Fisher.

Before them all and at MIT since 1966 was Hakansson’s 1966 thesis and UCLA working paper.

Hakansson’s paper was delayed in publication at Econometrica from 1966 to 1970.  Franklin Fisher was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 and 1970.

In 2003, after over 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson wrote the following.

 Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking.

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

(See also


So in 2003, after 30 years to think of his story, Samuelson tells us this is it.  This suggests the picture that at MIT, Samuelson, Stanley Fischer, Robert C. Merton and their thesis committees including Miguel Sidrauski, Duncan Foley, Franklin Fisher, Paul Samuelson and others there such as Karl Shell and Peter Diamond were busying studying the 1962 paper by Phelps and did not know of the 1966 paper by Hakansson.

Phelps paper 1961 working paper at Cowles. “The Accumulation of Risky Capital: A Discrete-Time Sequential Utility Analysis.”

The MIT case is as follows.

  1. MIT does not acknowledge having the Hakansson 1966 paper at MIT in their statements.  So if it is shown they did have it, that shows they concealed information in their self serving claims later.
  2. Samuelson invented the intertemporal portfolio part for finite horizons himself and sketched the extension to multiple risky assets and inequality constraints.
  3. Robert C. Merton was not aware of the Hakansson or Hayne Leland 1968 Harvard thesis.
  4. Fischer invented his thesis based on the Samuelson August 1969 paper in draft form.
  5. Merton based his 1969 paper on the Samuelson 1969 paper in draft form.
  6. Stanley Fischer in his 1980s book with Blanchard gives sole credit to intertemporal portfolio choice to Samuelson not mentioning Hakansson at all.

Some problems with this are

  1. Stanley Fischer doesn’t even cite the 1962 Phelps paper in his thesis. Strange if they were all using Phelps as their starting point.  Note Samuelson was on the Fischer thesis committee, so if Samuelson thought they were using Phelps as their starting point, why didn’t he make Fischer cite Phelps in Fischer’s 1969 thesis?
  2. Karl Shell then of MIT chaired a session in 1966 in which Hakansson presented his thesis. This is in the published records of the American Economic Association (Page 114)
    . Thus in all their later statements, MIT concealed this material fact.
  3. Hakansson’s 1966 UCLA thesis was mimeographed by UCLA and sent out as a working paper to a distribution list.  Library of Congress has some records related to that working paper series.  Samuelson and likely others at MIT were probably on that list.
  4. Karl Shell and Franklin Fisher shared an office at MIT.
  5. Stanley Fischer and Robert C. Merton shared an office at MIT.
  6. Joseph Stiglitz cited the Hakansson paper in a Cowles paper dated from January 1969 and thanked Samuelson for comments in that draft.  The Samuelson paper was not published until August 1969.
  7. The Stanley Fischer thesis copies not just from the Hakansson 1966 thesis but also from another working paper of Hakansson at Yale.   Duncan Foley was from Yale and Stiglitz was at Yale.
  8. Franklin Fisher not only was the final chair of the Stanley Fischer thesis but he also was the editor of Econometrica in 1969 the date of a letter to Hakansson and 1970 the date of publication.
  9. Duncan Foley in a list of Stanley Fischer’s papers at History of Economic Thought left out the paper by Fischer that copies the working paper by Hakansson from Yale.  Foley was from Yale and was middle Chairman of the Fischer thesis.  Foley may have gotten the Hakansson paper with that part and then left that Fischer paper off the list of Fischer’s papers at HET.
  10. In various published later statements by Samuelson, Fischer, and others, the papers by Samuelson and Fischer have been admitted to as being equivalent to the Hakansson papers.
  11. Stanley Fischer does not cite the Levhari Srinivasan paper that does the infinite horizon case published in 1969.  Samuelson claims he started from the Levhari Srinivasan solution for an infinite horizon, when it was in draft form.
  12. The Stanley Fischer thesis is much longer than the Samuelson paper and had to be started at least a couple years before publication in 1969.
  13. The Fischer thesis starts from a more basic level than Samuelson and goes over the intermediate steps unlike Samuelson.
  14. The Fischer thesis doesn’t follow the Samuelson paper as a template, but instead it follows the Hakansson paper as a template.
  15. Samuelson makes some slips in his 1969 paper.  Samuelson thinks a certain one period equation in his paper is standard.  However, that equation only appears in the Hakansson paper, Fischer thesis and likely in the Hayne Leland Harvard 1968 thesis.  So Samuelson can’t think it was familiar or well known except he had seen it in these other places.
  16. Samuelson says that inequality constraints will work as an extension.  However, Samuelson knew from a prior book and a paper with McKean that inequality constraints, a type of boundary condition, usually throw off a formula solved without them.  Hakansson had shown already that in this special case you could still get a solution with them. Samuelson could only know that from Hakansson’s paper.
  17. Fischer follows closely the thesis of Hakansson in building up intertemporal portfolio theory from a new version of one period optimization first.  Prior one period portfolio theory used mean variance optimization. Before going to multiple period, it was first necessary to recast one period in terms of a new equation.  It is this equation Samuelson slips and calls familiar in his 1969 paper.
  18. Fischer published two papers while at Chicago out of his thesis. These acknowledge Hakansson’s priority.  However, in his 1980s textbook with Blanchard, Fischer only cites Samuelson, not his own papers or Hakansson or Leland.
  19. Hakansson is the person who first did intertemporal portfolio theory.  This is proven by the published record.  Yet he has never been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society or received any award for it.  Intertemporal portfolio theory is the foundation of modern finance since the 1960s including intertemporal equilibrium pricing models.
  20. In 2004, Olivier Blanchard interviewed Fischer. At that time, Blanchard didn’t even know that Fischer’s thesis was on intertemporal portfolio choice, which was part of their joint book Lectures on Macroeconomics in the 1989.  So no one told him for almost 20 years that part of his own book with Fischer was the subject of Fischer’s thesis and 2 of Fischer’s papers.  Rather amazing.
  21. Hakansson had many working papers from 1966 to 1969.  These were cited by other people at other universities.  He presented them at the 1966 Winter meeting of the Econometric Society.
  22. Merton in his Nobel Prize autobiography in 1997 incorrectly states that Hakansson was a graduate student up to 1969.  In fact, Hakansson was a prof at Yale from 1966 onwards with Stiglitz.  This is important because part of the Fischer thesis is based on a working paper by Hakansson at Yale.
  23. The Hakansson papers were what everyone in economics especially at MIT were trying to do, find the microfoundations of macro and the link between macro and finance.
  24. Textbooks since 1969 have tended to omit Hakansson’s papers at all such as Fischer’s own or have masked the priority of Hakansson.
  25. In Phelp’s Nobel Prize autobiography he is afraid to mention Hakansson and just vaguely says his own paper was the basis of work that followed.
  26. Samuelson in his quote above does not even mention that it is Hakansson.
  27. The Fischer thesis is using the Hakansson papers as a template in places.  Close textual analysis shows this. Moreover, results presented in Fischer if truly his own work and independent should have been cited by the MIT group as innovations. Instead they never give credit for any specific equation in Fischer’s thesis EVER.
  28. As mentioned, the Samuelson 1969 paper makes slips which show he was already familiar with the Hakansson paper results.
  29. The timeline of Samuelson publishing his paper in 1969 doesn’t work for the other papers.  The timeline by comparison of Samuelson, Merton and Fischer has to be Fischer first, then Samuelson and Merton.
  30. Merton’s continuous time work is a transcription from Fischer’s discrete time, not Samuelson’s discrete time.
  31. Samuelson does not make even an attempt to prove second order conditions. Hakansson did that first for intertemporal choice.  Fischer follows Hakansson and Merton follows both in the continuous time limit.
  32. No one treats Fischer’s work as the important work it would be if it was truly independent.
  33. Everyone associated with the MIT group has received awards for often trivial work while Hakansson’s work which is a foundation of modern macro and finance has never received an award.
  34. Peter Diamond got a Nobel Prize in between nominations.
  35. Peter Diamond was strangely added to the Aaron Swartz investigation by MIT after they were asked to investigate plagiarism in the Stanley Fischer thesis.
  36. Franklin Fisher was sent materials and asked to provide them to the Senate and FBI on this.  Did he?
  37. Karl Shell, Duncan Foley and Franklin Fisher were linked then and since and with Peter Diamond.  Have they given statements to the FBI?
  38. Daniel Rubinfeld was at MIT at the time, has he given a statement?  Rubinfeld is at Berkeley.
  39. Akerlof and Yellen at Berkeley have known of this for decades presumably.  Have they furnished statements to the FBI?
  40. Martin Weitzman was also at MIT at the time and later attended conferences in Poland prior to the 1975 Nobel Prize of Kantorovich.  What does he say? Did the Russians say they knew this and ask for nominations for Kantorovich from Arrow and Samuelson?
  41. Arrow strangely moved to Harvard and then back to Stanford. Was that linked to this?
  42. Marschak was on the Hakansson committee, and was a known Communist.  Was that used?
  43. Something happened in 1952 at University of Chicago and Markowitz’s thesis was delayed it appears until Cowles Commission left Chicaago.  Was that used by Samuelson?
  44. Did Russia use this to get IMF loans in the 1990s?
  45. Why does Putin keep saying that Shleifer was a CIA agent advising Anatoly Chubais? Chubais handled the IMF loans for Russia.
  46. Boris Berezovsky worked at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow that does the same math as in these papers. Did he have the idea to use this as pressure for IMF loans?  Were loans for shares his share?
  47. Did MIT provide information on this to the FBI or MI-5 during the 1990s? After Berezovsky’s death and before the Chechen terrorist attack in Boston?  After it?
  48. There are Berezovsky coauthors in the US and UK as well as other people who attended the conferences in Poland in the 1970s prior to the Nobel Prize for Soviet Kantorovich.  Have they been questioned?
  49. Russia has made numerous references to plagiarism in physics, math and econ starting in the 1930s to the present.  Have these ever been disclosed to the FBI by any university ever?  Their role in getting Nobel Prize nominations in physics and econ? Their role in gaining atomic secrets?
  50. Aaron Swartz was possibly investigating misconduct in his attempt to get JSTOR files.  Was this what he was interested in?  Lawrence Lessig knows Franklin Fisher and is a friend of Hal Abelson. Is that why Peter Diamond was added to the Abelson review of Swartz’s death?
  51. How many people have been pressured over this? How many gotten rewards?
  52. Dominique Strauss Kahn harassed female employees at IMF.  Was it because he knew this that he could get away with it?
  53. A Stanford professor put up photos of a Stanford junior faculty member at an econ conference and commented on her appearance to her dismay.  Was he able to get away with that because of this?  How much harassment has gone on where the professor is shielded by his knowledge of this?
  54. Junior faculty are being forced to participate in these citation games.  Are they being made to feel they are implicated? Are they being set up for another generation of pressure by Russia?
  55. China and India at a minimum seem aware of this if not involved at various times.  China especially.  The cooperation between Russia and China started in the 1940s and seems to be alive today.  This is valuable information for the FBI and MI5 to know.  The universities have concealed this.
  56. Events and investigations can be made in the US, UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, and other countries.
  57. Pakistan appears to have known of this in physics and may have used it to help avoid its role in 9/11 being made public and to life its nuclear sanctions.  India also may have used this to help get the limitations on its importing nuclear fuel lifted.  So both sides of a nuclear arms race are benefiting from this?  Even if not, why does the US support two sides in a nuclear arms race and no one say anything about it?
  58. LTCM bought Russian government bonds in the 1990s. Because it knew this?
  59. DE Shaw did the same.  They later hired Summers, nephew of Samuelson, and paid him 5 million a year.  The employees thought he was a joke and a waste of time it appears from reports.

Hakansson and his wife have set up a website with his papers. They have had to endure 30 years of the lies from MIT and the false claims of credit.  Other people have gone along with it to get Nobel Prizes.

Stanley Fischer has a victim’s website, a family that is his victim.  Has MIT told the Senate or FBI about this website?  Have they explained the inconsistencies in their story since 1969 to the present?

The above is draft and preliminary.   This is subject to revision.  Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.

Max Born Spy Ring

February 24, 2014

From time to time we use the term Max Born Spy Ring. We outline the hypothesis that Max Born had a spy ring around him.

Following is essential reading on Max Born and his wife’s extreme leftism and family history involved in Marxism.

“The wide-ranging family history of Max Born”

Read online free: (May be limited to 5 of these a month or something like that)

Interesting reminiscences.  Search on Born or Heisenberg.

Those who were Max Born assistants


Who was in the Max Born spy Ring?  First, who was a known Communist given our information now.

  1. Klaus Fuchs
  2. Leopold Infeld
  3. Kun Huang
  4. Cheng Kaijia
  5. Huanwu Peng
  6. L. M. Yang
  7. J. Robert Oppenheimer effectively a Communist by donations, friends, brother, etc.

Max Born mentions the 4 Chinese in his book, “My Life Recollections of a Nobel Laureate”  He doesn’t tell us that some of them later got credit for helping build China’s atomic bomb.

Max Born Assistants who plotted killing of Werner Heisenberg before WWII was over.

  1. Victor Weisskopf
  2. J. Robert Oppenheimer

Most hated physicists post war were all Max Born assistants.

  1. Edward Teller
  2. Werner Heisenberg
  3. Pascual Jordan

That Heisenberg was hated is clear from his son’s website.

Teller is well known to have been hated for testifying against Oppenheimer.  Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan may have been hated for what they might have said.  Each was pre-emptively discredited post WWII.  Jordan by Max Born’s wife who collected his pro Nazi writings and republished them.  Heisenberg was discredited post WWII as described at the website above, particularly by Sam Goudsmit who wrote an attack on Heisenberg in 1947.  Goudsmit later apologized to Jochen Heisenberg.

Max Born

  1. Lobbied for release of Klaus Fuchs when interned.  This was after Born knew he was a Communist as indicated later?  Born didn’t disclose that in the lobbying?
  2. Gave Edward Corson job as adjunct prof for a year at Edinburgh and let him use department resources to write two books.  This was after the Fock Letter.  Corson likely was recommended to this by Klaus Fuchs.
  3. Max Born very left wing himself by his own admission in his book.
  4. His wife also left wing according to Gustav Born paper.
  5. Ancestors of Max Born involved in development of Marxism.

Born Yang paper on Nuclear Shell Model

Nature 166, 399 (02 September 1950); doi:10.1038/166399a0

Klaus Fuchs was arrested in January 1950.  He could have been tutoring Yang on nuclear physics for atomic bombs or processing on the side before that, as well as the others. Fuchs was back in the UK by 1946 and that gave him overlap with all 4 Chinese in the UK.  Edward Corson also had overlap with several of them and he also could have tutored them in Oak Ridge type calculations and methods. So could have Peierls.

Might have insights:


From the above it is clear after careful study that Max Born was very likely a Communist and that he knowingly sponsored Communist spies for Russia who were sent to him by Russian spy masters.

It seems likely that Max Born assistants before Oppenheimer were not Communists and many of those after were.  Heisenberg, Jordan and Pauli may have been targets of recruitment by Max Born.  All 3 may have known that Oppenheimer was a Communist.

Born and Jordan may have had a falling out over an attempt by Born to recruit Jordan as a Communist.

Heisenberg may have asked Niels Bohr at their famous meeting in Copenhagen to tell the British and Americans that Max Born and his assistants from Oppenheimer on were Communists or most of them and should be excluded from war work. This may be the real issue that caused their break.  The plot to kill Heisenberg was made by Weisskopf and Oppenheimer after Bohr escaped to the UK and US.  He may have told them what was really said.  It is considered a mystery what was said at this meeting.  Jochen Heisenberg says the break actually came earlier.  Werner Heisenberg may have brought this up earlier with Borh, e.g. sometime before Heisenberg’s 1939 trip to America.

Victor Weisskopf says that Wolfgang Pauli refused to work on the atom bomb project during WWII because Pauli was too pure. Pauli was at Princeton during the war. Perhaps the reason was that Pauli knew Oppenheimer was a Communist?  Weisskopf was a Max Born assistant and seems like a slippery fellow.  Weisskopf made it his business to write much of the history of these scientists and this may be part of covering up what he knew or did.

Max Born’s memoirs were published after his death.

It is very important to get a copy of “The wide-ranging family history of Max Born” and read it.  This shows how left wing Max Born and his wife were and that a Max Born ancestor was involved with the birth of Marxism.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Edward Corson book published atomic energy matters FBI files 1951

February 24, 2014

The FBI in 1951 have a memo about a book that Edward Corson was about to have published concerning “atomic energy matters.”

Page 1 of pdf.

FBI memo dated May 2, 1951

To: Director

From: D. M. Ladd

Subject: Edward Michael Corson aka Edward Anatol Corson (or Anatole)

To advise that XXX informed on April 28, 1951 that subject was having a book published concerning atomic energy. XXX desired to know if anything was wrong with the subject and urged that the subject be afforded
clearance to work in the atomic energy field. Bufiles reflect that the subject is an atomic
scientist who corresponded with Emil Klaus Fuchs on February 10, 1950, advising that he did not believe
the accusations against Fuchs.

To further recommend that the Atomic Energy Commission be informed by liason that the subject is having a book published concerning atomic energy matters.

Reference is made to the memorandum from Mr. Guy Hottel, dated May 1, 1951, advising that on April 28, 1951, he interviewed XXX who informed that he, XXX, recently talked to the subject, Edward Michael Corson. XXX reported that Corson is in the process of having a book published which deals with mathematics and chemisty of meetals in the atomic energy field. XXX futher reported that Corson informed him that he had an emotional breakdown as a result of the arrest of Emil Klaus Fuchs for espionage and has not been able to secure proper clearance to work (in the atomic energy field).

Corson, Edward Anatole Michael, Ph.D. 1945

Anatol v Anatole as spelling. Bufiles indicate an Anatol, although they might have added an e at the end using a pencil or pen. JHU has Anatole.

The book that Bufiles are talking about is apparently,

Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics of n-electron systems.
Author: E M Corson
Publisher: New York, Hafner Pub. Co. [1951]

This book is the one discussed in the prior post.

The description in Bufiles sounds like it is about atomic energy related matters relevant to the atomic bomb or processing of bomb materials. However, the book Perturbation Methods is a theoretical book in quantum mechanics and is not oriented towards applications relevant to atom bombs or fuel processing.

The Bufiles description was so different than how I think of the Corson book that I had to think about it to connect this is the book they are talking about. A physicist would not describe the Corson book with the language in Bufiles.

(Note the great question of whether Bufiles is a singular or plural subject cannot be resolved in this post. Contrary definitions may be assumed without warning.)

This memo in Bufiles illustrates the gap in understanding between the FBI and scientists and academics. To the scientist, the Corson book is obviously no threat to national security and doesn’t disclose anything dangerous.

In a literal sense, the Corson book does relate to atomic energy matters. However, this is a different meaning of atomic energy than what the FBI is thinking. You can use the perturbation methods in the book to calculate theoretically atomic energy levels. These are the energy of the electrons speaking loosely. However, electron energy levels don’t have any relevance to atomic energy in the sense of a reactor or bomb or fuel processing. So the book has no real value for atomic energy work in the sense of bombs or reactors or fuel processing.

For scientists, the description of the book in Bufiles does not correspond to how they think about the Corson book. This gap in thinking mattered in the Klaus Fuchs and Corson investigations. The scientists took advantage of this gap to throw dust in the eyes of the FBI. Oppenheimer knew about the plagiarism by Corson of Fock and the Fock Letter. They also knew that would lead to Corson knowing that Born was a victim of plagiarism by Dirac and that Kapitsa knew of it and knew that Rutherford made Bohr and Sommerfeld, Fellows of the Royal Society the year after to keep them quiet. They knew Heisenberg knew of this. They also knew of the attempt on Heisenberg’s life authorized by Weisskopf and Oppenheimer. The FBI might have realized that they were trying to kill Heisenberg late in the war not to stop Germany getting an atomic bomb but to stop Heisenberg telling the FBI about these things after he was captured when the war ended.

If so, the FBI could have focused on Max Born. After Fuchs was arrested in January 1950, many people connected to Max Born left for the Eastern Bloc or had already. This included the 4 Chinese and Leopold Infeld. Oppenheimer was a Max Born assistant and was at Cambridge when the plagiarism occurred there.

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance hearings would have been vastly different if the FBI had known this. They could have discovered the Max Born spy ring and realized that Fuchs was just one of many that were part of it. They also could have realized that the chance Edward Corson was a Communist and spy was much greater.

The universities have known that the FBI comes up short in its ability to do investigations of Russian spying and Chinese spying because it has gaps in its understanding like the one here. Instead of bridging the gap, the universities exploit it to deceive the FBI and other parts of the government. The universities not only undermined the Klaus Fuchs and Corson investigation, but also the Oppenheimer investigation and Peierls investigation.

Oppenheimer knew this when he withheld the information about the Corson plagiarism of Fock and the Fock letter. Dancoff’s plagiarism of Tamm was also concealed. Dancoff was a student of Oppenheimer and worked on the atom bomb during the war. Oppenheimer knew from the war that he was under investigation from time to time.

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance started in April 1954.

Max Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in the fall of 1954.

The FBI never connected these. The universities took advantage of the FBI’s gaps in knowledge to block and subvert the FBI investigations of Oppenheimer, Fuchs, Corson and Peierls. The FBI never realized that if it focused on Max Born it would get a better understanding of seemingly unrelated events such as Weisskopf and Oppenheimer, both Max Born assistants, trying to get Heisenberg, another Max Born assistant, killed before the war ended.

As it was, the Max Born assistants include many known Communists or spies including Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang, and another Chinese.

If the FBI had been able to focus on Max Born and the plagiarism links and what his assistants knew of each other, they could have found out that Klaus Fuchs was just one of many Max Born assistants who were spies. Since Oppenheimer was one, that would have made his security clearance that much more doubtful. It would also have changed the course of the Oppenheimer investigation.

Edward Teller and Hans Bethe had a heated discussion the night before Teller testified at the Oppenheimer Security Clearance. If the FBI understood the plagiarism and Russia’s use of it and how this linked the Max Born assistants together, they could have questioned Edward Teller and learned additional information that Bethe did not want told.

When the Sudoplatov book came out in 1994, saying more scientists were involved, Hans Bethe and Victor Weisskopf were the ones attacking it and PBS for covering it. They were still covering up at that time. Moreover, more was known then of the role of the Chinese Max Born assistants who went back to China and worked on the atomic bomb. However, the FBI never put it all together. Hans Bethe and Victor Weisskopf were still blowing dust in their eyes in 1994. They were still concealing the focal point of Max Born.


An early response came from three Manhattan Project physicists in a letter of protest to McNeil-Lehrer. Hans Bethe, Robert R. Wilson and Victor Weisskopf expressed amazement that the program would broadcast such scandalous charges without trying to check the facts. “As a result,” they wrote, “you helped a criminal, who has mounted a highly skilled effort to make himself rich, to slander some of the greatest scientists of this century.” The American Physical Society promptly organized a press conference in which physicists and historians combined to warn that there were strong reasons to doubt Sudoplatov’s claims.

Notice the title, The Physics Community Replies. So the Physics Community as a whole is responsible for concealing even in 1994 the relevance of the plagiarism to Russia’s tradecraft to deal with academics. That was vital information for the FBI to realize that Russia was using this tradecraft to help get IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. That cover up continues today during the Stanley Fischer confirmation background investigation.

The above contains speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Edward Corson monographs Max Born endorsement

February 23, 2014

Edward Corson wrote 2 important scientific monographs published in 1951 and 1953.

“Perturbation Methods in the Quantum Mechanics of n-Electron Systems”

Edward M. Corson Ph.D. Member, Institute for Advanced Study, 1946-1949; Consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory; Research Physicist, Union Carbide and Carbon Research Laboratories.

Forward by Max Born, Edinburgh August 1950.

The author who spent almost a complete academic year in my department, is known to me as a scientific enthusiast of high purpose, great erudition and acute mind.

Author’s preface is dated Princeton, New Jersey March 1948.

“Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics of n-electron systems.” Edward M Corson

About 115,000 results (0.59 seconds)

Edward Corson “Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics”

About 52 results (0.91 seconds)

Perturbation Methods in the Quantum Mechanics of N-Electron Systems
Front Cover
Edward Michael Corson
Blackie & Son, 1951 – Quantum theory – 308 pages

Max Born, “My Life Reflections of a Nobel Laureate” page 293. Published in German in 1975. Published in English in 1978. Born died in 1970. Neville Mott write the scientific preface.

One, Edward Corson, was an American who excelled as much by his eccentricity as by his scientific enthusiasm. In the space of less than a year while he was in my department, he published a considerable book on an abstract aspect of quantum mechanics and wrote the greater part of another book which appeared soon after (both with Blackie and Sons, Glasgow). He kept my secretary busy and all members of the department in a permanent state of tension through his eccentricities. When the news of Fuchs’s arrest came he sent a telegram to the authorities vouching for Fuchs’s honesty. Later I heard that he had a hard time in the U.S.A., but he has now a decent teaching position.

“Introduction to Tensors, Spinors, and Relativistic Wave Equations”


E. M. Corson Ph.D. Adjunct Professor in Theoretical Physics, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University. Senior Scientist in Mathematical Physics, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University. Research Associate in Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute. Formerly Fulbright Exchange Professor, Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Edinburgh.

Note that Klaus Fuchs was arrested in January 1950. Corson was then at Edinburgh and wrote in support of Fuchs. That got him questioned by MI-5 in Britain and then later in the US.

Edward Corson

Edward Corson “Introduction to tensors, spinors”

Introduction to tensors, spinors, and relativistic wave-equations (relation structure)
Front Cover
Edward Michael Corson
Hafner Pub. Co., 1953 – Calculus of tensors – 221 pages

Corson’s books as indicated by Max Born are substantial works. They contradict the impression of someone so unstable that he was unable to do serious work. However, Max Born indicates he was eccentric and this consumed energy and time.

How did Edward Corson get to Edinburgh with a Fulbright exchange professorship? Albert Einstein is thanked by Corson in the preface to the second book. Einstein and Born were friends and exchanged letters. However, no letter on Corson survives among their correspondence? Some of the letters are in a published book.

Corson was in New York during WWII with Fuchs and Peierls working on processing uranium calculations for Oak Ridge. Both of them had relations with Max Born as well. So they may have helped arrange it.

Max Born had a large number of Communist assistants. They include Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Kun Huang, Huanwu Peng and another Chinese I think. All of these were after he went to Edinburgh. Thus the chance that Corson was a Communist is made much higher by this year with Max Born in Edinburgh.

Assuming Max Born was a Communist, and Oppenheimer as well, those saying Corson were eccentric or deranged after the Fock Letter plagiarism incident include these two. Also someone at Union Carbide and Carbon. Could this be arranged to cover up that Corson’s plagiarism of Fock was part of a plot by the Soviets?

Corson’s action and the Fock Letter forced people to be more careful to cite Fock. The Dancoff duplication of Igor Tamm in 1950 did the same thing.

Dancoff’s paper was published May 15 1950.

Fuchs was arrested in January 1950. Could these be connected? This was meant to remind the physicists of Russia’s leverage? So they would say as little as possible to MI-5 and the FBI in the Klaus Fuchs investigation. Or if more were found, the Russians could use this with a Tamm Letter?

Klaus Fuchs

About 1,250 results (0.40 seconds)

This was a massive FBI investigation. Russia wanted to stop its people telling things, or others who knew things but were not spies themselves. It also wanted something to use if larger parts of their networks were rolled up.

As it was, the scientists who left the US and UK were not stopped and the others left were also able to weather out the storm.

Many of the Max Born assistants who did leave, left after the Fuchs arrest. Some Chinese had already left.

The last person mentioned in the Max Born book is Herbert S. Green who also left England after the Fuchs arrest.

Born in Ipswich, England, he graduated with a PhD from the University of Edinburgh in 1947 with a thesis entitled A Unitary Quantum Electrodynamics.

From 1951 till his death in 1999, Green lectured mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide, Australia.

H.S. Green helped Max Born continue work started with Klaus Fuchs. This is the last paragraph in Max Born’s autobiography.

Max Born himself went back to Germany after Fuchs arrest as well. Escaping to the Eastern Bloc or Switzerland would be much easier from Germany than from Edinburgh. Also, the Germans would find it harder to arrest Born than would MI-5.

Overall, it would appear likely that Edward M. Corson was a Communist and spy for Russia. He was likely part of the same spy ring as Klaus Fuchs. This makes it more likely that Rudolf Peierls was also a Communist and spy.


Rudolf Peierls communist

The Corson plagiarism of Fock and the Fock Letter were not told to MI-5 or the FBI it appears during the investigation of Peierls. Nor was Dirac’s plagiarism of Born and Jordan and Kapitsa’s comments on it in the Rutherford obit, indirectly that is.

In 1957 the Americans asked the British to revoke his security clearance, which they did. As a result Peierls resigned from his consultancy role at Harwell.

By withholding information about the plagiarism and Russia’s knowledge of it and published comments on it, the universities hampered the FBI and MI-5 investigations. This apparently continues to the present day.

The use of plagiarism by Russia to manipulate academics is an important part of Russian and Chinese tradecraft in dealing with academics. Keeping this knowledge from the FBI and MI-5 is an ongoing hampering of their work by the universities.

In addition, the FBI thought the first Corson book was possibly releasing atomic secrets or about atomic physics. It is in fact a highly theoretical book which has no atomic secrets in it or anything close. This shows how the FBI and MI-5 need help from the universities. Instead the universities use this to confuse and obstruct FBI and MI-5 investigations.

This includes obstruction of the FBI background check of Stanley Fischer. Russia was in possession of 40 years of plagiarism kompromat in the 1960s when Stanley Fischer started at MIT in 1967. Miguel Sidrauski was a leftist and his wife Martha knew people on the left in Argentina who would later disappear. It is likely that Sidrauski and Fischer were the ones who hatched the plagiarism of the Hakansson thesis, as appears likely is what happened. The Sidrauskis may have been acting for Russia in this or passed it back to Russia.

Many of the atomic scientists were still alive in 1994 when the Sudoplatov book was published. This is when Russia appears to have put pressure on the econ profs by provoking a reaction in the atomic scientists. The FBI and MI-5 are being deceived by the universities on these matters it appears. This is an ongoing conspiracy by the universities. Their investment banking partners are also involved and apparently benefit by their knowledge of this because econ profs in the US government may have some relation to this.

The universities including MIT and Harvard are setting up the Senate and FBI to look like fools in the confirmation hearings for Stanley Fischer as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Subsequent investigations including possibly at some universities may expose this and show that the universities including MIT have corrupted the confirmation background check process and made a mockery of Senate confirmations that rely on them.

This undermines the role of the Senate, and thus undermines the Constitution and constitutional government in the US. This materially assists Russia and China not only in spying in the US but in their showing parts of this to other countries like Iran to influence them to treat the US with disdain or not negotiate in good faith on atomic arms controls or other matters.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply. Please restate as questions.

Edward M Corson Agent Provocateur Russia continued

February 23, 2014

The FBI files on Edward Anatole Michael Corson reveal a very interesting character.

Corson, Edward Anatole Michael, Ph.D. 1945

Corson’s father came from Russia and likely changed his name to Corson. Edward Corson was born in 1921 on Long Island.

Referral Responses
Emil Klaus Fuchs

Page 34 of the pdf starts a section on Edward M. Corson. This is a memo dated March 3, 1950.

Note the FBI misspells Edinburgh as Edinburg. (One of those furrin cities.) So if you search in the pdf, don’t include the h on the end.

Bottom of page 34.

Michael George Corson was investigated by the FBI from 1941 to 1945 and again from July 1946 to April 1948. These found nothing. Michael G Corson was considered a possible security threat because he was from Russia. We learn elsewhere in these docs that someone said he was a White Russian and anti-Communist who came to the US in 1918. Edward was born in 1921.

Valentine George Corson, brother of Edward M. Corson and son of Michael G. Corson was investigated in March 1949 in connection with the Loyalty Program.

Page 35,

Edward M. Corson in his filings claimed to be born June 27, 1921 in Long Island New York. His mother was Natalie T. Corson. His brother VG Corson and parents were born in Russia.

Corson showed his education as Johns Hopkins University from 1938 to 1943, receiving a Ph.D. (The JHU record above indicated this was granted in 1945.) Institute Advanced Study Princeton 1946. (This is when he plagiarized Fock.)

Corson worked for Union Carbide and Carbon from 1943 to September 1947 at New York City and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Corson thus could have passed info on processing uranium to the Russians. As it turned out, they built processing plants with dimensions close to those of the US for critical processing.

Corson married to Mary E. Kuntz granddaughter of Peter Kuntz a multimillionaire of Dayton, Ohio.

Charles H. Shaw, professor of physics at Ohio State University who worked with Corson during the war heard Corson to make sympathetic statements to Russia during the war. Shaw characterized Corson as unreliable in his work and declined to recommend Corson for employment.

In 1944, Edward M. Corson paid 100 dollars to the Russian Student Fund in NYC. This was to Pierre Routsky. The fund was associated with radical groups including Communists and pro-Soviet as well as White Russian.

Dr. J. C. Hubbard of JHU indicated he applied to the Russian Students Fund in 1937 and 1938 on behalf of Corson for a loan of 500 dollars, which money was to be repaid.

Michael George Corson was born in Kiev, Russia on December 20, 1886. He entered the US in NYC on December 20, 1918. On Feb 27, 1925, he was naturalized in New York City.

Prior to coming to the United States he was employed in Russia as a research and plane development instructor. From 1922 to 1925 he was employed at the Union Carbide and Carbon Company Research Laboratories. From 1926 to approximately 1947 he was in business for himself as a consulting engineer for various iron and steel companies.

By letter on June 17, 1941, Mr. Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Department of State, advised the Bureau that on May 31, 1940, Michael George Corson appeared at the Department of State and desired to be made an agent of the Department of State in Mexico to combat Nazi and Japanese interests. At that time he said that he had been a Terrorist in Russia and had no fear of using similar methods to rid the world of Hitler ani similar dangers. When told that a memorandum would be made of his visit at the State Department, Mr. Corson remarked that apparently the department was not interested in his offer and unlike Americans in general he was not afraid of shooting and hanging to save the country and he would continue his plan without official aid.

Page 4 of the FBI document is skipped and we go to page 5. The document does not disclose
everything and somethings are blacked out even on pages included.

Page 5 discusses a plan Corson had to get technical information for a plant to process Beryllium to go to Russia. Corson talked with a Dr. Kawecki to obtain plans and possibly Kawecki to travel to Russia.

Michael Corson wrote Bureau that he saw too many capitalists and their top servants to think they were morally or intellectually fit to run the nation’s economic machine.

The FBI original document goes beyond page 5, but this is not included in the PDF.

One question that arises from these documents is whether Edward M. Corson and his father were both mentally unstable. Oppenheimer suggested that in one place.

However, Corson’s relation to Max Born is not fully disclosed. It appears that Oppenheimer told very little to the FBI about Max Born.

We now know that Max Born assistants and students included Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang who all went to the Eastern Block or Communist China before or shortly after the arrest of Fuchs as a spy. Of these, Cheng Kaijia and Huanwu Peng worked on the Chinese atom bomb.

If we conclude that Max Born was a spy and was a node in a Russian spy ring, then Corson is more likely a Communist. This would probably point to his father being also a spy for Russia. Their histrionic displays would then be seen as ploys.

Corson would later accuse Mott the physicist of being a Communist. Max Born in his book published after his death, says Mott sent Fuchs to Born because Mott thought Fuchs was a Communist and spread Communist propaganda among the undergraduates. Page 284 of Max Born “My Life Recollections of a Nobel Laureate.” Mott in a footnote denies such a comment was made seriously.

Born says he knew Fuchs was a Communist. Corson in the FBI materials says that Born had told him
that Fuchs was trying to spread Communist materials and that Born told him not to.

Looking at the FBI materials, the plagiarism by Corson of Fock and Fock Letter were not reported to the FBI. Oppenheimer talked to them about Corson but did not mention that. Nor did Oppenheimer tell the FBI that Born was plagiarized and Kapitsa had implied this in print in the obit of Rutherford. The Oppenheimer Security Clearance hearing was in spring 1954. Max Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in fall of 1954.

Page 8 of pdf related to Corson.

Page 9 of pdf is the information from Oppenheimer and from Corson’s employer relating to him being mentally unstable.

Page 10, Corson said he met Fuchs in 1943.

The book “Klaus Fuchs a biography” by Norman Moss states on page 20 that Corson knew Fuchs in Edinburgh in the 1930s.

The book states the Fuchs, Peierls, and Corson worked on gaseous diffusion calculations for the Oak Ridge plant to process uranium together in New York. Corson claimed not to see much of Fuchs after work it states.

Corson and Peierls both were supportive of Fuchs when Fuchs was arrested. See page 150 of this book and the FBI reports.

Page 151, Peierls restarted smoking after Fuchs arrest and seeing Fuchs in jail. Genia, the wife of Peierls was from Russia and was upset at Fuchs arrest and spying being revealed.

So was Corson unstable? Was he also a Communist? Were Corson’s actions a ploy to distract attention or exhibits of mental instability?

If we assume that Max Born was a Communist, and that Russia sent him people already Communists, then Corson going to Edinburgh in the 1930s would indicate Corson was already a Communist then. This would be at age 17 if that was 1938. Perhaps the entire Corson family were Communists with a cover story of being White Russians who were anti-Communists.

There also is the contentious point of Fuchs being sent by Mott to Born because he was a Communist or not. In the book by Norman Moss, it is stated, Fuchs was sent because they had too many people at Bristol.

Much information was not disclosed to the FBI. Why did Oppenheimer not tell the FBI about Corson’s plagiarism and the Fock Letter when Oppenheimer reported on Corson calling him and being distraught and mentally deranged at Fuchs’ arrest?

Page 10 of pdf of FBI goes on about Corson saying others in England were Communists and security risks. Eventually Corson names Mott as one.

Michael Corson was living on 610 West 142nd Street NYC in May 1950. See page 15 of pdf.

MI-5 stated they didn’t attach a high degree of reliability to Corson’s accusations about 4 people as security risks for Russia, although one of them was a known Communist sympathizer.

We keep coming back to the question of whether Corson was unstable. Even if he was, Oppenheimer didn’t tell the FBI about the plagiarism by Corson or that Max Born was a victim of plagiarism or that Kapitsa made references to it.

In 1950, Sidney Dancoff duplicated without attribution the method of Tamm, which is part of Fock Space methods.

It appears that Marcos Moshinksy at Princeton started the use of the term Fock Space and was the first to use that term. He was from Mexico but was born in Ukraine, the same as Corson’s father.

He was born in 1921 into a Jewish family in Kiev, Ukraine (which was then part of the Soviet Union). At the age of three, he emigrated as a refugee to Mexico, where he became a naturalized citizen in 1942. He received a bachelor’s degree in physics from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a doctorate in the same discipline at Princeton University under Nobel Laureate Eugene Paul Wigner.

In the present paper we propose to develop a quantum-mechanical scheme in Fock space that would describe interactions that take place through the formation of a compound particle.

Corson Fock letters in 1947.

If Oppenheimer wanted to make the case that Corson was unstable why omit this? Except that it would direct attention to plagiarism which would lead to attention to Max Born as a plagiarism victim and Kapitsa’s comments about this, cryptically, in the Rutherford obit? That would lead to a focus on the Max Born assistants then leaving to the Eastern Bloc, and raise questions about Oppenheimer himself. So Oppenheimer said nothing about that.

Oppenheimer became director of IAS in 1947, the same year as the Corson Fock exchange. That was an IAS matter since Corson was at IAS at the time.

Later, Oehme would publish his paper on Edge of the Wedge while at IAS. The Russians are still pushing that this was Bogolyubov’s work and have written Oehme out of the story at the Wiki entry on Edge of the Wedge.

In December 2008, Tamtamar edited this Wiki page to push the Russian version.

Oppenheimer was direct of IAS when Oehme was there on this paper. Oehme then went to Univ of Chicago. Oehme seems to have been obsessed over this dispute.

Oehme created his own wikipage earlier in 2008.

Fuchs helped the Chinese according to the book Nuclear Express.

Fuchs was granted amnesty and released on 23 June 1959, after serving nine years and four months of his sentence at Wakefield Prison and promptly emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).[54] A tutorial he gave to Qian Sanqiang and other Chinese physicists helped them to develop the first Chinese atomic bomb, the 596, which was tested five years later according to Thomas Reed and Daniel Stillman, the authors of The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation (2009).[55] Three historians of nuclear weapons history, Robert S. Norris, Jeremy Bernstein and Peter D. Zimmerman, challenged this particular assertion as “unsubstantiated conjecture”[56] and asserted that The Nuclear Express is “an ambitious but deeply flawed book”.[57

Note the Nuclear Express book was discussed Sep 2008 in an article by the same authors.

That article linked this blog

One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.

The many Max Born assistants who went to China and at least 2 worked on the bomb for China show that there was much not being discovered by the FBI in the Corson and Fuchs investigations. Some of this was intentional withholding by the universities it would appear. That continued into the 1970s when Kapitsa got the Nobel Prize in physics.

In 1947, the Soviet most likely to get the Nobel Prize in physics was Fock. So if the Soviets were trying to push him, having Corson plagiarize intentionally would be one tactic so they could expose it. The Dancoff paper in 1950 may have been the same with Tamm as the victim. Dancoff was an Oppenheimer student who worked on the bomb. Oehme was at IAS in 1958 and the victim was Bogolyubov. Tamm got the Nobel Prize in 1958 and Born in 1954. Born was also a plagiarism victim and one Kapitsa was implicitly referencing both in obits of Rutherford in the 1930s and later. Rutherford had made Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society the year after the plagiarism of Born which helped Bohr get Rockefeller money. Rutherford’s son in law Fowler was the professor who sponsored the plagiarism and likely got a letter with the preprint of the Born Jordan paper in 1925. Kapitsa was there and learned this and became a witness against Bohr and Dirac. Kapitsa sent a letter to Bohr trying to recruit him for Russia in 1944. There was then the Terletsky meeting with Bohr and later Sudoplatov book pushing the Terletsky meeting and also that the intelligence services in Russia got the bomb info.

An undergrad paper by Michael Schwartz in 1996 at Harvard states that Russia got its first bomb and all the info on how to process the fuel from the Americans.

This paper implies a much larger network than US universities admit to. Sudoplatov also claims his network was larger than is known.

The Sudoplatov book may have been intended by Russia in 1994 to put pressure on the econ profs in control of IMF loans to Russia, Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. The IMF loans increased in size at this time. Berezovsky then got a loans for shares corrupt enrichment perhaps because he was the one to think of doing this. In his 1997, Nobel Prize autobio, Robert C. Merton makes a misstatement about Hakansson that helped protect Stanley Fischer. A book on Long Term Capital Management says they traded Russian government bonds as if they had inside info. They took a large long position to profit from inside knowledge that Russia had kompromat over Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson uncle of Summers?

Going back to Edward M. Corson, at a minimum, info was not disclosed about him or Max Born to the FBI. Nor was this disclosed at the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearing. Edward Teller likely knew some of this, but limited his testimony after Hans Bethe and Teller had a heated discussion the night before on what Teller would say.

Bethe and Weisskopf erupted with anger over the Sudoplatov book getting coverage in the US from PBS News Hour and other publications. Weisskopf had plotted with Oppenheimer to kill Heisenberg in 1944 too late in the war for a German bomb but when Heisenberg was a threat to expose some Max Born assistants as communists once the war was over.

An early response came from three Manhattan Project physicists in a letter of protest to McNeil-Lehrer. Hans Bethe, Robert R. Wilson and Victor Weisskopf expressed amazement that the program would broadcast such scandalous charges without trying to check the facts. “As a result,” they wrote, “you helped a criminal, who has mounted a highly skilled effort to make himself rich, to slander some of the greatest scientists of this century.” The American Physical Society promptly organized a press conference in which physicists and historians combined to warn that there were strong reasons to doubt Sudoplatov’s claims.

In some quarters any reply by physicists seemed self-serving. “It is now obvious that McCarthy was right,” said the London Sunday Times (April 24); the National Review (May 30) speculated that the APS’s call for opening relevant archives might produce “unhappy surprises of the sort that greeted Hiss and Rosenberg partisans when they demanded access to the FBI’s archives.” A special responsibility fell upon historians of science for an objective evaluation.

The Harvard paper by Swartz would support the Sudoplatov book that there was a vast network of scientists spying for Russia that gave Russia all the info to build their bomb and process the fuel. Sudoplatov indicates in his book that the first bomb was a copy of the American bomb.

Sudoplatov’s implications about Bohr, Fermi and Oppenheimer receive support from the plagiarism aspect of it and the many Max Born assistants involved in bomb work for China. Fermi was also a Dirac plagiarism victim. Oppenheimer as well as Teller, Heisenberg, Pauli, Weisskopf were Max Born Assistants.

Bethe was a Fowler assistant and received Rockefeller money. Rutherford made Bohr and Sommerfeld Fellows of the Royal Society in 1926 the year after the plagiarism by Dirac of Born that Fowler was part of.

Bethe was an assistant to Fowler, Sommerfeld, Bohr and Fermi in the following years.

The FBI was unable to put together a picture on these interrelationships because the scientists and universities held back info. They knew about the plagiarism and knew Russia knew about it. Russia published comments in print. The Nobel Prize for Tamm was linked to this through the Dancoff duplication of the Tamm work. (Duplication is meant to avoid taking a position on plagiarism, duplication by sympathetic vibrations so to speak is allowed.)

This continued in the 1990s as the scientists reacted in anger to the Sudoplatov book. This reaction created a big furor which the econ profs would hear. They in turn had their plagiarism to cover up. Russia had already put pressure on them to get Nominations for the econ Nobel Prize for Kantorovich is likely. This includes at econ conferences in Poland, where Martin Weitzman of MIT and now Harvard was an attendee. Weitzman was closely linked to Duncan Foley, Peter Diamond, Karl Shell, and Franklin Fisher all linked to the Stanley Fischer work that duplicated the Hakansson thesis that Shell had at MIT in 1966 from public records. All of these should be witnesses along with Robert C. Merton and the latest winners of the Nobel Prize in econ as well.

Miguel Sidrauski was to be Stanley Fischer’s thesis chairman and he was from Argentina. They bonded as fellow immigrants and Zionists as we find from Duncan Foley in part.

Interview Karl Shell

Olivier Blanchard interview of Stanley Fischer.

Blanchard didn’t even know Fischer’s thesis was on dynamic programming including part of their joint book in the 1980s on Macroeconomics.

By the time of Fischer’s thesis, the events of Corson were part of Soviet tradecraft. So the idea of using Fischer to ensnare Samuelson and MIT to put pressure on them to get nominations for Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ may have been in Russia’s mind. If so, Sidrauski and possibly his wife Martha may have played a role. Duncan Foley’s interview prompts such an inquiry. They may also have told Russia it happened.

Sidrauski then Foley then Franklin Fisher were chairmen of the Stanley Fischer thesis. Samuelson was on it. An unusual thesis to have 3 different people as chairman and to apparently plagiarize the Hakansson thesis and another Hakansson paper.

What happened with Corson, Fuchs, Max Born, etc. became tradecraft for Russia to use with academics by the 1960s when the Fischer thesis came along. At that time, Russia wanted a Nobel Prize in econ for Kantorovich. This parallels the prize they got for Tamm after he was apparently plagiarized by Sidney Dancoff, a former Oppenheimer student and assistant, in 1950.

The Fock Letter is a basic point of Soviet tradecraft to manipulate academics over plagiarism. This is true whether Corson was an intentional agent provocateur of theirs or not. The concept was there either way by the time of the 1960s. Sidrauski may have played a role with Stanley Fischer of such a nature. There are also parallels with Fowler and Dirac plagiarizing Max Born. That gave Russia through Kapitsa leverage over Rutherford, Fowler, Dirac, and Bohr. They got leverage over Bohr because Rutherford made him a Fellow of the Royal Society the next year and Bohr was linked to Born and Jordan. Born then wrote to Bohr asking for a Rockefeller stipend for Jordan at Bohr’s institute.

Sudoplatov makes much of Kapitsa in his 1994 book and Bohr. All this was meant to put pressure on the econ profs to give Russia IMF loans. When those materialized from Fischer and Summers, Berezovsky got rewarded in loans for shares. It was Berezovsky who picked Putin to succeed Yeltsin. Putin taunted Fischer with a comment about getting him a job in Moscow after he finished with the IMF. Now Fischer is up for Vice Chairman of the Fed. Franklin Fisher and the others at MIT should be interviewed on these subjects.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: