Archive for the 'Edward Corson' Category

LBJ J Robert Oppenheimer JFK KGB CIA

November 13, 2017

Did the CIA hire the KGB to kill JFK? Was part of the payoff that LBJ then honored J Robert Oppenheimer?

“- Remarks Upon Presenting the Fermi Award to Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer
December 2, 1963″

JFK was shot Nov 22, 1963, while LBJ was ducking in his car, before the shots were fired. Then 10 days later, LBJ gives an award to J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Recall that JRO concealed from the FBI in the investigation of Edward Corson that in 1947 Russia made Corson retract any originality in a paper where Corson plagiarized Fock in 1946. Corson was at the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and JRO came in as director at the tail end of this incident, so he had to know.

During the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings in 1954, Oppenheimer and other witnesses including Fermi were concealing from the FBI that Corson plagiarized a Russian prof and the Russians made him retract originality.

Edward Corson

29 results

[PDF]Fuchs – FBI — The Vault

having had any communication with Corson, records at the BowStreet Jail verify the ….. father of Edward Michael Ce:-son, to Secretary oi State Dean. Acheson.

[PDF]referral responses emil klaus fuchs 65-58805 – FBI — The Vault

Dr. Hubbard feels Edward Corson is violently .-. -_ opposed to Communismand socialism. Dr. Hubbard said that Edward Carson “Y was patriotic and loyal to the …


Edward Corson Fock

“Your search – edward corson fock – did not match any documents.”

edward corson oppenheimer

Fuchs – FBI — The Vault

Edward,lgifchaeil_Co;s9§ … Corson also told Oppenheimer that his nits was missing ….. father of Edward Michael Ce:-son, to Secretary oi State Dean. Acheson.

[PDF]referral responses emil klaus fuchs 65-58805 – FBI — The Vault

been interviewed by the Bureau regarding J. RobertOppenheimer, and itvill. = also be …… Edward Corson was born June 27, 1921 at Long Island, New. York,.

[PDF]bae_Q I5AY 13. __ y – FBI — The Vault

Edward Anato. '00:-son …. Fuchs was not capable of betraying any trust. – personal

or national. Corson also … On April l2, 1950, Br. J; Robert Oppenheimer.



So Oppenheimer told the FBI nothing of the Fock Letter.

“Statement by the President on the Death of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer. February 20, 1967″

Oppenheimer was a traitor and honored by LBJ. Does that imply LBJ was a traitor too? And working for the same people, ie the Soviets?

Did elements of the American establishment hire the KGB to kill JFK? Part of the price was to continue the cover-up of Russia’s use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets? And its ongoing use to penetrate deeply into the American economics and business school establishment? From there into the IMF, World Bank, central banks like the Fed and Wall Street?

This is how they controlled IMF loans to Russia in the 1990s. They controlled Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers through such means. If this had been exposed in the 1960s, they could not have done so.

Russia needed to infiltrate the IMF and World Bank in order to contest the third world with America.

What else did Russia get? The US stopped building ICBMs and the Soviets leaped ahead. The US did not do missile defense. It would take a two decade change in leadership cadres until Reagan reversed these betrayals.

Was the reason because McNamara, LBJ, James Jesus Angleton, etc. were in on the hit on JFK? They hired the KGB and had to pay the piper.

It took a full generation to reverse their acts of treason on ICBMs and missile defense. A new generation of leaders had to take power, who were not involved in the JFK assassination, what Nixon called the Bay of Pigs matter.

Was Vietnam lost on purpose as part of this deal?  America has won every war in the 3rd world easily since then. Did McNamara and LBJ lose on purpose because they had hired the KGB to kill JFK?

Robert McNamara did what after losing Vietnam and stopping America’s missile defense? He went directly to president of the World Bank.

Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers and the other MIT econ academics would all serve in high level positions in the World Bank and IMF. That is where they gave the loans to Russia in the 1990s that were promptly looted and the loan conditions not adhered to.

robert mcnamara reagan missile defense sdi

“In the United States, McNamara provided one of the strongest institutional voices against strategic missile defense, arguing that it would inevitably amplify the expensive, destabilizing arms race between the United States and the USSR.”

Robert McNamara violently opposed the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI. This is what the Soviets feared and Reagan’s SDI is part of what helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union when they could not keep up in the arms race. SDI was destabilizing, it destabilized the Soviet Union and in fact the entire Warsaw Pact. America won without firing a shot, freeing Eastern Europe and the captive nations inside the USSR including Ukraine.  Robert McNamara was opposed every step of the way.

In fact, McNamara was always opposed to American victory. From the Bay of Pigs to the souks of Saigon to Hanoi Jane prancing around to SDI bringing down the Soviet Empire and freeing Eastern Europe.

The American establishment needed the KGB to kill JFK for the cover-up.  The trail of the JFK assassination leads to the KGB in Mexico City and then disappears. If the US had done JFK by itself, it would have had a much harder time to cover it up.  By outsourcing, the KGB would have the records not the CIA or FBI. But that would then make them beholden to the KGB. That seems to be what happened for a generation of treason.

From JFK’s death on November 22, 1963 to Reagan’s inaugural on January 20, 1981, America went from defeat to defeat. But then within 10 years of a new generation of leaders in America, the Soviet Union collapsed completely including the Warsaw Pact and the liberation of Europe.  Doesn’t this prove something was rotten in the previous 20 years?


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.

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.

Edward M Corson Agent Provocateur Russia Kompromat

February 3, 2014

Edward M Corson may have been acting as an agent provocateur when he plagiarized Vladimir Fock in 1946.  Corson appears likely to have been a Russian agent and part of the Max Born Spy Ring.

(Some sort of html error resulted in a strange appearance of the web page. A lot of html and some text was taken out to remove whatever was causing this.)

Edward Corson

The FBI investigated Edward Corson, his father and brother for communism.

Fock Corson Letter in Physical Review

Received 10 April 1947; published in the issue dated October 1947

A Note on the Paper “Second Quantization and Representation Theory”

Fock doesn’t use word plagiarism but basically conveys that. The letter was written by the KGB/GRU and possibly approved by Stalin.

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.”

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.  Their letters fit hand and glove to this purpose as if written before Corson submitted his paper.

Edward Corson passport revoked

In same paper, it reports Leopold Infeld, a Max Born assistant and coauthor was secretly arranging to go to Poland and had concealed this from the president of University of Toronto.

It appears Infeld lied to the university about his plans and his supervisor covered for him.

Edward M Corson, Klaus Fuchs and Leopold Infeld are all Max Born people, Corson was an undergrad and Max Born later endorsed a Corson book based on the plagiarized Fock material. Fuchs and Infeld were assistants and coauthors.

It appears they were all communist spies. Infeld did escape to Poland and never came back.

Russia may have had Corson plagiarize Fock so that Russia could complain of it. At this time, Russia did not have any Nobel Prize winners in physics, at least still in the Soviet Union. They were hoping to get a Nobel Prize for Vladimir Fock. This would be based on this work as well as Hartree Fock or Hartree Slater Fock type methods.

Sidney Dancoff may have plagiarized Igor Tamm in the same way in 1950.

I am not sure if Dancoff had security clearance problems during WWII. However, the following is of interest.

Almost immediately some of Oppenheimer’s students—Philip Morrison, Sydney Dancoff, the newly arrived Joseph Weinberg—went to work designing a bomb.

Dancoff background

Sidney Dancoff, but wanted to know more about his early years in Pittsburgh, and how the son of a Russian immigrant paperhanger could become one of the country’s top theoretical physicists.
Mr. Dancoff, who was 38 when he died in 1951, earned his Ph.D. in 1939 at UC Berkeley under Robert Oppenheimer, later working with him on the Manhattan Project during World War II. Mr. Dancoff was one of the men responsible for designing the atomic bomb, an early prototype of which he and two other Oppenheimer students worked out on a napkin in a Berkeley student union restaurant in 1939.

City directories indicate that Sidney and his two siblings, Laura and Ernest, moved there with their father, Morris Dancoff, in 1928, the year after their mother, Ida Glazer Dancoff, died a few weeks after giving birth to Ernest.

Dancoff likely spoke Russian so he could have read Tamm’s 1945 article, which was in Russian, and
copied it in 1950.

If Dancoff was a Russian agent, part of an Oppenheimer student spy ring, then the Russians may have put Dancoff up to copying the Tamm article on what is now called Tamm Dancoff.

Tamm did win the Nobel Prize in 1958. So whether intended or not, the Russians could view the Dancoff duplication as helping Tamm get the Nobel Prize. Thus the Russians would seek to replicate it, i.e. do it on purpose to get Nobel Prizes for Russians.

Edge of the Wedge may fall into that pattern. Reinhard Oehme duplicated in part a result by Bogolyubov presented at a conference but not yet published or recognized. Oehme was from Germany and he and his wife likely had relatives in East Germany. Someone with same name Reinhard Oehme left East Germany in the 1980s.

Perhaps the Russians used leverage over Reinhard Oehme to get him to copy Bogolyubov so that they could get a Nobel Prize for Bogolyubov. That never materialized.

Russia may have been having some person involved in the Samuelson Stanley Fischer duplication of Nils Hakansson play a variant of this. They hoped to use this as pressure to get Nobel Prize nominations for Kantorovich of the USSR to win the Nobel Prize. One of the persons involved in the duplication of Hakansson’s work at MIT in 1969 by Paul Samuelson and Stanley Fischer may have been working for the Russians under this hypothesis. Later duplications may also have involved agent provocateurs. This is another reason for the FBI to investigate these cases.

One scenario is that Stanley Fischer was already working for Israel and Israel studied this history and wanted Fischer to create an incident as part of a deal with Russia. Russia would get the Nobel Prize in econ it wanted in exchange for some favor. Or someone in Israel acting for Russia told Fischer to do it. This is just a hypothetical.

Perhaps someone else involved? Someone who later wrote pro Marxist material? Just a thought.

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

%d bloggers like this: