In keeping with Akronos' policy of openly demystifying the record, I have assembled together the responses Akronos has received, or been made aware of, to the Correas' deconstruction of Dr. DeMeo et al's Pulse of the Planet #5 (PP5, otherwise known as Heretic's Notebook). I am presenting these items below, with occasional commentary provided by the Correas.

The first item is the response of Dr. DeMeo himself. To my mind it appears rather feeble, but Dr. DeMeo must have taken considerable pride in it, seeing that he reportedly sent it to a number of email lists and even to friends and acquaintances of the Correas whom he has never met.

Subject:   OBRL - More Attacks from the Aetherometry Web Site Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:16:58 -0700 From:   James DeMeo <demeo@mind.net> More Attacks from the Aetherometry Web Site www.aetherometry.com Recently many persons sent emails informing me that another malicous [sic] "article" has appeared at the Aetherometry web site of Paulo and Alexandra Correa, this time posing to be an authentic review of our new publication "Pulse of the Planet #5: Heretic's Notebook". http://www.orgonelab.org/Pulse5.htm A review, it most certainly is not.   [That's right, it is not, nor did it 'pose' to be one. As a reader so aptly put it, it was a demolition - the only fitting response to a publication such as 'Pulse #5'.]   Instead, the Correa article, "Pulse of the Planet Taken to Task" is saturated with the author's [sic] rage, presenting a stream of personal insults, character assassination, poisonous and muddled half-truths, and many completely false assertions, directed against nearly every contributing author, whose works are deliberately misrepresented in the worst possible light. [...DeMeo at the height of indignant disingenuity. This posture of innocence wronged, he hopes, will help divert attention from the absurd content and deliberate disinformation of his Pulse #5 - but even more importantly from our methodic debunking of it.]   It does not rise to the level of being authentic scientific critique [!], and I therefore have no intention of wasting my time to rebut such nonsense,   [Very good! A spineless, but nonetheless 'smart' move on DeMeo's part - for he knows there is no possible defense of the unabated betises that constitute the PP5 debacle]   an effort which is more rightfully reserved for genuine and rational criticism (which theirs is not).   [Ah, how he wishes it was not! Or that this would suffice to make good his own, and his collaborators', errors and mystifications!]   Instead, I encourage the interested reader to simply obtain a copy of our Pulse #5,   [i.e. let DeMeo have his 24 bucks for the nonsense he produced]   and read it, and then make up their own mind. Background facts regarding this current attack may also be found at: http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm It is regrettable that the Correas apparently have nothing better to do with their time, than to construct such lengthy and elaborate disinformation pamphlets,   ['disinformation': such a 'robust' designation for the dreadfully awkward facts which our man dare not confront or address.]   something which we have learned to expect from the organized "skeptic groups", but not from bona-fide scientific workers.   [The Correas send their regards, and advise DeMeo to be ready to receive still more demoralizing comments from bona-fide scientific researchers - which, of course, is simply the price to be endured for his insistance on publishing such insufferable nonsense...]   Such malicious personal attacks have no place in scientific discussions.   [DeMeo would have preferred the Correas to just take his pseudo-scientific 'Reichian' confusionism as par for the course... No, it's not personal, it's strictly science - something anathema, it seems, to his 'understanding' of Reich's work.]   I believe I speak for every author in Pulse #5, that while we regularly and gladly engage in scientific discussions with genuine and honest critics, we will not be drawn into making a "defense" against such transparent malicious distortions and personal attacks.   [Such 'good conscience' all around. Yes, we do understand. It is infinitely easier and more agreeable to 'engage' only with believers and with people who are even more befuddled than the PP5 authors.]   Our apologies to the OBRL-News subscribers, who received their materials unsolicited, as we do not know how they have obtained our subscriber listing.   [Oh yes, red thread of a conspiracy!]   And thanks to the many persons who send their supportive statements to us, informing us of the problem.   ["The problem" is his euphemism for our demolition of his nonsense.]   Again, Pulse #5 is an excellent documentation and support for Reich's original orgonomy,   [if he repeats this enough times, it's bound to become true...]   presenting many new findings and original research efforts, and the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy   [24 bucks plus shipping]   and make their own review. Sincerely, James DeMeo, Ph.D. Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Ashland, Oregon

It is rather sad to think that this is the best Dr. DeMeo can muster. In  To Be Done with (An)orgonomists  the Correas publicly rebuked, in detail, all the objections Dr. DeMeo put forth in what he called his 'Critique' of their Vol. 1 of Aetherometry. Yet Dr. DeMeo now seems to show himself incapable of doing the same - i.e. of considering the objections and criticisms the Correas have addressed to his work and that of his collaborators, and either rebuking them, brick by brick, and with the missing data, or else - wherever warranted - admitting their correctness.

Is it possible that Dr. DeMeo is not defending his PP5 because he considers it to be indefensible?

Instead, he seems to have left it to Mr. Nicholas Reiter and Mr. Douglas Marett (an ex-collaborator of Mr. Ogg of PORE and Mr.Trettin of IOO) to take on the defense of the wounded Reichian cultism. These two chaps betook themselves to the safe grounds of the Vortex email list, where a certain Mr. Jed Rothwell pursues a project of foaming at the mouth against the Correas and Dr. Mallove. Before I proceed to reproduce some of their epistolary achievements, let me quote, in a more charmingly dishevelled vein, a letter we have received in response to our announcement of "PP5 Taken to Task" from Víctor Milián, one of the six Spanish researchers who were the protagonists of the section titled "Sheer nonsense about Oranur":

Subject:    From:   Victor Milian To:   "Aetherometry Info" <info@aetherometry.com> Subject:   RE: Pulse of the Planet Taken to Task Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:21:53 +0200 Dear Sirs, I find your papers very interesting. Please keep me informed about your publications. I would have say that both your works and ours are on the same track, and really I don't understand why not. Best wishes, Víctor Milián

So now I move on to Mr. Reiter's and Mr. Marett's gallant exploits on Vortex. First, Mr. Reiter's gem:

Subject:   Pulse of the Planet Critique From:   Nick Reiter Date:   Sat, 8 Jun 2002 04:45:59 Gentlemen [ha!], After being a bystander for a number of months, the incentive finally arose for me to jump back in. It was with some considerable dismay that I watched the debate over the Correa claims fall into some very weird threads of discussion. But then came the announcement by Gene Mallove regarding the Correa rebuttal to Jim DeMeo's Pulse #5... I do not know the Correas. Never met them. I seem to recall maybe a couple of years ago I had come across their aetherometry site, and at the time found it to be interesting, though I didn't spend a lot of time there.   [In fact, he spent zero time, since 'at the time' the site didn't even exist. It has only existed for a year.]   It did seem as though they spent an undue amount of time   [he can tell it's undue even though he doesn't know anything about the parties involved]   knocking around another person whom I did not or do not know - a Mr. Marett, I believe. Perhaps the same fellow I have seen make some postings here. Anyway, I thought little more of it until this recent war of words broke out here on Vortex. For the record, here is my involvement in the pursuit of orgone energy: 1. While I had heard of Reich and Orgone in the 1970's, as a teen, I didn't do any experimentation. 2. In 1988, I became interested again, and read as many of Reich's original books as I could find. I began networking with a wide variety of people, many informative, some enigmatic and spooky to my way of thinking. And some very thorough in their evaluation of Reich's experiments. 3. A friend of mine and I built a small cloudbuster. It never did seem to do much that we saw, but in hindsight it really was a poor design, and we did not fairly follow many of Reich's protocols. 4. I DID however, spend several years building and examining orgone accumulators! Yes, I apparently am "one of those people" as stated in an earlier posting.   [He is referring to a declaration emitted by Jeff Kooistra: "I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who would spend years studying Reich."]   5. I was never able to make any clear (free of potential artifact) observations of the To-T, myself. 6. I did, however, observe what I felt to be a couple of very interesting effects using accumulators of many layers or folds. These were more electrostatic or galvanic enigmas in nature.    [Spoken like a true Reichian: nature is chock-full of enigmas and mystifications]   7. I spent the better part of a year focused on the Orgone Motor story - an affair worthy of an X-files episode, actually.    [The life of a Reichian, if you know how to X-file it, is a thrill a minute]    I DID indeed speak to a fellow who called himself Joe Daniels, from Long Island. He claimed that he had procured the little spinner motors that WR had used from a nearby motor shop. (Please note. In Jim DeMeo's edited version of the paper I wrote on the topic, there is a typo I caught. I spoke with Daniels in the early 1990s, not early 1970's) I also held a personal conversation over the phone with William Washington, who was one of the center figures in the OR Motor story. I have no idea if either of these gentlemen is still among us. People grow old and pass away. 8. I also spent a couple of years trying to ascertain if vacuum tubes soaked inside of accumulators had different properties - plasma wise- than standard or control tubes. Again, some hints,   [hint hint, nudge nudge, that's nature for you]   but nothing I could fairly submit to peer review. [Remarkable how DeMeo surrounds himself with these Reichian 'collaborators' who care so little for what they say and write, have never been able to follow protocols or confirm anything of what Reich investigated... Curious.] Now, to the core issue. After seeing Gene Malloves announcement about the Correa rebuttal to PP5, I went and read it...with personal interests at stake because Jim DeMeo had used the paper I wrote about my examination of a KS-9154 motor (the ones Reich claimed that he had run at least partly from the orgone). Oh My! I found my paper and my very name speared and gutted! It's not that I haven't sustained critiquing and name calling before. I recall that I have offered my unvarnished opinions on plenty of occasions - made as personal opinion. But what shocked me was the absolute viciousness and unprofessional attitude   [Ah, yes, 'unprofessionalism', the most deadly of deadly sins (besides bad PR, of course). But one cannot help wondering what exact profession he uses as his standard. Ghostbusting? Muckraking?]   going there. In my opinion...these people - the Correas - have a serious axe to grind that has nothing to do with discovery and science. If so, fine, but they should be open enough to say so. Like "Sorry for the spite, but we hate Jim DeMeo and anyone who knows him because...blah blah blah" At least that would have been a good disclaimer, for whatever the reason. [What never ceases to astonish one about these people - the Reiters, Maretts, DeMeos and Co. - is their absolute unassailable innocence and how they do not mind to advertize it publicly. They feign not to know the events, how and what happened, their sordid motivation or what they have accomplished - all in order to appear pure of heart. As if Reiter didn't know what DeMeo was up to when the latter broke our confidence to undisclosed third parties; or what Marett had been up to - putting up a website to slander and lie about our PAGD work and hinder its commercialization; as if Reiter was unaware of the challenge which we issued to Marett and his champion Ogg over a year ago; as if Reiter did not know that DeMeo had witnessed a demonstration of the Aether Motor months before Pulse #5 was published; and so on. No, of none of these does he have even the slightest inkling; he is like a newborn child combined with driven snow. He can thus insult the intelligence of Vortexians impunely; they seem not to mind. In fact, they never demand of these canaille that they address any of the real issues - of science - to begin with.] Sorry, Gene- these folks seem really weird. Believe me, I KNOW weird.   [Yes he does, from his ghostbusting business...]   After following the thread of the discussion between you and Jed, I truly have to fall on Jed's side of the fence. [But of course! Where else is there to fall? The comforting Jed Rothwell side of the fence where all those who have been criticized - for good and sound reason - by the Correas, may happily congregate to console each other, profess their profound and enduring innocence and, most importantly, lick their collective wounds. The Quinneys, Maretts, Rothwells and Reiters of the world - all drawn together by a soothing kind of pheromone that Jed's side of the fence exudes - where every 'gentlemanly' lunacy may be sympathetically expressed, embraced, applauded, and admired as 'exemplary'.] I can see why they have not landed any financial support.   [It has paid off, his bystanding. Reiter now proceeds to schmooze, by playing the music he knows Mr. Rothwell most adores to hear - his own voice echoing back...]   No-one I can think of would pump venture capital into people who put on a website like the Correas apparently have.   [Well done, Mr. Reiter! You have clearly been paying attention. This one always plays exceedingly well with the 'Jed side' crowd, who positively detest anything that requires more effort than clicking the mouse once or twice. After all, if it can't be said 'off the cuff', in a sound-byte or two, or built in your garage after 5 minutes of 'thought' and, of course, used to heat your coffee - it just ain't worth the trouble; it's nothing but pretentious intellectual eyewash.]   If you are going to help an inventor commercialize an important invention, you might tolerate some creative eccentricity, but you don't want a loose cannon who will eventually piss off the wrong parties for the wrong reasons and drag all your efforts and $$$ down in lawsuits and court costs.   [Very savvy indeed. Even a little mafioso-reasoning of 'tolerance' for the inventor on the road to $$$. And, we might add, very much in step with the Jed side - which fancies and promulgates the 'diseased mind of the inventor' interpretation of discovery, knowledge and creativity. It also makes blindingly clear Reiter's 'profound interest' in the actual functioning of the Orgone and Aether Motors!]   An example of the weirdness of the Correa rebuttal - to my own submission - is at the part where they call me dishonest because I make a statement about how William Washington is probably the only person left who could say whether the orgone motors ran entirely off of the orgone energy. They state I am lying because I would have full well known that they - the Correas- had the only real method of operating an orgone motor. Or something like that. The problem is...I wrote my little paper in 1998. I never even heard of the Correas until maybe 2000 or 2001!!! How could I have given them credit? How dare they call me a liar under those circumstances. Maybe Jim DeMeo didn't show them my paper until much later.    [DeMeo showed us the Reiter paper months before publication of Pulse #5 - in fact, at the time we demonstrated to DeMeo the Orgone and Aether motors. Is it credible that he did not mention these events to his author who was contributing on this very subject?]   I have no idea.   [No, he certainly doesn't. No idea at all. But curious, is it not? Most writers we know who are sufficiently impassioned with their subject matter to write about it and to make their findings public, tend to follow it closely. And when new information becomes available, they avidly proceed to investigate it, even - imagine! - updating their material when planning for public release or re-release. They even make use such esoteric tools as editor's notes, updates, etc. But no: Mr. Reiter would have no idea of this either. He's just an ordinary guy, a tourist cruising the scenic sites. Out of the blue, he gets assaulted by a band of hooligans. What has he done to deserve this?]   I don't mind scientists gutting my experiments or ideas like a fish. I expect it. And yes, I have other interests that many, even here on Vortex, might find frivolous, such as psychic research or UFO s. I may be quirky and goofy. But don't call me a liar, and don't accuse me of being part of conspiracies I have never heard of! My parting advice to Gene Mallove: Gene, I have respected your publications, works and efforts in the past. But without knowing them personally, these folks look to me like the kind of trouble you don't need. Run, don't walk, away!   [Such deeply-considered advice, and all for free. The guy is a veritable philantropist. Yes, "Taking the Pulse of the Planet to Task" was painful for the PP5 authors. They all uniformly agreed it was trouble they didn't need. They have, to a man, been so accustomed to the comfortable sanctity of the Reichian church chugging ever so predictably along - the way it has done for years - as a trusty cottage industry, that the advent of Aetherometry has been nothing short of traumatic. So much so, it seems, that their flight instinct [run! don't walk!] has switched into overdrive. Now they will console each other with their innocence and the 'robustness' of their disjointed deliria, while simultaneously sabotaging and smearing the discoveries of Aetherometry which, were these Reichians not so lazy and so determined to keep their little everyday habits intact, would provide them with precisely the tools they have always claimed they were in search of. Instead, they will steal a little here and a little there from it - when it's convenient and doesn't require too much effort and doesn't rock their precarious boats too much, and when they have a little time to kill. But in the meantime, pursue a little Reichian witch-hunt against the Correas on the side.]

I present the next item in a preliminary fashion, since we may hear more from the same quarters. It is a letter from from Mr. J. Carlinsky, proposing his corrections to Dr. Correa's report on the tortuous history of Reich's Spinner Motors:

From:   "EarthFirst Expose" <earthfirstexpose@hotmail.com> To:   inquiries@aetherometry.com Subject:   Joel Carlinsky Date:   Thu, 06 Jun 2002 07:59:06 +0000 I have just read your review of Pulse Of The Planet, and while I agree with much of what you say, there are a few points where you misquote me or misremember what I said. For one thing, I have never been involved in any way with the Church of Scientology and would never have said I was. Also, nobody put me up to obtaining things from Organon; It was a natural spontaneous response to Higgins' refusal to let me have access to material I needed to save the world. There are several other errors in your account of our conversation and of my activities. Also, William Washington was still alive as of 1987 when I visted him at his home and spent 5 hours interviewing him. And Joe Daniels does exist. He lives on Long Island. I have spoken to him, but concluded he did not know enough to justify a trip to meet him. But he did build some lab equipment for Reich. I could probably fill you in on a few of the gaps in your story, but you seem to have put me into some sort of catagory based on lies and distortions you have heard from people you don't trust or respect! Everything negative you have heard about me you have heard from the same Reichians you regard as unreliable fanatics who distort the truth, yet when they tell you things about me, suddenly they are paragons of veracity! Look, I am not a Reichian cultist and that is the main thing they have against me.

Akronos responded with an offer to publish Mr. Carlinsky's corrections and notes:

From:   Aetherometry Info To:   EarthFirst Expose <earthfirstexpose@hotmail.com> Date:   Thursday, June 6, 2002 12:09 pm Subject:   Re: Joel Carlinsky Dear Joel Carlinsky, Thank you very much for your letter. If you would like to submit to us your own account of these events, we will be glad to publish it -- provided it does not contain anything slanderous. Yours, Laura McFinlay Akronos Publishing

We have not heard from Mr. Carlinsky since June, but do intend to add his commentaries - if they are forthcoming - to this feedback section, in accordance with Akronos' open feedback policy.

In the same context, another reader of Akronos, Jeff Cahill, sent us a note regarding the aforementioned Joe Daniels, this classical 'sleeper' who was slipped into the US government's 'case' against Dr. Reich at the last minute - and regrettably, instead of being allowed to rest, was now ressurected again due to Mr. Reiter's desire for an X-files lifestyle. Here is Mr. Cahill's letter:

From:   Jeff Cahill To:    <feedback@aetherometry.com> Date:   Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:11 pm Subject:   PP5 and "Joe Daniels" This is perhaps old news to you, but I thought it might shed some light. In part IV section 2 of your demolition of Demeo's Pulse of the Planet #5, you quote Reiter on his supposed meeting with one Joe Daniels. This name appears in a mysterious fragment of a letter ostensibly found in a hotel lobby and sent anonymously to the FBI. It refers to him having worked for Wilhelm Reich on "a motor that runs on orgone energy alone" and I guess that landed it in Reich's file. Reiter didn't just pull this name out of the air. In fact, for those who have taken the time to peruse the Reich files released under the Freedom of Information Act, Reiter teases with this oblique reference to one of its most intriguing documents. Check out http://foia.fbi.gov/reich/reich4b.pdf pp. 7-10. PLEASE keep up the excellent work! Jeff Cahill Bear, Delaware

A note to our readers: The above FOIA pdf file is several megabytes in length. We have extracted, and made available here, the pertinent pages.

Akronos forwarded Mr. Cahill's note to the Correas. Their response, which follows below, attempts to focus on the critical question at stake: how did this Joe Daniels make his enigmatic entrance into the Reich process?

It is clear that you have studied the FOIA files carefully enough to recall the obscure name of Joe Daniels. However, Reiter's account remains to us as malodorous as the initial fragment and later floating FBI reference in the FOIA archives. The question - it seems to us - is: how did such a preposterous, disinformative and disembodied document manage to find its way into the FBI files in the first place? ..."found in a lobby of an hotel room", sent by an anonymous 'donor'... For, there is no supporting evidence - aside from this entirely dubious fragment itself - that this individual ever actually either knew or worked with Reich. The entirely unconvincing content of the letter piece argues strongly in favor of a rather uninspired hoax. And how too then, does Reiter manage to make contact with this miraculous fellow who supposedly invented orgone-powered refrigerators? He doesn't bother to tell us. But what he does tell us is - as is stated in the PP5 document - that this Daniels, if he exists, and if he is the same hoaxster or 'sleeper', has only more disinformation to supply: that the motors were purchased 'off the shelf'. A patent impossibility at that time. And if it was also the 'genius' Daniels who supplied the further disinformation that drag cup motors are reluctance motors - then the stupidity is entirely consistent with the rest of the disinformation - 'Daniels'(?) and Reiter's. So what continues to disturb us is the thread of deception which still manages to worm its way forward, seeing where and how it was born, and how others (Reiter, Demeo, etc) lend it credence. What is of greatest interest to us in the Joe Daniels story is not the 'information' which this individual was signaled to possess but who it was that engaged in the signaling operation - namely, J. Edgar Hoover, but still more importantly, the 1950 Assistant Chief of Army Staff, G-2, Department of the Army's Security and Training Group, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Director of Special Investigations (IC) Department of the Air Force. It is here that the real subtext to this story lies. We are thinking of adding a few post-publication items to the PP5 document based on reader feedback and wonder if you might like us to add your letter as well as the reference to the FOIA item. All this is good to clear the musty air that long-standing, vested manipulators systemically exude to preserve Reich's mummy intact and murder his work and soul.

The disturbing traits which the Correas bring up in their response can be easily discerned in the FOIA files regarding the Joe Daniels hoax. It is indeed regrettable that Mr. Reiter and Dr. DeMeo did not pause to think before using Daniels, as they did in PP5, as a means to propagate and enhance the mystification about the ORgone motor. The fact that both of them knew for over a year that the Correas had duplicated and improved upon that work makes this action seem not just disingenuous, but the very proof of fumisterie, if I may be allowed to use a French expression. It makes Mr. Reiter and Dr. DeMeo look like pure conveyors of disinformation.

The next chapter of the fallout from the deconstruction of Dr. DeMeo's PP5 was most curious. Dr. DeMeo became the object of pity from very peculiar quarters, like the group that gathers around Mr. Jed Rothwell on the Vortex list - and this despite Mr. Rothwell's public denunciation of Reich as a fraud! Revitalized by a merger with Mr. Douglas Marett, this gang went ballistic with their free-style on the Correas. In fact, Mr. Marett, in a letter to Vortex, publicly renounced his Reichian faith in order to join the gang and play the piper. A member of Jammerling Ogg's Orgonomy Mail List (OML), Mr. Battista, read Marett's renunciation on Vortex and decided to spread word about it on the OML:

Subject:   Interesting findings by Douglas Marett Date:   Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:23:21 -0700 (PDT) From:   Pietro Battista To:   OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com The well-known Reichian researcher Douglas Marett has just announced some interesting results to the Vortex physics group. He claims to have determined that the To-T anomaly in ORACS is due to convection currents, and the electroscopic discharge anomaly is due to the fact that the ORAC acts as a shield against atmospheric ions. Neither is due to orgone. You can check out his messages: http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/m23601.html http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/m23617.html Pietro

The message, however, did not go to the OML, but was intercepted by Mr. Ogg himself, who, as it appears, exerts complete control and censorship over the list's posts. Mr. Ogg, a long-time supporter and admirer of Mr. Marett, became completely discombobulated, and responded - nearly in grunts, if I may say so:

Subject:   Re: MODERATE -- pietro_battista@yahoo.com posted to OrgonomyMail-List Date:   Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:41:21 -0400 From:   PORE <pore@orgone.org> Organization:   Public Orgonomic Research Exchange To:   Pietro Battista U suggest speaking to Doug Maret first before copying his words don from anothers posting at another's website. It would be good to check it with him Doug first before post it on the OML Doug is a member of the OML although he does not email or get involved mich. Maybe try an email to him best to you ....jogg

Then Mr. Ogg himself wrote to Mr. Marett, with Mr. Battista's letter attached:

From:   PORE [mailto:pore@orgone.org] Sent:   Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:26 AM To:   Doug Marett Subject: re email to oml about you I recieved the following from the below person. They wanted to post it to the OML. I as moderator have delayed the message until I hear from you. I recommended they contact you first. The links bring up reference to Correas. Please check the links Pietro included in his message. The Correas recently are having a continuance of a war with Demeo. See http://www.aetherometry.com/PP5.html Hope you are well.... best to you .....Jogg

And Mr. Marett, apparently caught with his pants down, responded to both Mr. Ogg and Mr. Battista, requesting that Mr. Ogg forward the letter to the the OML. This time Mr. Ogg posted the letter, enhancing it with a rather lyrical preface:

Subject:   [OrgonomyMail-List] [Fwd: re email to oml about you] Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:43:07 -0400 From:   PORE <pore@orgone.org> Reply-To:   OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com Organization:   Public Orgonomic Research Exchange To:   OrgonomyMail-List <OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com> CC:   Douglas Marett, Pietro Battista I send this along to the OML as Doug has instructed. [Members of the degenerate OML should take note that the moderation at the OML is carried out not just by Ogg, but also by Douglas Marett, on the latter's instructions... Priceless.] A copy is sent to Doug and to Pietro. I find that the energy I see with my own eyes that is flowing along mountains is different than what I see in binoculars as heat waves. What I see and my son sees is as WR describes. Also the rain of orgone White rain in Rangeley I have seen is unexplainable but is like the orgone energy seen in the air. As for heat wave flow I have studied it and agree with Doug that it flows with the wind. I am uncertain on the Orac findings as I have not the equipment that Doug has to do the details he has mentioned. I do commend Doug for sharing what he has discovered. Discussion and further experiments are always welcome to further investigate Reich findings. ........Jogg [As if Ogg had ever had the courage, or even the interest, of examining our experimental studies!!! Such pious lies! And thus Ogg and his spiritual son Marett, cowards and sluggards that they are, instead of examining our thermometric and electroscopic results and addressing them openly, go on and on about the flow of heat waves and how it is a function of the wind, and how this is one more nail in Reich's coffin, and so on. Vintage Vacuity.] [And then follows Marett's own uproarious letter to Ogg:] -------- Original Message -------- From:   Doug Marett To:   "PORE" <pore@orgone.org> Subject:   re email to oml about you Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:22:20 -0400 Hi Jogg Thank you for this message and your consideration in this matter. What Mr. Battista says about my postings to Vortex is correct, although I would prefer not to be labeled a " Reichian" just as I would prefer not to be considered "anti-Reichian". I am a scientist, who in his spare time has been looking among other things, for evidence that the aether as Dr. Reich described it, exists. My doubts about some of Reich's methods have been building for quite some time, beginning around 1997 -1998 when I posted my last paper to my AORL website. I performed a To-T experiment over the course of a month, taking measurements day and night, and I obtained results which were strange and opposite from what Reich predicted. I did not make these results public, and in fact just sat on them while I tried to figure out if I had made an error. In the mean time, I began an investigation of Reich's orgone flow/heat wave theory, and performed a series of day and night observations with a telescope to determine if Reich was correct in his belief that this phenomenon only moves W-E or E-W, and if it did not depend on the wind. I again came up with totally different results, and found that it moved in all directions, and was always in the direction of the wind. Again, this devastating negative result I sat on, and tried to perform more tests with night vision equipment after dark, to no advantage. Earlier this year, I repeated my experiment of 1997-1998, with a few minor alterations. In this experiment, I obtained To-T changing with weather exactly as Reich had predicted. I posted these results to my website as part of that week long To-T data taking that we did with the Germans.   [In case one might have forgotten this feat, it was then that Marett proudly reported his astonishing visual powers which enable him to read one hundredth of a degree centigrade on calibrated mercury thermometers!!! But he soon got tired of taking the endless T-To readings that are the staple of "the Germans' " - i.e. Joachim Trettin's - manner of obsessive worship at the altar of Reich.]   However, I continued my data taking, on my own,   [on his own! wow!]   to try and find out why the two experiments had yielded opposite results. In the end, I discovered that it had only to do with where the thermometers were placed in the ORAC (i.e. above the metal plate, or below),   [This was yet another finding Marett 'made' 'on his own' by reading our Vol. 1 of Experimental Aetherometry, specifically AS2-05... ]   as well as how high the ORAC's were in the thermal gradient of the room. I also discovered that all diurnal variations in the ORACs could be traced to changes in the room temperature, which paralleled the thermal gradient of the room. If the To-T was being driven by the room temperature and convection, then this was basically the explanation originally given by Einstein.   [That Marett now returns to the fold of Einstein's "explanation" - which he knows we have extensively discussed in our two published articles on the "Reich-Einstein experiment" - without in any way addressing the fact that those very same articles describe quite precisely how we controlled for Einstein's objection and thereby confirmed it to be in error, is as disingenous as were his previous life-long spasmodic dabblings in flawed reproductions of Reich's protocols (always announced, of course, with much fanfare on the Reichian mail lists). The fact of the matter is that it became clear to him - in the wake of the PP5 demolition launched on June 5th - that his spectacular 'dedication' to the cause of 'defending Reich against the Correas' had hit an impassable brick wall. It was clearly time to publically jump ship, and to rush, instead, to Einstein's defence - from the Correas and from Reich. Same old, same old - Douglas Marett.]   Now faced with the failure of both Reich's orgone flow theory, and his To-T theory, I was only left with the anomalous electroscopic discharge rate. I decided to spend a considerable amount of money    [Wow! What a guy! Money! Who can argue with that?]   to purchase an ion counter,   [No, Readers of Aetherometry, what he bought was not a mass-spectrograph. It was a low-end 'ion-detector' very popular with the ghostbusting crowd.]   to test Reich's original contention that ions could explain the effect (which he himself discounted). Again, I found that the ions did appear to completely account for the phenomenon that Reich observed.   [See how minced is the meat we make of Marett's 'findings' in our "Auto-epitaph: How a Reichian zealot reneges on his faith"]    So, I can only conclude (for myself) that for these three tests of Reich, I can no longer find evidence to support his idea of a mass free aether.   [The unbelievable stupidity of this statement is only immensified by the fact that in Vols 2a and 2b of Experimental Aetherometry - which Marett, in spite of his scientific zeal, has neglected to read - we demonstrate the existence of massfree radiation totally aside from whether the thermal and electroscopic anomalies of ORACs are caused by orgone energy or not, or even exist!]   This does not mean that the aether does not exist, or that anything else of Reich's work is invalid.    [only that massfree aether energy does not exist!]   Everyone must do their own tests and draw their own conclusions. I only hope that those who have an interest in this topic will recognize that I am only honestly attempting to report on what I have observed and concluded, and I am passing this information on so that it can be available for others to consider. This should in no way be considered a negative reflection on any of the good people that I have had an opportunity to interact with over these many years. [A sweet siren song indeed - but remember the facts. Marett first put up his website in 1996 to 'denounce' the Correas for supposedly having stolen Reich's motor under the guise of the PAGD inverter. Back then, Marett was a Reichian fanatic committed to defending the true faith from the Correas. But now that the Correas have in fact rediscovered and improved upon Reich's real Orgone Motor, as well as demonstrated under strict experimental conditions the electroscopic and thermal anomalies in ORACs, Marett is suddenly no longer a Reichian, and instead seeks solace - where else? - on the Jed side, naturally. But wait! - Could the Correas be the hidden signifier of Marett's reactions? Yes, yes, yes, the dark and poisonous flower drives him still...] I am reconstructing my terrapulse.ca website to reflect this new information, and it may take a while to post all these new experiments. Jogg, please feel free to post this response of mine to the OML list. Sincerely, Doug

And yet it was only a few months before that Mr. Marett and his friend Mr. Trettin, in their status of good and interested Reichians, were vigorously trying to confirm, on the OML list, anomalous T-To readings! - in Mr. Marett's case, down to one-hundredth of a degree. Now, with the same vigor, Mr. Marett wants to do anything except attempt a careful confirmation of Dr. Reich's work, because then he would be confirming the findings of the Correas - and that, no! no way!

And so it is that, moved by their politics of personal hatred, these people either claim to see or not to see the phenomenon in question. One day it exists and they zealously profess their newfound faith, but the next day it doesn't - they have been sufficiently deprogrammed - and off they jump to another one - but always, of course, to show off their wares to other like-minded folk. It is difficult indeed not to regard them as opportunistic egos perpetually in search of an admiring audience. One day their findings arbitrarily go to the right, the next day, to the left. But what never seems to change is their complete lack of credibility. Whether it's the strident slanderous statements they make about the Correas, or the botched 'confirmations' and 'refutations' they provide, year in and year out, for Dr. Reich's work, the content seems always the same: very little to do with science and everything to do with petty personal agendas.

But to come back to my story, this was not the end of Mr. Marett's activity on the Vortex list. In fact, one might say that he continued to outdo himself, to the applause of those who had elected to place themselves on the 'Jed side', to use Mr. Reiter's expression. Here is Mr. Marett responding to the somewhat skeptical questions of another Vortexian, Mr. P. Dowland, who did not join in the applause:

I am of course dealing with Wilhelm Reich's theory, and the extraordinary claims he makes based on his observations. It was up to the late Dr. Reich to convince his readers of the validity of his arguements. It is to those arguements that I have addressed my critique.   [Amusing that he calls his dabbling in wind observations and 'ion measurements' a critique - this seems to be a mania shared with DeMeo]   Let's go through Dr. Reich's thought process. In his book "The Cancer Biopathy", on page 128, he states "the electroscope discharges more slowly inside the orgone accumulator than outside it. This would imply that orgon [sic] energy is something other than negative electricity. However, it does not imply this at all. We only know that an electroscope discharges more slowly inside than outside.   [No, we know much more than that. Thanks to Vol. 1 of Experimental Aetherometry, we know that Reich was testing solely a leakage electroscope, and that it was we who first raised the possibility that the slowing down of both seepage and leakage electroscopes inside ORACs could be due to mechanical blockage of ions; we also argued and demonstrated that something besides ions affects the rate of electroscopic discharge. It is these lies and these purposeful omissions perpetrated upon what is being responded to, that marks the deviousness of those who, like Marett and Demeo, are not capable of responding to criticism with effective scientific defenses. Because they have none.]   The electroscope measures air ionization - that's what it was designed to do.   [That, by the way, is another peremptory Marett error, another crass falsification. No, the electroscope was not invented to measure ions or ionization!!!]   What Reich needed to show for this to really be an anomaly is that ions could not be responsible. The first thing he should have done is to check to see if ion levels are lower inside the box than outside. He doesn't do this, for whatever reason. Instead, he just blows a fan around his electroscope to see if it discharges faster. For this fan test, Dr. Reich does not provide one single data point! In the post that your refer to, I in fact provide 53 data points on the question of ion levels inside of enclosures as compared to outside, including with fan treatment, and examining both positive and negative ions   [The reader is invited to read "Auto-epitaph: How a Reichian zealot reneges on his faith", where Marett's data is plotted, and to judge for himself whether his data purports to explain anything.]   Since each data point is based on 10 individual readings, I in fact provided data based on 530 readings, a good day's work.   [A veritable stakhanovchik.]    And I only posted part of my data to not burden the list with a long and boring posting. One can knock one's self out collecting mountains of data and analyzing it statistically, but when the answer is obvious, why waste precious time?   [Some things just never change. Whatever the Correas are working on - whether it's bion experiments, vacor tube research, PAGD, or now ion studies, this baboon always proceeds in precisely the same manner. First, design a slapstick experimental protocol to confirm or contest or expose (whatever works best with his target audience) the Correas; make sure the 'experiment' can be whipped off with as little effort as possible. Then turn to an admiring group of equally dysfunctional 'experimenters' and boast of his dazzling achievements. But once graphed, just see for yourself how 'obvious' Marett's data is - it inevitably implies that there should be an ion-driven acceleration of the electroscopic rates both outside and inside ORACs precisely during the very midday period when Reich noted deceleration of the electroscopic discharge and we have observed diurnal arrests (!) - and when Swann found the main trough of his diurnal fairweather electric potential. See Akronos monograph AS2-27].    But perhaps you are still not satisfied.   [No, we are not.]   Let's go deeper still. On page 140 of the Cancer Biopathy, Dr. Reich presents his second premise with regard to electroscopic discharge rate - its diurnal variation. He present graphs of his observations, in Fig. 16 (P.138-39) showing this intraday variation for a total of 11 days, under various weather conditions. I do not doubt that Dr. Reich was conscientious and reported the values that he actually observed. Dr. Reich observes " The electroscope discharges more rapidly in the early morning and late evening than at noon. Just the opposite would be expected if the laws of "air electricity" were to be followed. But on this count I must totally disagree with Dr. Reich. After researching this further, I have found that this is precisely the pattern one would expect from "air electricity".   [Whatever that is.]   Levels of atmospheric ions, and diurnal changes in the Earth's vertical potential gradient have been thoroughly studied over the last 100 years, and there are lots of textbook descriptions of these phenomenon.    [Oh, yes, the final authority: textbooks. Who could argue with these? Never mind that one can find innumerable contradictions within these sacred textbooks. No, it suffices simply to find one that suits one's current purposes, or even - for that matter - just speculate that one might exist, to cease any further 'thought' on the subject.]   In general, it is most often reported that the vertical potential gradient, and the atmospheric ions associated with it, vary during fair weather with a peak in the early morning and late evening, and the lowest levels being in the middle of the day. [Marett is so thick that he hasn't yet realized that the pattern of ion concentrations from the data he presented to the Vortex gang is upside down with respect to Swann's curve, and thus of zero significance. Those who are interested in the matter should read H. Aspden's "Modern Aether Science", Chapter 15, "The Earth's Electricity".]

And Mr. Marett continues with what he calls his "three strikes against Reich" - and what really are deplorable simplicisms all of which were discussed, rebuked and properly controlled for in the monographs of Vol. 1 of Experimental Aetherometry - till, at last, he dismisses Dr. Reich's theory of a massfree aether energy:

Fine. So for me, the lower ion concentration in the box is the first strike against Reich. The second is the explainable diurnal variation. So what is left? Reich's entire arguement [sic] of the orgone revolves around its causative role in weather formation. He argues that for sunny, fine weather, the orgone is highest, and thus the electroscope discharges slowest (which completely fits with his functionalist thinking). And for cloudy or rainy weather, the orgone is lowest (at least at the ground) and that is why the electroscope discharges fastest. Can atmospheric ions explain this too? Of course they can. The fact that atmospheric ions are high at the ground during cloudy or stormy weather is so well known that I do not have to remind the educated reader.   [Fortunately for Marett, his Vortex fan club is about as educated in these matters as he is - and just as interested in learning, let it be said.]   And the opposite is true for fair weather. And this is totally borne out by the arguement [sic] I just presented above. I have also confirmed this with days and days of ion observations, but don't take my word for it, just check any textbook.   [Someone asked him for an example of such a texbook, and is still waiting for an answer.]  . So for me that is strike three. The orgone theory is an extraordinary theory that requires extraordinary proofs. I do not believe that Reich controlled his experiments sufficiently to ever address the effects of ions on his electroscope, the very thing his electroscope was designed to measure. What would compel us to think differently?

If Mr. Marett really wanted an answer, that answer, obviously, would be "Aetherometry". But I have the feeling that Mr Marett knows this only too well, and it is the last thing he wants to hear. In fact, when the aforementioned Mr. Dowland (who, it seems, is a reader of Aetherometry) suggested to him as much, Mr. Marett, pushed to the wall by Mr. Dowland's arguments, suddenly took recourse in accusing Mr. Dowland of not being Mr. Dowland at all, but Dr. Correa in disguise - and lashed out at him with this precarious elucubration:

You want my advice, Paulo, or whoever you are? I'll give you some advice. If I were you, I would start with a clean slate. Begin by apologizing to the members of Vortex-L for deceiving them for the past 11 months on this list and putting on that silly Huckleberry Finn impression. Then read carfully [sic] my critique of Reich's experiments, and the comments and suggestions made by others on this list as to what would be the appropriate controls. Then withdraw from this list, and perform those controls, and any others you can think of, against your own experiments. If your theory does not hold, then freely admit it and withdraw it. However, if you remain convinced that you are right, come back to this list, under your real name, and present your case in a polite and professional manner. And while you are doing all that, remove all those nasty things you have said about the 40-50 people you have attacked on your various websites. It doesn't help your cause. Until you have done all that, do not try to engage me in conversation. I am not interested.   [You bet he isn't. The rather simple and obvious questions that Dowland asked Marett threw the entire 'cogency' of his 'revelation' into disarray.]

Thus Mr. Marett eagerly wrote his own epitaph as a Reichian, and now he hopes to rest in peace. I can only say: May he do so, and amen. He leaves behind in the Reichian lurch his two onetime friends, Messrs. Ogg and Trettin. And in the process of his rebirth as an un-Reichian, he remained true to his tradition of spreading confusion - as if more and better were not known, especially because of the aetherometric effort of the Correas. In any case, Mr. Marett has quit the scene. Dr. DeMeo can have his pity, and so can Mr. Reiter. But a Reichian he will be no more.

This, for the present, is the end of the fallout from the Correas' PP5 deconstruction. I will add to the present document if and when I become aware of any further developments.

I am attaching below the Correas' discussion of the 'ion studies' which Douglas Marett, in the letters I have quoted, presented to Vortex in May/June of 2002.

Perhaps all is well that ends badly, too. For recently, in the context of the slanderous attack that Rothwell and his clique mounted against our work on the Vortex forum, Douglas Marett at last found himself new allies and jumped the Reichian ship - and, not so surprisingly, all this transpired in the wake of our deconstruction of DeMeo's Pulse of the Planet #5. And what did our illustrious Marett employ to justify such a startling abnegation of his longtime faith, not to mention the yanking down of his silly Another Orgone Laboratory website? A newly-purchased Alphalab air ion counter! No, not a mass-spectrograph. Rather, a considerably cheaper item, highly favored in the ghost-busting racket. Armed with this device, he set out to explain what he calls "Reich's electrostatic anomaly" (1), i.e. the slowing down of the leakage rates of electroscopes inside ORACs. And how did he propose to explain it? By showing, over a single period of 14 hours, indoors, in an office, that the ion concentrations measured by his device are lower inside ORACs than outside of them. The two pairs of curves which these authors extracted from his data (1) are shown in Fig. 1 (it is instructive to note that nowhere does Marett bother to give the standard error or standard deviation of his data!). Yes, the ion numbers are lower in the ORAC, but the evidence suggests that something else is involved - for how can well-sealed filtering boxes present factors of reduction ranging between 1.4 to 5.9 for negative ions, and between 2.9 to 9.0 for positive ions, with respect to the controls and in the space of 14 hours, unless other factors are also involved - such as leaving the boxes open for periods of time that were not reported, proximity of the ion counter to 60Hz lines, etc ? Moreover, the reader should note how the data Marett obtained for the ORAC shows precisely the opposite curve to that which would have been consistent with the observed diurnal pattern of the electroscopic discharge inside ORACs.

Fig 1. Marett's Ion Measurement Data

Undeterred, he peremptorily concludes from his dubious data that not only was Reich wrong in thinking he had discovered an electroscopic leakage anomaly inside ORACs, and the phenomenon is simply caused by lower ion levels, but that the diurnal deceleration which Reich observed in the leakage rate is quite simply explained by the fact that "atmospheric ions vary during fair weather with a peak in the early morning and late evening, and the lowest levels being in the middle of the day" (2). Or, as Marett also puts it: "During fair weather, ion numbers drop to very low levels indeed, and this could likely account for the apparent discharge arrest" (1). And here is the tail of the cat hidden in the bush: for Reich never spoke of discharge arrests - it is not even his language, but our language, and our observation with both atmospheric electroscopes and electroscopes placed inside ORACs. In fact, until we published our studies, no Reichian - or anti-Reichian, for that matter - had conducted any studies with oppositely charged, calibrated, simultaneously operated electroscopes - measuring not only leakage (the rate of loss of negative charge from negatively charged electroscopes) but also seepage (the rate at which negative charges 'seep in' to cancel positively charged electroscopes). Reich never did this. It is only after one does so - only after one has grasped the facts we described in Vol. 1 of Experimental Aetherometry (which Marett subrepticiously purchased last December, but clearly was unable to grasp, except as a collection of sound-bytes he could opportunistically appropriate) - that it makes sense to ask whether identical variations in the diurnal number of ions of both charge species could explain the diurnal discharge patterns of atmospheric electroscopes and electroscopes placed inside ORACs. Unwilling to mention the texts he is trying to address, Marett nonetheless lets this slip of the tongue - "discharge arrest" - clearly signal their omission.

So, let us talk about those discharge arrests - which Reich never observed or reported. And let us talk about the variations in the concentrations of ions of both species in fair weather, and the fair-weather, or anticyclonic, pattern of those atmospheric electroscopes and the electroscopes placed inside ORACs (3).

The first observation is that Marett's data for the control ion levels he measured indoors could never explain the electroscopic pattern observed in the atmosphere: it is in fact inverted with respect to the latter, presenting the very opposite curve to what we found with atmospheric electroscopes, as can be seen from Fig. 2. Yes, it is true, Marett made these measurements indoors; yes, it is true, he made them on the 19th of January, still in the cold season; yes, it is true it was an overcast, cyclonic day...Then, how can Marett conclude anything regarding the causation of discharge arrests irrespective of charge in atmospheric electroscopes tested in the warm season on anticyclonic days, let alone attribute that causation to air ion fluctuations???

Fig 2. Diurnal Electroscopic Discharge Pattern in Fair Weather

Because he is entirely predisposed to making this leap. So for this, lazy as he is, he is content to draw from the indecipherable and garbled data of a website he came across (1), the author of which himself finds "the interpretation of the results beyond me [him]" (sic). For, indeed, diurnal variations in ion concentrations on anticyclonic days during the warm season are a complex matter. Essentially, such fair weather days fall into 2 categories: burst and nonburst days (3) - with the former presenting a solar-sourced diurnal pattern of ion increase in the post-midday period, and the latter presenting a depression in the slow, heavy large ions and the small cluster ions around midday, and an increase throughout nighttime.

It is apparent that if ionization alone determined the spontaneous rate of electroscopic discharge, then the fair-weather electroscopic discharge pattern we have reported and observed (4) should only be observed on nonburst days. This, however, is not the case: the same pattern is observed on anticyclonic days of both types (3).

Secondly, discharge arrests that are simultaneous and prolonged for both leakage and seepage should require that, essentially, on all fair weather days of the warm season, ion concentrations should go to near zero for entire afternoons and stay there. This has never been reported by anyone, nor, a fortiori, is it even what Marett's data presents (see Fig. 1).

Thirdly, observe the ratios of positive-to-negative charges which Marett reports in his ion-counter 'studies' - they range from 1.0 to 2.1. Yet, in mass-spectrograph studies, the only ion class known to increase with daytime, while presenting a charge bias, is the so-called Intermediate class, which has - unfortunately for Marett - a 0.8 positive-to-negative ratio, and hence a negative, not a positive, bias. All other ion classes that increase diurnally during daytime have 1:1 charge ratios (3). Of course, Marett would know nothing of this, so interested he is in the scientific study of the subject matter.

Fourthly, the spontaneous electroscopic seepage and leakage patterns that we observed inside ORACs present us with the exact same diurnal pattern as that which we found for atmospheric electroscopes - except here the discharges are slowed down and the arrests are more frequent and prolonged (5). Whereas the pattern of ion concentration that Marett observed inside his ORAC (in Fig 1) is the exact opposite of what is required to explain the diurnal electroscopic pattern of the ORAC: the ion concentration should be going down during the daytime, not up. Is Marett suggesting that the discharge arrests of calibrated, very slow-leakage (and seepage!) precision electroscopes inside ORACs are due to increasing concentrations of ions?!?

Finally, what is it that Marett's data suggest? Well, first of all, we should note that geophysicists agree that there is no diurnal pattern of ion concentrations characteristic of cyclonic weather. Marett's data were taken on a cyclonic day. Secondly, one cannot study atmospheric processes by keeping one's instruments indoors as he does. Thirdly, his data - both the controls and the ORAC group - present the precise opposite of what he contends: ion numbers increase where they should decrease. This is tantamount to admitting that ions have absolutely nothing to do with what is happening inside those ORACs. We would not, for very good reasons, go that far, and have not done so in our aetherometric writings. In light of the preceding, it appears that what Marett was studying was rather the fluctuation of ions on the second floor of the office building where he took his measurements, as a function of both the human activity and the workings of the electronic equipment located in the vicinity of the 'experiment'.

We can only marvel at the vacuous thoughtlessness of these Vortexians - since, with the exception of a single lone soul, none of them paused to consider the obvious, simple and significant errors in Marett's clumsy arguments or so-called train of 'thought', and none seemed capable of reading or deciphering or making anything vaguely approximating an intelligent comment with respect to his data! But no matter. This was no time for intelligent commentary. For whatever half-baked, shoddy piece of work was offered up there - provided it seemed to take issue with the Correas - was lapped up as though it were the most delectable platter of gourmet chocolates. As for the single lone soul, he tried to argue a few very basic and rather obvious notions with Marett - but the latter, inflated as he was with his resounding success with the Rothwell crowd, and generally riding high on the petards of the crowd's anti-Correa incitement to greater and greater heights of idiocy, actually accused his interlocutor of being Paulo Correa in disguise! (Ah, this Marett never ceases to fancy himself a Torquemada of the new Inquisition. But true to form, what he invariably unearths is only his own carelessness and stupidity and his insatiable desire to have done the Correas a little harm! What a sorry life project this has become.) In a final paroxism of paranoia, someone even made a frantic attempt to insinuate to the poor Vortexians that this Correa-in-diguise had introduced into their computers a virus which was surreptitiously gnawing on their precious hard drives! Fortunately for the hapless lone soul, the virus turned out to have come from someone else. The culmination of this entire absurd performance was Marett's ceremonious proclamation that his herculean effort of having bought a new meter, taken a few measurements in suboptimal conditions, and having read someone else's data upside down was plenty enough for him to renege on his Christian-Reichian faith: "The orgone theory is an extraordinary theory that requires extraordinary proofs. I do not believe that Reich controlled his experiments sufficiently to ever address the effects of ions on his electroscope, the very thing his electroscope was designed to measure. (...) I think I am likely going to withdraw the articles on my terrapulse.ca website until I have had a chance to properly explain on that site why I think the data in them might better be explained by conventional physics".

This was fast thinking indeed. Imagine if the cheering section on Vortex had bothered to log on to the 'terrapulse' site and to discover it was a grade-school Reich fan page - which, for years, until that very moment, had proudly sported Marett's illustrious name amongst a profusion of clickable Reich icons!

Puff! - one more disingenuous Reichian bites the dust! And that's that! We could certainly pin for it a medal on our chest - for this ex-Reichian does not even wish to do further battle with us on matters scientific. We are his unmentionable - the object a. The very site that once sprung up to denounce the Correas, where the PAGD inverter was falsely construed and freely denounced as Reich's OR Motor, where Marett had vaunted his supposed search for a unity between Reichian orgone theory and the classical stationary Aether, pffuut!, it's all gone. All because ions can explain, oh so ordinarily! (just look it up in any textbook), not only what Reich found out but also - and that makes it unmentionable - what the Correas verified, amplified, studied at length, and properly controlled for in the work that led to their rediscovery of the OR Motor.

Some extraordinary theory it was, alright, that it could be so ordinarily discarded! As if either Orgonomy or Aetherometry (which Marett understands nothing about) depended upon a single experimental issue! And so profound was Marett's interest in orgone radiation, the subject of his half-a-lifetime involvement with fellow Reichians, that he hasn't, to this day, even bothered to read on into Volume 2 of Experimental Aetherometry. Lack of stamina, we suppose. Anyway, the ion gig was sufficient for a little splash among 'friends'. It was, we must say, impressive.

And for the sake of this vendetta of his spirit, this Marett prefers to opt for conventional physics - the 'good' side - which unfortunately cannot explain any of these anomalies other than by misunderstanding them, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated manner, than he, Marett, does. Once again, the leap of faith avows itself for what it is: an irrational change in belief-systems, Reichian for conventional, as one changes a suit or a pair of shoes when the occasion calls for it. Here, the occasion being our deconstruction of DeMeo's PP5 and the chance of a pas-de-deux with Rothwell. It was a long way home, but Douglas has made it at last - he has exited the greatest error of his life, his faith in Reich. Midlife crises are always dramatic.

We can only wish the ex-Reichian Marett a promising new career as a Master Dilettante of Conventional Sciences. Et vive la science!

REFERENCES

(2) Marett, Douglas to Vortex on 9th of June 2002.

(3) The reader who is interested in finding out more about the electroscopic anomaly partly discovered by Reich and further explored by us, is directed to the Vol. I of Experimental Aetherometry, as well as our recent report: Correa, P, Correa, A & Askanas, M (2002) "Atmospheric electricity, ambipolar radiation and latent heat: a new view of geophysics and meteorology challenging the primacy of ionization theory", Akronos Publishing, AS2-27.

(4) See Fig. 16 of Correa, P & Correa, A (1998) "Variation of the spontaneous discharge rate of atmospheric electroscopes induced by electric and nonelectric, local and nonlocal, hidden variables", ABRI monograph S2-02.

(5) See Fig. 3 of Correa, P & Correa, A (1998) "Comparative study of the variation in the spontaneous discharge rate of atmospheric electroscopes and electroscopes placed within 'ORgone accumulators' ", ABRI monograph AS2-06.