Home About Helping Us Your Order Contact Mailing List
Nanobiology Aether Motor Alternative Energy Gravity Relativity Climatology Cosmology

Response to J. DeMeo's Open Letter of 20 Dec, 2001


Dear Dr. DeMeo, it has been uplifting to watch how, at each iteration of our exchange, you have been sliding the truth just a little bit this way or that; and each time, this new slidden position becomes a new baseline, from which you can then slide further in the next iteration - until, imperceptibly, you wind up with a complete lie. But this last installment contains what is so far your crowning achievement in this area. You write, in the introductory part of your Correas webpage:

"Upon receiving my pointed but constructive criticisms presented to them in a sympathetic and private manner, criticisms which exposed serious problems with their methodology, experimental results and conclusions, they have retreated from scientific dialogue and instead gone public with serious misrepresentations and accusations, evading the Critique in favor of historical recountings of who-said-what in lengthy emails. "

while you know perfectly well that we have published a 70-page detailed response to your so-called "constructive criticisms". We know that you know this - not only because you cite the page which contains the link to our Counter-critique, but also because you tried to access the Counter-critique using the courtesy ID and password with which we originally provided you for volume 1 of Experimental Aetherometry. It is one thing to be so much of a cheapskate as to begrudge spending 20 bucks to find out the answers to your burning scientific problems. But to try and cover up your pettiness with a blatant lie that can be seen by everybody who accesses the page you reference - wouldn't you agree that that's a bit much?

One might in fact say, dear Dr. DeMeo, that this time you will have bitten off more than you can chew. Your entire letter reeks of this - pleading in the victimized tone. But we have not victimized you - your own actions have. For we would not be here, at this juncture, if you had provided us with your criticism prior to our publication of the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry, and had not subreptitiously and behind our backs - as you now admit - passed it around. Had the former happened, we would have explained to you why your criticisms, with the very odd exception, betray not a shortcoming of our work, but a deficient reading on your part; and this would not have escalated, since we would have had, perhaps, more patience with your profound miscomprehension. Had the latter not happened, we would still have the same trust in your word that led us to chance to invite you to the demonstration of the Aether Motors, inter alia. Instead, you wrote a pauper's critique, distributed it to anonymous parties - as you now avow - and then proposed to hold its potential publication over our heads, as a Damocles' sword, very much like a moral form of blackmail that might at any time be used to hinder our scientific and business interests. Your failure to mention to whom you distributed this Critique of yours (which suggests that you also distributed extensive quotes from our copyrighted material, if not the material itself - for, how else were these people to make sense of what you had written 'ostensibly' just for us??) is very telling in this regard.

This perfidious behaviour, smart in that it hedged its bets, but stupid in that it thought it could force us to adopt a less irreverent tone towards the falsification of Reich's theories by Reichian orthodoxies, is what lacks any ethos whatsoever, let alone holds to knowledge or science. Truth is, in truth, a big word. And the worse truths are those fabricated from convictions, pure and simple. What you have displayed - in your Critique, and, even more, in your letters - as that what you call "Orgonomy" (note - NOT what Reich called Orgonomy) - is a hopeless jumble of mystical convictions and weak experiments seasoned with leftism, which you now desperately seek to protect from what you perceive is the aetherometric onslaught. At the very least, one would have expected that, if the issues are and were about science and science alone - you would have read with greater care the materials to which we provided you with free access; and, further, that you would have now read our response to your so-called Critique. But no - your interest in the scientific questions and problems is so superfluous that you have not even bothered.

We could not think of a more unambiguous lack of interest and desire on your part to address the real issues behind our present combat with you. The issues, like it or not, have to do with the simple facts of science - specifically such as they concern the Aether - which we will summarize as numbered enunciates:

1. That neither you, nor any other trained or self-styled 'orgonomist' can at present, or has, to this day, been able to, provide the exact frequency, wavelength and energy spectra of ORgone energy and DOR energy. Whereas we can, and will shortly publish this in AS2-17A and AS2-17B. This knowledge is only possible because of the experimental and theoretical tools provided by Aetherometry. If Reich's Orgonomy were the complete theory you claim it is, then any 'orgonomist', including yourself, would have long ago been able to provide the scientific public with such incontrovertible data regarding OR and DOR energies. And the still greater public would then unambiguously have come to know that there is an electric, ambipolar, massfree Aether that exists everywhere in the form of radiative energy. This very failure is evident - it says all that needs to be said about the abominable failure of Reichianism. To speak of demonstrable 'orgone energy' without being able to differentiate it as to its very energetic characteristics is not science, but buffoonery of science. It also speaks mountains about the lack of capacity to perceive, see and discriminate, which is characteristic of 'orgonomists' - who, after all, want to be seen and perceived as investigators of Life and the living, but succeed merely in rehashing atavic mystical and animist notions of yesteryear.

2. That neither you, nor any other trained or self-styled 'orgonomist' can at present, or has, to this day, succeeded in differentiating, theoretically and experimentally, the concept and functions of OR and DOR energies from electromagnetic energy, or has succeeded in thinking the latter in a novel fashion. If aether energy were electromagnetic, one would be hard put to reject a revised classical theory. In fact, Reichians have not even understood, to this day, that Reich admired Einstein and the latter's positions vis-a-vis the demise of classical electromagnetism. Einstein, too, knew full well that if there were to be an Aether post-Michelson-Morley, it could not be an electromagnetic Aether; which is why, for a while, he toyed with the notion of a gravitational Aether. Reichians, however, are so obsessed with their hatred of Einstein - from the Reich-Einstein experiment to the priestly rule of Relativity - that they are impotent to make the fine distinctions demanded by science.

3. That neither you, nor any other trained or self-styled 'orgonomist' can at present, or has, to this day, been able to, catch Reich's errors and insufficiencies in the two fundamental disciplines of orgonometry - thermal and electroscopic - such as these practically and experimentally concern 'the orgone effect' of orgone accumulators. New eyes - eyes of those who can bear new facts - are demanded in order to read volume I of Experimental Aetherometry. The aetherometric critique of classical electrostatic theory and electrodynamics, as well as of thermodynamics, is carried out at the very same time that the critique of orgonometry leads one directly into aetherometric science, where experiment and theory are integrated. The new methods we employed (and which Reich did NOT, nor did any subsequent repetitions of his work, for that matter) show clearly, to all those who desire to learn, that the electroscopic phenomena evident inside orgone accumulators are neither electrostatic nor electromagnetic, anymore than they are (sensible) thermal. The resistance of Reichians to these NEW FACTS is rather revealing.

4. That neither you, nor any other trained or self-styled 'orgonomist' can at present, or has, to this day, been able to, build any device that actually measures OR or DOR energies - in living systems as well as in the atmosphere or the ground, etc. - or employ them to produce work or generate power, as in the OR and Aether Motors. All that you and other 'orgonomists' have, in the realm of machines, are those devices (ORACs, cloudbusters, DOR-busters) which Reich invented and left blueprints for, and whose functioning you collectively make a point of misunderstanding.

Not to know is to not be able to act with what one has at one's disposal, at the tip of one's fingers. The failure of (An)orgonomy stems from its territorialization on sideshows and its incapacity to address the critical, core questions of BioPhysics. That incapacity is historically evident, in light of what Aetherometry was able to do with Reich's Orgonometric work and insights.

Why this complete debacle of the followers of Reich, each on his own merry Sinatra way, into sheer organized Anorgonomy? Why the complete failure of Anorgonomy with respect to the four points enunciated above?

To begin with, it is the spirit of the epoch - the final debasement and degradation of thought brought about by this last historical stage of nihilism. No party, church or sect is immune from it. Then there remains the fact that the epoch ignominiously persecuted Reich - and that Reich, in order to protect both his work and himself from his enemies and his 'friends and followers', set about to hide much of what he knew. And finally, that Reich also made mistakes; for he had the right - maybe even more so than should be granted to other scientists - to make those mistakes!

Condemned therefore to the dark night of the Spirit, those who carried the 'Reich banner' could only have relied upon their strength, to the extent of being able to escape their epoch; and, by relying upon their will, would have been capable of continuing the work of science where Reich had left off - by retesting the steps of his journey, catching the errors and thereby pulling the process forward.

Is that what they did? On the contrary. They sank back into mysticism, cheap sexology and fake science. This, too, is an historical fact.

The proof of this pudding lies in the eating - and no matter how magnanimous we might like to feel, the eating of the Reichian pudding is nothing short of toxic. It poisons the soul, leads thought to impotence, freezes any understanding of the sexuality of nature and desire and - most importantly - has resisted any real or scientific understanding of what the Aether is and what types of aether energy there are. If Reichians and yourself, James, are incapable of this understanding, how can they and you claim knowledge, actual knowledge of Life, let alone of Physis?

It's a bitter joke perpretated on the body of a profound thinker who never ambitioned to become an icon, a father figure or a despotic signifier. It's an insult to his very memory.

But it is also more, much more - it is the manifestation, amongst Reichians and amongst all sorts of leftists, including red-tories, of a profound barrier to perceive, sense and think this energy that ultimately constructs all Space and Time, all Matter and all Life. It is a reaction that serves as a danger signal. A danger signal from an exhausted epoch that is about to embrace wholeheartedly the molecularized, disperse fascism of political correctness and of that other holy war of and against Terror. And a danger signal also marking the ultimate fear which this epoch has - that of making contact with Space and Simultaneity - with inhuman or overhuman intelligence.

The fear of contact is precisely what has driven the failure of Reichians the world over to improve anything discovered by Reich which he had selected out for the public to read and know. They did not resolve the problem of Vacor tubes (nor realized, in this respect, the errors of Reich's work), anymore than they could experimentally demonstrate and measure the spectrum of ORgone energy, correct the errors in thermal and electroscopic orgonometry, or rediscover the OR Motor and improve upon it in fundamental ways. They have not even understood that OR energy is not synonymous with Aether energy, and that the historic discoverer of OR energy was none other than Nikola Tesla. For them, there are no discoverers, save the Father Reich of their banner.

They were neither trained to see, nor could they see, nor did they desire to see.

For over two decades, our research into Reich, Tesla, Nietzsche, Bergson, Deleuze, Aspden, has been systematically thwarted by precisely the same forces - from corporate, academic and political spheres, from red and black fascists alike (it's about time to say it plainly enough) but also by the Reichians - in different waves at different times, from the old to the new guard, from enemies we learned to love to friends we learned to despise. What has erupted is but the tip of an iceberg. Why?

For the very same reasons that Tesla's work or Reich's work were thwarted. The fear of understanding nature as it is. The fear of contact with the outsiders of sects and churches. The fear of the singular that drives all doxas to seek safety in numbers and organized campaigns, silent or overt, against those who actually 'work' by being driven by their own 'functional aliveness'.

"But if you merely kept away and refrained from helping him, the discoverer wouldn't be unhappy on your account. He doesn't think and worry and discover 'for' you. (...) He thinks it's high time you learned to take care of yourself. (...) Not only you do not help but you interfere maliciously with the work the discoverer does for you or instead of you."

Who wrote that?

And this malicious interference goes as far as it usually needs to go - from misreading to misrepresentation and barbarism:

"You had your choice between soaring to overhuman heights with Nietzsche and sinking into subhuman depths with Hitler. You shouted Heil! Heil! and chose the subhuman."

Likewise the degeneration of Orgonomy into Anorgonomy: it has become a demeaning representation of the truth and beauty of the Aether theory and the science of nature, living and nonliving. Ultimately, we meet here in this electronic space of our thoughts, locked in this combat we can no longer avoid, because of the much deeper and larger choices each one of us has made with respect to our epoch, science and, above all, Life and Death.

To know or not to know may well not be the fundamental problem of existence, since becoming is the very being of the latter. But here is what neither you nor any other 'orgonomist' can now erase: the only science which holds an answer to the simple and numbered questions - the 'enunciates' - inscribed above, is Aetherometry.

Now, to your sorry letter.

First of all, you could have the decency of leaving Dr. Askanas out of this business - and begin by properly spelling her name. Dr. Askanas is not co-author of the material of Experimental Aetherometry, was not a party to any agreement you signed with us, nor was she a party to the response we authored to your supposed Critique. She is a witness to our encounters, and she authored the Exposé. These psychotic confusions of yours are truly annoying.

Secondly, let it be known that we are actively considering whether to seek reparations from you in court, for two simple violations -

  1. violation of the NDAs you signed, which barred you from disclosing anything about any of the witnessed demos (Aether & Orgone motor, PAGD inverter, etc) to anyone else without informing us and without having a valid business reason to do so.
  2. effective misrepresentations of our views, as authors and inventors, which adversely affects our scientific and business interests. Like other Reichians (Marett, Ogg) you have sought to hinder commercialization of our technologies. You have History on your side - and the Oil and Nuclear companies also - but you shall never have scientific truth as an ally. Generations may well pass, but Aetherometry will see the light of day despite all the attempts to hinder it.

We move on to respond to your silly points.

1. A. Your question -

"Do you really believe this approach, of deceit and attack, will succeed to win people to your side?..regarding an "argument" which was, I thought, taking place in private?"

By late October it became rather apparent that you were using the privacy of our nondisclosure agreement as a two-edged sword. Manipulators often think others cannot see through their schemes, and instead of abiding by agreements, they use the principle of the forked tongue. You admitted to making disclosures regarding our technology to parties that have to this day remained unnamed - in direct violation of the agreement you signed with us. And you purposefully failed to this day to respond to our last e-mail (see our e-mail of October 28th in 'pertinent correspondence'), in any manner you might have deemed suitable to prevent our affair from spilling into the public domain. In fact, had you not wanted our response to become public, you could have had the decency of answering that last e-mail, where we informed you of our decision on how to proceed and why.

Just as treacherously, you had earlier thought that by threatening to publish the sorry document you called your Critique of Aetherometry, you would make us put the tail between the legs and run. But you thought wrongly - first, because we are always in favour of the publicization of the private, and it is only for purposes of protecting our business interests or scientific discoveries from eventual 'travelers' like you that we use nondisclosure agreements. Secondly, because unlike you, who gauge alternative science by the size of the fan club, we are not interested in winning people to our side with arguments. Not per se. Arguments are either real weapons of science or they are nada. Our argument with you is not about the colour of your socks or about convincing people to a side. It is about the gross distortions of the work of one Wilhelm Reich that you and others have engaged in, about your lack of understanding of what ORgone in fact consists of, about your profound ignorance of Physics and Biology, and about your unbelievable misrepresentations of the content of our writings. You see, our mistakes are our mistakes, because they are commited in our name and our name alone. Your mistakes, however, are always attributed to Wilhelm Reich, as if they were his - or always his. And our argument with you is about science, the science of the Aether which you and other Reichians have completely debased.

You have the gall to talk to us about SCICOPS and power grabs: if what there is left of 'Orgonomy' were not such a tissue of lies and mystical convictions, it would long ago have delivered to the real enemies of understanding - and no more or no less enemies of Reich than of Tesla, Nietzsche, and so on; enemies, at bottom, of any scientific understanding of nature - the blow that Aetherometry alone is left to deal them.

1. B. The events and the demos

Your description of the events is flawed in extremis, and it is for this very reason that the reader is directed to selected relevant parts of our e-mail correspondence (incidentally - if you object to specific parts of the correspondence, we will consider your objections; but you should know we have removed all private content from these exchanges, and intend to let them speak for themselves, both in what concerns the changes that occurred in our relationship and in the issues of science they concerned and concern; you will not muzzle the record nor rewrite it as it suits you!). Some bare facts - our relation dates back to 1996. Yes, we invited you up in the spring of 2001, because we thought that - despite your leftist inclinations, the infantile silliness of your Saharasian theses (both of which we openly discussed on the evening of your arrival), and your work with cloudbusting which we felt was rather poor - you were enough of a decent fellow that you deserved to see for yourself how right Reich was about the existence of an Aether that can be tapped and how much further we had taken his original observations and experiments. As you well know, for us, the real use of the invitation lay in the advice that we hoped you could give us regarding what best to do with the technology - in light of the obvious political and social problems that it poses and the strategical difficulties of any contemplated course of action. It is simply a lie to construe our invitation as a solicitation for a peer review from someone like you, who lacks the physics and biology background required to assess it - and this fact is starkly put into evidence by what you say below regarding the Aether/OR Motor. But you could certainly have comprehended the social and scientific import of the matter, and have given us good advice, if you had so desired.

"I came in early May, and for two days witnessed your demonstration, and came away very enthusiastic, writing you a letter expressing the same. "

We did not give you a demonstration that lasted two days - we gave you several demonstrations over two days, which included:

  1. PAGD inverter driving a KS spinner motor.
  2. PAGD converter generating excess power.
  3. Three different Aether/Orgone spinner motor setups with two different ORACs of novel design.
  4. Aether motor driven from human beings.
  5. Response of a GM tube to activated ORACs
All of this was incontrovertibly new to you. The last three demos we recorded on video, as you are well aware. Wisely, we did not provide you a demonstration either of our weight-cancellation device nor of our ambipolar radiation field meter, since we felt you were not completely open with us.

"However, my original enthusiasm for your demonstration, with offers to help you spread the word via my OBRL-News and web site, and in other ways, was progressively ended after I read your S2 article series (posted to http://www.aetherometry.com). I informed you of several significant problems in your experimental work by ordinary email, but you dismissed my concerns and insisted upon a more elaborated and explicit critique, even while continuing to press me to allow you to post my original enthusiastic letter to your internet site, and to post an announcement of your web site to OBRL-News, and include it also in our Pulse of the Planet journal, the #5 issue"

This account of what happened after our meeting is typical of revisionists - we simply refer the reader to pp. 4-5 of our Counter-critique and to our selected correspondence, particularly the summary of events in our e-mail of October 28th. Those who have eyes to see can also read. This is one truth, James DeMeo, which your convictions cannot alter. Sue us if you don't like it - our lawyers are ready to meet yours. You did sign an agreement with us that specifically entitles us to use any and all private communications that refer to the disclosed information regarding our work and technologies, to enure to our benefit. If that means using them in a public forum, so be it. Moreover, your presentation clearly makes sweeping allegations that blanket the entirety of our work and affect, maliciously and malevolently, our scientific and business interests as well as our reputation. Accordingly, we shall endeavour to obtain reparations from you for whatever harm you have deliberately and knowingly caused us with your duplicity.

Moreover, the so-called problems with our work that you informed us about related to AS2-05 alone, and furthermore, were addressed in our e-mail responses to you (see, in particular, our e-mail of August 22nd). It is you who has failed to see the irrelevance of your points, most often derived by decontextualization, misreading and abusive generalizations. The record speaks for itself - and our response to you was unequivocal: you do distort Aetherometry just as much as you have managed to distort and miscomprehend Reich.

1. C Regarding thermal orgonometry

For our reply to Dr. C. Baker - which was published in Infinite energy #39, and which concerns the Reich-Einstein experiment, we refer you to Appendix 2 below. Dr. Baker did not understand the rationale of the indoor Reich-Einstein experiment, nor did you - since the experiment was conducted indoors in a still air basement, not outdoors under a tree canopy and exposed to the wind - and was, moreover, intent on minimizing the temperature difference, not maximizing it. Moreover, as explained in the section regarding AS2-05 in our response to your Critique, performance of the Reich-Einstein experiment showed that the coldest room temperature in the winter occurred at 09:00 to 10:00, and those points, as well as any subsequent ones that would identify the cooling lag, were always included.

Curiously enough, until these authors performed the indoor Reich-Einstein experiment around the clock, no Reichian or Reichianist had done so - this is why DeMeo had to hastily assemble the experiment he describes under the tree canopy with the poor setup detailed in our Counter-critique, in order to confirm or disconfirm the results of the authors. DeMeo falsely and repeatedly accuses these authors of being ignorant of the profuse publications by Reichians that are relevant to 'thermal orgonometry". But to this day, he has failed to provide these authors with a single relevant reference addressing the simple control experiment which Infeld's objection demanded!

1. D. Regarding the Faraday cage experiments performed outdoors

Confusion, in texts and understanding, is often the preferred weapon Reichians employ, and DeMeo is no exception. Often he uses it in order to disguise the duplicity of the statements being made. Example in point - DeMeo mentions that -

"Your articles were also discussed by students at the OBRL Greensprings summer seminars"

and makes it sound as if the term "articles" concerned volume I of Experimental Aetherometry, ie articles AS2-01 to AS2-07. In fact, in July 2001, only you, James, had access to these papers. And these are not the papers that were published in IE, about which you state, wrongly:

"your articles appeared in Infinite Energy magazine (issues #37 & #38)

since, in July, only IE#37 had been published (#38 came out in August, effectively); it is true that we confidentially provided you in May with copies of the papers that later came out in IE#'s 38 and 39, but these concerned the Critique of Special and General Relativity, and not Experimental Aetherometry! Clearly, in contravention of everything you agreed to, it was AS2-05 and its relation to the Reich-Einstein Experiment in IE#37 which you and your students were discussing in July. But the confusion helps you convey to the incautious reader that your statements, and the events, concerned the entirety of papers of volume 1 of Experimental Aetherometry. To continue the same example - after penning a blanket charge ("failure to make measurements 'around the clock' as claimed") that could only have "applied" to the IE#37 paper, you generalize it ("tried to engage you in some discussion of the relevant possibility that your setup might have been affected by ordinary infrared radiation"), when it is clear to any reader that IR radiation or sensible heat (the control thermometer...) did not and could not account for the positive temperature difference in simple Faraday cages in the Reich- Einstein experiment (conducted around the clock in darkness) described in IE#37, and that your IR argument was directed, instead, at the outdoor experiments reported in AS2-05. It is this constant decontextualization which is simply unbelievable, since you twist matters to make them fit into a preconceived mold designed to distort what we say, do and mean.

"Your articles were also discussed by students at the OBRL Greensprings summer seminars, and with help from the Independent Study group at Greensprings, in early August I undertook a replication experiment of the "naked accumulator" bare-metal-box portion of your claims regarding Reich's To-T experiment, correcting for one of the major errors in your own undertaking (failure to make measurements "around the clock" as claimed), and obtaining negative results, identifying significant thermal-lag effects"

If the reader believes to have some idea of what DeMeo means by replication, he or she is encouraged to consult the e-mail archive. Moreover, any reader of monograph AS2-05 of Experimental Aetherometry will realize that the outdoor shaded experiments conducted by the authors were carried out underneath a nylon canopy (which, incidentally can also be thought of as constituting a gigantic dielectric outer layer, as can a dark basement room without significant air currents) and not under a tree canopy, in partial light ('shaded outdoors experiments'). Right here, then, DeMeo is reproducing nothing but a fiction. And all other conditions were different: his boxes (of undisclosed metal) were not air tight, he employed a different method of suspending the thermometers, a different thermometer casing, a ridiculous contraption of neo- celotex plates around the cages and boxes (see pp. 59-69 of the selected correspondence of July 30th, August 1, August 17, and our response on August 20th). And he never managed to perform the experiment, whether indoors or outdoors, in the dark. The stunning outcome of all this thrashing about is DeMeo's proud presentation of a nonsensical plot lacking any indication of what are the units of the abscissa, and followed by no statistical analysis of the mean. The attentive reader will also notice that DeMeo most joyfully registers negative temperature differences (which he persists in calling "differentials", an expression whose usage he even manages to falsely attribute to us, in a misquote from AS2-05!) at noon (during 3 out of 4 days), and even following noon (also during 3 out of 4 days) - which should have drawn his attention to the fact that he is doing something quite wrong. Still better, even, is his "discovery" that the To-T actually increases towards, or peaks at, midnight, or even 6 am. There can be no better scientific evidence that this entire data is either cooked or afflicted by some outburst of the extraordinary - for the data suggests, quite simply, that his metal boxes placed outdoors under a tree canopy have a 12-hour thermal lag, which only an extremely well insulated box could have had. In plain terms: the very oscillation in his graph is at 180° from that which we observed in Faraday cages placed outdoors in the shade of a nylon canopy, as is shown in Fig. 7A of monograph AS2-05.

One needs no better proof of the fact that DeMeo just doesn't know what he's doing here. And if DeMeo were correct about the data he so glibly presents, then there should be no difficulty in running a Stirling motor from a simple metal cage during nighttime - let alone from a layered ORAC! What comes through in DeMeo's hurried "data" may well be more than a mere inability to reproduce Reich's experiments, or ours. If the air inside a simple metal box took 12 hours or more to cool, as DeMeo pretends it does, then metals would be called "insulators"... Talk about affliction.

Some of his poetic waxing is also rather amusing - as when he speaks of our outdoor shaded results as being "potentially subject to serious mechanical heating from the sun". This provides us with a diapason of DeMeo's orgonomic understanding: zero. For,as claimed quite correctly by Reich, what the sun outputs is not electromagnetic radiation but OR and DOR. And the mechanical effect DeMeo speaks of is the pressure effect of photons. But since these photons do not come from the sun, the whole business of the thermal anomaly in NAKED AND LAYERED ORACS begs precisely the question of how these photons are generated. The response to that question can be found in AS2-05, AS2-06, AS2-08, AS2-17A, as well as in our Counter-critique - and it is precisely here that the scientific failure of all Reichians, DeMeo included, is most glaring. Hence DeMeo's amazing persistence in disfiguring our work and its conclusions.

Furthermore, it is true that these authors only occasionally took measurements at 2 or 4 am, but the records of week after week of data for a simple Faraday cage unmistakably show mean temperature differences that are positive, not null or negative - as DeMeo claims. And since DeMeo claims negative values between midnight and noon, a period for which we have always provided data points, including data at 6, 8, and 10 am (see discussion on pp. 40-43 of our Counter-critique), it is apparent that, the conditions of the experiment being substantially different, it must also yield substantially different results. This allows for only one possible conclusion: either the Correas lied (by omission of points...), as DeMeo has the gall to suggest, or, more to the point, DeMeo is purely incompetent - wittingly or unwittingly is besides the point - since he is unable to perform a positive temperature difference experiment around the clock with a naked Faraday cage. In Reich's analytical terminology, DeMeo is armored against the simple truth. Consider this - the Litmus test of this matter:

Did Wilhelm Reich not claim that Faraday cages built of iron plates were Orgone Accumulators? Yes he did - read pages 113 and 115 of The Cancer Biopathy:

"We construct a small orgone accumulator. Six iron plates, each 1 square foot, are built into a cube."

Then on page 115, Reich writes:

"At this point we notice a deficiency in our construction. The bare metal walls, which are exposed to the outside as well as to the inside, radiate the energy and the heat produced to the outside and to the inside simultaneously. In order to better separate the air inside the accumulator from the atmospheric air surrounding it, etc, etc"

Yet DeMeo is convinced that

"The bare-metal enclosures do not satisfy Wilhelm Reich's descriptions of an orgone energy accumulator."

Did Reich not present Einstein with a temperature difference above the top of the ORAC, that persisted when the Fenster or dielectric insulating panels of the ORAC were removed to yield a simple Faraday cage? Yes he did; read our paper in IE#37 for references to the statements of Reich and Einstein concerning their indoor experiments.

So then, if Faraday cages were in fact to be shown to lack a positive temperature difference around the clock, whether indoors or outdoors, would one not be forced to conclude that Reich was wrong, that there was no orgone energy responsible for the thermal anomaly since there was no anomaly to begin with, but merely and just a mechanical thermal lag (accentuated by adding insulation)? This is a question for DeMeo, since it is he who poses as a Reichian but is unable to reproduce even Reich's most basic observations with a simple Faraday cage...Nothing dies of contradiction when there is a cottage industry at stake. DeMeo admits openly that, by his incompetence, Reich's theory of a thermal anomaly in Faraday cages is false:

"The experiment produced effects consistent with the classical expectations"

To buttress it, DeMeo, in desperation, simply resorts to uttering a blanket falsity without a single reference to a graph:

"Since the Correas did not make temperature measurements from between approximately midnight and noontime the next day, they excluded data which was most likely to reveal the negative component of thermal lag effects."

The funniest part of all this is that these authors did not make much of their findings of a positive temperature difference in Faraday cages placed outdoors in the shade (noticed that we never said in the absence of light!...), in our AS2-05 monograph. Rather, the importance of that monograph resides in the results obtained with layered ORACS directly exposed to the sun - another experiment which Reichians the world over failed to conduct in over forty years. Instead, DeMeo elects to skew and obfuscate the importance of these shaded outdoors findings with naked ORACs, by insidiously suggesting that these authors suppressed data. Regretably, we are used to such low-life tactics of innuendo - in the history of mankind, it is most often those who practice such fudging that accuse others of doing it, even when the data has been publicly graphed! A good Inquisitor simply 'suggests' it. Our response to DeMeo: Vade retro Mocenigo!

At last an admission that our challenge has thrown all these Reichians into a frenetic state of activity:

"We propose to undertake this test indoors, as well as using several one-ply pine box accumulators, to more fully evaluate the Correa's methodology and claims. A larger study on To-T, which will address the issues of thermal lag, thermal conductivity and heat capacity of construction materials, as well as other factors, is now being undertaken at OBRL."

1. E. The real reason why DeMeo wrote his Critique

"Finally, I completed the larger and more explicit Critique you asked for [!!], and presented it to you privately. Later, after a long period of silence from you, I informed you I would circulate my Critique privately to a small number of scientists who had asked about it, but not publicly, while waiting for your response to the specific points. You then accused me of betraying agreements and expressed a big disappointment, but still did not address the specifics of my Critique, or of the negative results on my attempt to replicate your finding on the bare-metal-box."

There is nothing quite like the exhibitionism of lies in the 'town of broken dreams'. First he claims we asked for his Critique, which we did not! Then, after it arrived (and we were hit by a truckload of his miscomprehensions, distortions and envy), its existence was private and its nature friendly. (As if this shoddy document of self-propaganda could ever have served as a basis for a productive dialogue between scientists! ) Were this not enough, he claims that, after a month of silence, we were supposedly informed (a plain lie) that he had circulated his critique ("but not publicly") to an undisclosed number of anonymous scientists, who at any rate already knew the material (another plain lie); in DeMeo's exact words,

"who were already aware of some of the Correa's publications and held similar criticisms."

Again the reader is referred to the correspondence record itself, where the words and the dates do not lie. No, we never asked for a formal critique from DeMeo - though we certainly would have welcomed the notion of his evaluation, had this been undertaken as an honest and serious task, preferably in the form of careful feedback before publication of the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry. And no, we were not informed by DeMeo that he had circulated, or even intended to circulate, his Critique; rather, his stated intention was to release it, at some future time, if in his assessment Reichianism was in danger of being harmed by Aetherometry... Read the record; it is worth it, particularly DeMeo's missive of October 11th. But the fact is, that the very manner in which DeMeo chose to formalize his Critique when these authors received it in early September, already betrayed that it was crafted - not for open discussion, nor for a seeking of clarifications - but as an indicting publication. He was so intent on keeping it private, in fact, that he undertook to ensure that it secretely circulated...This used to be called bad faith.

In another passage, DeMeo describes the same event as follows:

"Upon receiving my pointed but constructive criticisms presented to them in a sympathetic and private manner, criticisms which exposed serious problems with their methodology, experimental results and conclusions, they have retreated from scientific dialogue and instead gone public with serious misrepresentations and accusations, evading the Critique in favor of historical recountings of who-said-what in lengthy emails. Their pretense is, I should not have shared my Critique with anybody but themselves, specifically to [sic!] a half-dozen scholars who got a copy from me, and whose work had already been subject to dismissive attack in the Correas own publications."

We have already addressed above the grotesqueness of DeMeo's claim of our "evasion", when the fact is that he, and everybody who has looked, knows that a 70-page response to his "sympathetic" criticism has been published on our website. But what has not yet been addressed is his claim that the work of his anonymous "half-dozen scholars" had been subject to our dismissive attacks. This is another most blatant lie, which - unless it refers to our response to Dr. Baker in IE #39 (see Appendix 2 below) or our criticism, in AS2-05, of E. Mann's interpretations of what orgone energy consists of - is totally gratuitous. But it is also curious that, out of a supposed good faith towards us, DeMeo would have chosen to pass around his so-called critique precisely to those we supposedly had already attacked - at a time when he was still on good terms with us. Very telling indeed.

But DeMeo is correct in one respect : that we regard most, if not all, of Reich's self-styled followers as incompetent fools whose droppings are indeed beneath being cited.

We also like DeMeo's notion that 'private' includes half-a-dozen anonymous scholars. And one cannot but regard the second sentence above as another evident admission that DeMeo was lying to us when he stated that he intended to keep his Critique private and had done so.

You, James, out of cowardice and cowing to the Reichian establishment, did indeed betray our agreements, both written and verbal. That is a fact. You never intended to do anything with your Critique other than to attempt to harm us by publishing it. You can squint your eyes all you want. What was the warmth of that encounter, only generated resentment in you. Now, only complaints remain:

"I have every right to change my mind about my offers of support, which I did after obtaining negative results on one of your experimental claims, after reading your published papers in detail, and especially after having my concerns about these matters being treated dismissively."

Of course, you can change your mind all you want, you just cannot change the record, nor stop us or others from realizing what it is and what it means. The selected correspondence is particularly insightful in this respect. You took imaginary issues with the science of Aetherometry in order to protect your Reichian turf and the intellectual deficiencies in your own understanding of what the Aether is or is not.

"You could have responded more openly to my original emails on the matter and responded to my Critique privately -- and if I was wrong, showed me where."

In fact, we did, repeatedly, but our clarifications were never taken up by you for further discussion nor responded to in any fashion. Again, the record...But it is true, you never dreamt we would eventually treat your duplicity in this clear-cut fashion - and undo all your machinations in one fell swoop. You see, by the time we read the garbage you wrote, we came to the full realization that you are unable to even try to read, appreciate, differentiate, discriminate or admire. Yes, you are wrong, very wrong, in much that you said, did and wrote. And if you want to know how, you may begin by reading our Counter-critique, which has been up for well over a month but which you have failed to address. It challenges you quite directly. That you have not even bothered to read it shows how much you care about what we have to say regarding the subject matter and your idiotic criticisms:

"You could have acknowledged the considerable amount of time I had spend to give you a detailed Critique, "

You do have gall, we will give you that -

"...even if you strongly disagreed with it -- in which case some basis for future cooperation would have been possible."

Please, don't make us laugh.

"I anticipated some vigorous reply from you, but never imagined you'd resort to making personal attacks in public, with numerous apparently deliberate misrepresentations, and behind my back no less -- no copies of your email announcement, nor of the internet materials, were sent to me. I had to learn about them from third parties."

Which seems much in keeping with the spirit of your passing around your Critique behind our backs, or breaking our nondisclosure agreement with unidentified parties? How does it feel? Go play victim with other Saharasians.

2. A. Agreements are only as good as the people who make them

You state:

"I never violated our agreement of confidentiality and non-disclosure, and remind you, that you approached me to obtain a validiating outside opinion and critique, that you acknowledged my 30+years of work and expertise in this field."

If you have never violated the agreement, then answer these questions of our last e-mail to you: who have you divulged confidential material to, and what material was disclosed? It is very simple, just answer the goddam questions. Notice further that it was not a mutual agreement, but is our non-disclosure agreement. And notice also - we never sought from you any such validating opinion as what you intimate by the airs you give yourself so freely. We know very well how and what we have accomplished without your validation. We do acknowledge that after 30+ years of study of Reich's work you have never seen a working OR motor nor have any conception of how to go about causing one to work, anymore than you concretely know what are the nonelectric functions of the electroscope or can demonstrate which energy spectra belong to OR and DOR energies. Further, we do acknowlege that we gave this demonstration to you both as a gift to you but also to allow ourselves to learn how a Reichian would proceed if provided with such a gift. We also acknowlege that you have taught us the answer to this question.

We have never used the letter you wrote for any business purpose, nor shown it to any persons other than those two we informed you of in writing - Mr. Soudak and Dr. Mallove. In fact, your letter, if nothing else, was in large measure useless as a reference because the first paragraph contains an obvious error, as you imagine that secondary battery chemistry can be charged and discharged simultaneously... An error which you failed to correct even though we pointed it out to you on several occasions.

2. B. When those who have no right to our work make their demands...

Now comes the best part - as you try to goad us, with a little hillbilly psychology, into giving further details of the Aether/Orgone motor - the differences between our circuitry and that of Reich's, and so on. You prove you understood nothing by reducing everything to Reich's setup - though you do credit us with having rediscovered Factor Y. Yet the video made of that Aether/Orgone motors demonstration we gave you tells a very different story.

"However, I am under no obligation to conceal what is already a matter of public record. Factually, almost all of the setup you showed me (I do not speak about your PAGD device) was similar or identical to what is contained in Reich's own voluminous writings, or which is revealed in the videotapes regularly played at the Reich Museum in Rangelely, or which has already been summarized in my publicly- available article on "The Orgone Motor" openly circulated since the 1980s."

Very disingenuous of you, James: if that were all there was to it, how is it that you and your acolytes have, to this day, been unable to reproduce Reich's OR motor? It's just a Factor Y distance away...Marett thought it was the PAGD, you, however, begrudgingly grant us that it is 'merely' a question of Factor Y (Question: and the orgone energy spectrum - is it also just a Factor Y away? And the kinetoregenerative phenomenon? And...?):

"Nevertheless, the use of vacor tubes, orgone accumulators, antennas, grounds, and spinner motors are no surprise to anyone who has studied what is available on the orgone motor. The only undisclosed and previously-unknown component in your set-up, presumably, is the "Y-factor" Reich never revealed, and while I may assume you have re-discovered that principle, you never revealed to me the specifics of that matter, or anything about the electronics and wiring of the various components in your set-up."

Again, the video demonstrates how, after coaxing by Paulo, you asked to have one of the single Aether Motor boxes open, and that you were able to observe there were no batteries or hidden power supplies contained within it.

"I even presented to you, as a gift (along with several books and articles), one of the original KS-9154 spinner motors which you did not have, and which I previously obtained from surplus. I informed you also, that a group of students at my lab had succeeded in getting it to spin from conventional power sources -- no large feat -- but you know very well I am no novice on this subject, which is precisely why you invited me to witness your demonstration in the first place."

Given the fact that these motors were specifically designed to work with AC at 60 to 400 Hz, causing them to turn from conventional power sources is no accomplishement that any child with a minimum knowledge of conventional motor wiring is not perfectly capable of.

"However, today, after witnessing your reactions to my open criticisms of your laboratory work -- the degeneration into personal attacks and misrepresentations -- I now wish to *retract* my original letter of support, and state publicly that I have lost confidence in your capacities as scientific people, to make essential self-critical evaluations."

Long before this, oh DeMeo!, we lost any confidence in you as 'people', let alone scientific. You simply do not know the difference between those who are powerful enough natures that they can be generous in giving, and those who are slugs that you can rob. It is a statement of your pettiness that you indulge in what white men like you once called 'indian giving', but was never a trait of those nomadic indian cultures which you so much degrade with your Saharasian notions. Only bestowers of alms can give and take, in the same breadth:

"I also ask for the immediate return of the KS-9154 motor given to you, as it was obviously an expression of misplaced confidence in your persons."

Likewise, so was the confidence we placed in you. But there are no recalls in life. Stop whining. Of those who give and then want to take back, it might be said what Nietzsche said of beggars: "they ought to be prohibited: for one is vexed at giving to them and vexed at not giving to them".

2. C. Those who saw but believe they did not...

Were it that truth born out of conviction were the truth of seers...We hold that DeMeo's reaction to the perplexing new world of the Aether which, for a glimpse, he saw at our premises, is no different from the reaction that most followers of Reich exhibited when he was the focus of investigation and harassment by private and public forces, or that friends turned enemies so callously and carelessly exhibited. This, we hold to be an evident truth - confirmed in public every time that a defender of Reichianism has attacked our own work.

At last comes the meat - even though DeMeo is convinced that what he saw was just Reich's Orgone Motor and not the improved Aether Motor we invented (!), he better hedge his bets - since he has lost all faith in us as 'scientific people', he may as well suggest that we may be up to some trick! Of course we are, James DeMeo, we are up to the trick of demonstrating that no matter how many Pulses of Planets you may publish, you will never find the key to the Aether/Orgone motors, neither Reich's nor ours, never be able to recognize where the discoveries lie, where the worth is, never be able to explain what is or is not orgone without, from now on, explicit reference to Aetherometry!

And since Reich is dead, and even you told us you think his archives have nothing of substance on this matter, then, unless we reveal how it works, you will never find out. Put that on your bread and eat it. Maybe it will bring you a fully deserved humility for being such a crass prick. As the saying goes, "humility not born of humiliation is just vanity".

Let us now address your feeble points regarding the Aether Motor:

"Specifically, I also point to the following problems with your demonstration: Several enclosed boxes integrated into your wiring remained unopened and concealed (you only opened one of the three for me to examine), and the wiring connecting the various components were bundled and confused with other wires in your lab for other experiments."

As the video we took of those very demonstrations shows, for the motor to rotate and the tubes to fire, the box we opened for you was amply sufficient - the subsidiary boxes only maximizing the output by improved synchronization of the massfree energy. And you agreed at the time with this rationale and the observation itself - since you saw the motor operating just with the box we opened up for you. This is another fact you now attempt to distort. Few, like us, will have had the chance to see through your armor this deeply.

The same video also shows that you followed to your heart's content all the wires that were relevant, those connecting the circuit box to the ORACs and a single wire running to a water pipe. So much bad conscience and memory on your part begs the entirety of Reich's study on the human armor and its ratio essendi. You truly learned nothing from what you witnessed at our laboratory - anymore than you did from your reading of Aetherometry, or Orgonomy for that matter. You would not even recognize Reich if he had returned to knock on your door. For what you desire is a cause, a cheap and universalistic cause to militate for - not the wonderment of a scientist at discovering the unknown properties of nature.

"Your set-up therefore was not clearly working in "isolation", and might have contained components which could have powered the apparatus by some conventional, but misunderstood source -- such as induction from power-line fields, as are found just behind your laboratory building where the spinner motor was demonstrated. Previously, I was willing to assume you had the capacities to evaluate and isolate these things, but today -- seeing how you react to serious criticisms of your experiments, and the way you steal away bits and pieces of Reich's work as your own -- I no longer trust your capacities as scientists.

This is puerile, James - we would be embarrassed to say such things, and are embarrassed at having to answer them. It is infantile in all senses. We know you would not resort to these allegations, were it not that you - and Reichianism - actually feel threatened by the theoretical and experimental findings of Aetherometry. If there are ways to run motors in the 10's of watts range from nearby power lines (even living right under them!, which we are not - since we are, at the very least, more than a kilometer away from any high power lines!), you should tell the world about it. But since we tune our Aether Motors and since we know exactly what it is we are doing and have to do, we can assure you that they are not tuned to Hydro lines, no matter how close or how far! Or to microwave emissions or to local radio stations for that matter...

We can only laugh at your desperate moves. You are willing to deny everything - the thermal anomaly discovered by Reich in Faraday cages, the antigravitational functions of the electroscope, the existence of the Orgone Motor or an Aether Motor embodiment, just to harm Aetherometry. You want to know why this knowledge is dangerous? Because it excites people like you into these heights of travestism, into these epiphanies of delusion and atavism. If we desired to divulge the key to the Aether Motor, it would never be our intention to do it through someone like you...

Aetherometry is dangerous because, simply because, it demolishes the myths that lie at the foundation of all previous scientific doctrines - whether it be classical theory, quantum mechanics, Relativity or Orgonomy. It is no more or no less threatening to the Reichian establishment than it is to other established churches vying for power, recognition and a little congregation. Just give it time.

Be this as it may, it is simply amazing that you can disbelieve what your own eyes, ears and body saw. And it proves Reich's contention to a T: knowledge of this amazing repressed reality of the Aether is dangerous to armored life - it reacts to it with irrational fears and suspicions, and eventually seeks an analog of understanding where there is none, by replacing Aether with power lines, radio stations, or microwave emissions. He called it the Air Germ Principle - which, when mixed with Sacrosanct Ignorance, produces the Emotional Plague.

Had we known, DeMeo, that you were and are afflicted by this disease so acutely as the facts put in evidence, you can be sure we would not have invited you up here for a session of pure joy.

The slip of the tongue is telling:

"I hope I am wrong, that you really have solved the "Y-factor" mystery, but given the incredibly deceitful and angry personal attack you now make against me for daring to criticize your work, I am no longer willing to take anything on faith."

And so you shouldn't - just suppose that what we are up to is a gigantic embarassement of idiots like you, a bit like Sokal did to the "Bédrouillards" of this world. Then you might as well begin by questioning whether Reich's Orgone Motor demonstration was also a trickery caused by power lines, etc. What do you call such changing faith - convictions?

Or you may as well continue by questioning the ridiculous data you have amalgamated to suggest that cloudbusting - as you practice it - is anything other than an ascientific mystification. A matter of faith.

And then you may as well proceed to analyze the ethnographic evidence that disproves your Saharasian contentions about the origins of war - which you assimilate to Patriarchy - and the nature of nomadic societies, as well as about the origins of the State. For what you have written in Saharasia is pure leftist, quasi-Leninist claptrap loosely based upon Reich's weak work on the historical origins of sexual repression, and which manages to assimilate patrilineal societies to patriarchy and matrilineal societies to matriarchy. It has been more than sixty years since Levi-Strauss and other structuralists undid this ridiculous neo-Marxist interpretation of the ethnographic record. And it has been nearly thirty years since the Anti-Oedipus dispatched the malady of Freudo-Marxism to the ashcan of History. You could benefit from diversifying your readings.

But back to the Aether/Orgone motors -

"If your demonstration is truly a self-sustainable reaction, working without outside power as you claim, then it should be relatively simple for you to make a demonstration of the components outside of your laboratory, in an open place away from power lines and confused wiring, and with the electronics in transparent boxes to prove there's no power-producing components."

The exercise is humoristic enough that we should perform it: let us imagine what Reich would say to a treacherous ally who sprang on him such a glib critique and now demanded, after a demonstration of the Orgone Motor, that he reproduce it under the conditions just described. What he would say is precisely what we say: screw you. If we wanted to show the world exactly how it worked, do you think we would have asked you to sign our confidential disclosure agreement beforehand? Or that it would be you we would have called to witness the event? Or that we would have filed for patents to protect our interests? This uncautious we have never been.

As to what we will disclose or not disclose publicly, this is a matter of a love affair between our knowledge and the cosmos such as we know it. In the same way we do not presume to know everything about it - nor should you. Try it, it is good for the health and it liberates the future from the beat of a drum.

We will unveil everything only when and if we find the time is right. Go ahead - publish whatever you have to publish and be done with it. What we have to tell is a millions light-years away from what you imagine it is. But first, get a hold of this: no more than it resided in the nature of the spinner motors, the key to the Aether or ORgone Motors does not reside in Factor Y. Just as, before, you and other Reichians thought the KS spinner motor was all-important (an icon...), now that you and others have managed to find a few spinner motors but cannot make them go from orgone accumulators, now it must 'just' be Factor Y. Monotonous, incredibly monotonous.

If either of these were the simple and complete keys, you and others would have long ago decoded it and managed to make it work. That is the truth, the simple and humiliating truth.

"Eugene Mallove, Editor of Infinite Energy, made a very rational proposal along these lines, that you should make and sell the entire motor set-up, as demonstration units."

And sometime down the road, in a not too distant future, we may well do just that - but when we choose, when, and if, we gauge the time to be right, and not when someone with so little grasp of the monumental issues at stake imagines that we 'should'.

And that was never our purpose - any more than it was to become commodity traders of kit technology, be it Aether Motors or PAGD devices. Our purpose was to draw the attention of this slumbering world to a new science that, amongst many other feats, has decoded the intrinsic fine structure of the electron and proton, of their kinetic energies, and as well of massfree charges. Of course, you never actually managed to read any of our monographs - and as you are mathematically challenged, what would you know of this? But you do well know - for we made this abundantly clear to you at the time of your visit - that our business interests concern finding adequate capital to bring this knowledge to the public in a benign fashion, to allow these technologies to become commercially viable products - and that we have no interest in cottage industry gimmicks. And it is precisely this objective which you have consistently sought to hinder, as is now plainly evident with your insidious sowing of suspicions and insinuations of possible omissions.

"If your finding on the orgone motor is true and correct, then you have a clear and open field in which to prove yourselves, or not, to sink or swim. If you fail, it will not be due to anyone but yourselves."

Ah, yes, we have heard this kind of ersatz folk wisdom often enough, but it is rather humorous to hear it from a supposed admirer of Reich. Should one conclude, then, that Reich's own finding of the Orgone motor was not "true and correct"? Or is it that his failure to "prove himself" in the "clear and open field" was "not due to anyone but himself"? And what are the concrete experiences on which you base this piece of commodity wisdom? As for ourselves, we have accumulated many years of concrete experience very much to the contrary - years during which we were trying to find support in the "clear and open field", precisely along these lines, for our PAGD technology. Did the open box demonstrations or the patents or the support of people infinitely better than you, help us then? And you - did you ever do anything for the PAGD technology to come to fruition - even a mere mention on your list?

One thing you can be sure of, DeMeo - it has always been by ourselves that we achieved what we have to date in biology and physics. There never was a single 'orgonomist' who helped us. Much on the contrary - it is a long list of those who sought to hinder us! And we are grateful for that fact - for it has been a stern and constant teacher. We welcome its eternal recurrence. Aside for that momentary failure of your armor when, pleased and impressed with what you saw, you generously threw in your belated gift of a KS-9154, you have never helped us. But you have surely since then tried to harm us. Let others figure out why, but by considering both sides. And if they cannot endure our thought, you are most welcome to their sympathy.

3. Wrapping up...maybe not.

For all that we care, you can throw the bread to the people and run the circus. You are the naked emperor, fit to inherit Reich's imaginary mantle.

"Links to your materials are also provided in this email for those who want both sides of the issue, and I expect you to likewise post a link to my web page, so people can get the opposing view from your side."

There is no quidproquo. We shall not link to your trash. People who want to go to it can get to it on their own. If you want to play for peanuts, it is your grace.

"However, I do not give you permission to post my letters or emails to your web site. Creating a document from clips of our emails will only serve to evade the more central issue, which is your scientific claims as made in the S-2 papers posted to your web site, and condensed in Infinite Energy."

We wished you had stuck to this, in effect, but without brandishing it as a sword over our heads. Moreover, the e-mail correspondence focused on mostly confidential material we disclosed to you, and which is and was, de facto and de jure, under the rubric of our nondisclosure agreement. Your material admission, in your e-mails, of having broken our confidentiality, your passing around your Critique to select anonymous scientists, plus your posture of a wider impugnation of the correctness, experimental and theoretical, of Aetherometry - which is a science that effectively you do not master or understand - make it necessary to publish our correspondence, after deleting what are obvious personal passages that concern us or you. Make no mistakes about it - this is the publicization of the private to which we are entitled in order to defend our interests which you have covertly harmed. The mail which is published is not 'personal', as you choose to suggest, but addresses precisely the very issues now at stake, issues of science.

"If you never published those papers, or included in those papers so much dismissive commentary and sleight-of-hand with respect to Reich's work, we would not now be having this pointed exchange."

It had already become clear to us that you wanted to punish us for our joy in destroying that which the proverbial gospel describes as the beam in the eye of the beholder. We should be punished for criticizing or not paying homage to the reams of mysticisms and other garbage that claims a mutilated Reich as the proof of faith in Reichianism. We would not be having this exchange if you and others chose to stop distorting Reich's work and thereby ceased blocking others from doing anything intelligent with it. If you have anyone to blame, blame your misinterpretation of Reich which Aetherometry has made apparent, and which our Counter-critique summarizes in the last section - Section III - "To Be Done with the Judgement of Anorgonomy".

"Your larger theory of aetherometry -- which is erected upon the findings of Reich but which you attempt to substitute as an alternative to Reich's orgonomy -- simply cannot be supported by the data and arguments you present."

We hope you will live long enough to choke on these words. Aetherometry is not a substitute for Reich's Orgonomy. It is a new science which corrects the mistakes in Reich's Orgonomy, no less than the mistakes in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or the mistakes of deBroglie's Matter-waves, or the foolishness of Relativity, etc. There are no Messiahs and we are no Einsteins. This is called the 'natural progression of science'. It owes much to Reich - as it does to others before Reich, like Einstein, Tesla, Bergson and Nietzsche, etc, as it does to others after Reich, like Aspden, Szenty-Gyorgy or Deleuze. You fail to grasp even this, because you have been unable to actually read our monographs with the eyes of wonderment and newness they demand. You are living proof that these studies were written only for the very few. All your complaints are there to mask this simple inability to read carefully.

4. Your point is beyond being addressed.


5. If we did not quote any other Reichians, it is because they are beyond the pale of quotability.

Finally, you pretend to defend the indefensible - that nearly half a century passed before anyone performed a stringent replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment, or conducted around the clock experiments on naked Faraday cages or layered ORACs in the shade or directly exposed to sun, or demonstrated how blackbody radiation theory cannot account for the thermal anomaly of these devices precisely when they are atmospherically exposed to solar radiation. Of all the discoveries reported in the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry, you focus on one: the thermal anomaly that you believe is merely a thermal lag - and a single monograph, AS2-05 - thereby ignoring its nexus with all the other discoveries we have authored and reported in the other monographs of the two volumes of Experimental Aetherometry - and which were not made by Reich nor any other Reichian. A list of these discoveries - which remains unaddressed by you to this day, let it be said loud and clear! - can be found in our e-mail of August 22nd, and in Appendix 1 below.

And since, though you frequently refer to enlightened Reichian writings which you claim address the subject matter of the many discoveries of Aetherometric Science, but consistently neglect to cite or elaborate their authors or relevant portions, we can only conclude that you gratuitously indulge in flag-waving:

"Just as your claim there have been no advances or genuine replications of Reich over the years is false. The advancements may be minor details as compared to the very large contributions of Reich, but that's another issue entirely -- the replication studies of Reich's original findings are significant and published. (...) Judging from the lack of explicit citations in your publications, it appears your knowledge of the published works by Reich's followers is extremely limited. Whereas before I criticized you for an apparently willful failure-to-cite the various unnamed scientists you were attacking and dismissing wholesale, now I suspect you simply don't know what's been published -- otherwise you would not be "citing" so much unreliable stuff from the internet and from lay researchers -- why do you "cite" several of the Reich enthusiasts who were never trained in scientific methods, who do not hold advanced degrees and who never held university or research posts, but ignore all the persons who did recieve such training, degrees and held university posts, in the context of a scientific discussion which hinges upon matters of experimental natural science?"

Besides 'experts' on seedling growths a la DeMeo, what scientists are there from the establishment that have performed a single of the experiments reported in Volumes 1 or 2 of Experimental Aetherometry? NONE - see if DeMeo comes up with a single one that addresses any of the Data Figures or Tables or Procedures reported in those volumes. We challenge him, once again (as we have for months now) to provide such references.

Indeed, if we refer only to Reich when discussing the real problems of Orgonomy, and refrain from referring to the current zombified Anorgonomy that passes for the real thing, this is, in fact, a good sign of not not wanting bad company; of discriminating between what matters and what does not - what is science and what is abortion of science. To speak Nietzsche's language - it is a sign of good taste. Or does your political correctness also intend to abrogate good taste?

It is also too good not to be remarked - this notion that you hold onto, as if it were some form of rationality, that only those with university degrees should be able to enter the fray. This is all the more curious as you hold no degree in either Physics or Biology, but a masters in Geography spent on dubious cloudbusting operations, and an arts Ph.D in what is effectively Saharasianism. To our knowledge, you have never performed a rigorous scientific experiment or published a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - your knowledge of mathematics and statistics is woefully inadequate and your grasp of biology virtually nil. And it is armed with these degrees that you now choose to make the apologia of that very same University and universitarians that have glorified the irrationality of Relativity and destroyed the credibility of Reich?...and we never pulled rank with you! Imagine if we did.

Ah, but wait, here comes the Judgement of God:

"Factually, the entire range of your actions in this matter have been wholly unprofessional and unethical. It appears directed towards setting yourselves up as the sole authorities on Reich, or yourselves as the "New Einsteins", something attempted by evading rational criticism, and by thrashing down every other researcher in this field with a blanket of poisonous dismissals. It won't work."

Starlet dreams? Highly unlikely. It might be that unwittingly we just dashed yours - and those of other pretenders who have sought to reduce the critical importance of what Reich discovered in biophysics, including medicine and psychiatry. Indeed, dear James Doctor-of-what-we-know-nothing-of, you will not get out, this easily, from the momentous decision that our epoch has to make - and you too: whether to be, or not, on the side of the Cosmos and the Intelligence of the Moment.

We know, for our part, that our work is exceptional - and many generations will pass before humanity will come to realize its importance and the amazing gift it consisted of. But you see, we never expected any free ride nor any generosity from our epoch - what you, plastic simulations of people, call 'just rewards'. There are none. Becoming a starlet is no reward but a damnation. The only reward there is, lies in the work itself. And maybe, here and there, in teaching a little lesson to small-time operators that are eager to believe they can ride the coat-tails of the hard work of others.

You will not succeed in muzzling us, as you have done to others - nor in distorting our work, as you have done to Reich. But you may shepherd the weak.

In love as in war; hostages to an epoch, but not slaves to it -

Alexandra Correa, HBA
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD

PS - Your PS is most curious and characteristic of a certain brand of mafiosi, who pretend to have something to negotiate for, or bargain with, other than the fear of being EXPOSED for what they are - fully incapable of admiring and reasoning. Notice, at last, that we have hardly suffered because you now have a bad opinion of us - anymore than we took pleasure in whatever good opinion you previously held. Our concern, as you might have casually remarked to yourself, is not doxa but the combat for knowledge. Muzzle us, if you can.

"The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they can use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole"



On DeMeo's Abstract and Introduction

Since this is new material we had not seen, there are some new comments we want to make, though just a few - given that most of what DeMeo says here is merely reiteration of other points he made in his so-called Critique and which we already addressed in our Counter-critique.

If the reader can be made to believe that DeMeo's Critique is constructive, then he or she needs a dose of reality, and that is the function of our Counter-critique. Notice how his abstract concentrates upon one monograph alone, AS2-05. Of course we stand behind it and our data - but it is curious how DeMeo seeks to demolish Aetherometry on a point which belongs entirely to Reich's Orgonomy and was deemed by Reich as being critical to his own theory.

Of all the gross lies and fabrications that DeMeo engages upon, there is a new one in his abstracts which is priceless - he claims quite confusedly:

"However, the claim that the retardation of discharge rates within orgone accumulators is an affect [sic!] of electromagnetic photons of different frequencies - suggesting a link with solar-thermal energy - was founded upon an unsupported claim that relative humidity factors in the local environment played no role in electroscopical discharge, and could be ignored."

There could not be a better illustration of the fact that DeMeo has not understood anything about Experimental Aetherometry, let alone Aetherometry tout court!

The actual reader will realize that what we have done in the published material regarding this matter is this:

1. We showed ( AS2-01; AS2-02) that a nonelectromagnetic, nonelectric factor (ie not monopolar or massbound electric) contributed by solar radiation, arrests electroscopic discharge at midday (oh, there is plenty of morning data, but DeMeo persists in not finding it) irrespective of the polarity of the charged electroscope. We named it the antigravitational kinetoregenerative phenomenon, following our functionalist treatment of the electroscope based upon Reich's Orgonomic Pendulum Law and Carnot's and Aspden's treatment of the pendulum.

2. Next, we showed that this phenomenon is greatly amplified in ORACs or even in simple Faraday cages ( AS2-06).

3. Then we showed that the kinetoregenerative phenomenon is not a thermal effect, not per se, ie not the result of sensible heat ( AS2-06).

4. Since we also discovered that LFOT light (WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS A CONCEPT AND A FUNCTION FIRST DEFINED BY AETHEROMETRY) can induce kinetoregeneration of trapped electroscopic charges (AS2-08), we then questioned whether the phenomenon inside ORACs was induced electromagnetically.

5. But a simple set of control experiments ( AS2-08) demonstrated this could not be the case inside ORACs. We were left to conclude ( AS2-08; AS2-17), by careful elimination never before performed, that the kinetoregenerative phenomenon of ORACs is caused by the latent heat they trap (by the high intrinsic potential energy of the air molecules inside ORACs) - AND NOT BY PHOTONS OF ANY TYPE, BE THEY LFOT OR NOT.


In regard to the distinction between OR and DOR: the reader should read our Counter-critique, where it is succinctly explained how ambipolar massfree electric radiation produces the blackbody spectra of LFOT and HFOT photons through interaction with Matter (most significantly leptonic), BUT CANNOT BE CONFUSED WITH THEM!!! The Counter-critique also demonstrates - for the reader - what it is that ORANUR consists of, and what are the fundamental misconceptions of ORANUR that DeMeo continues to broadcast (eg in his Orgone Accumulator Handbook).

There could not be a more obvious fabrication of our work, and a worst reading of what it is we said and did. And DeMeo is so out to lunch on this matter of LFOT and HFOT photons, that he thinks that any errors he imagines we might have made regarding humidity and temperature measurements, would affect one iota the relation between electromagnetism and ambipolar radiation discovered by Aetherometry! -

"The subsequent interpretation of Lfot and Hfot photons as the underlying mechanism for Reich's orgone and one of its qualitative states, dor energy, rested upon this unproven assumption (of no role for humidity in electroscopical functions) which is opposed by a wealth of classical theory and findings. It also rests upon temperature arguments derived from the above-mentioned experiments with considerable missing data.

Even this here epoch will laugh at this one. But still more priceless is the next gem -

"The authors also make a criticism of Reich's concept of the "org", but do not recognize that Reich had abandoned that concept and approach later in his research, after the oranur experiment."

Now, the reader who will have bothered to read our Counter-critique (pp. 26-29; p. 58 and p. 62), will realize that DeMeo, in his Critique, claimed the above notion, not for the 'org', but for the concept of OP, or orgonotic potential, in reference to our AS2-03. And he or she will then remember the anecdotic and abusive evidence DeMeo gave to assert that Reich, after the Oranur Experiment, had abandoned the concept of the electroscopic OP...Now, he replaces OP with org, makes the same gratuitous statement which he will never be able to substantiate by reference to Reich himself, and does not even realize that we did not criticize Reich's concept of the 'org': we quantified it!!

"There is a virtual absence of citations to the work of other scientists who have published literally hundreds of papers on the subject of orgone biophysics in the English-language alone, in at least six different journals (three of which were edited by Reich) over the 60 years since Reich first came to America. This absence of citations exists when the Correas make harsh dismissive comments about all that work, as well as when they make claims about scientific issues where the work of others is clearly germane - in this latter context, the author's failure-to-cite makes them appear ignorant of the published literature."

Again DeMeo continues to flog this dead horse, and as always he provides no pertinent references. As far as we are concerned, not all papers are born equal - some are worthy of citation, others are not. Since the work of volume 1 of Experimental Aetherometry concerns Reich's Orgonometry - Reich is indubitably the source. However, the new methods introduced in each monograph we wrote, and the fact that all these papers DeMeo alludes to hardly qualify either as being germane to our methodologies or as something other than anecdotes exemplifying poor research, warrant on our part a selectivity about who and what we quote. The naked truth is that no Reichian has, to this day, discovered anything new in the terrain of Aether Physics that Reich had not investigated and understood a million times better. It is the poverty of this research, supported by many colleges, physicians and even the odd senator, which has come home to roost in the form of a profound inability to comprehend the scientific issues at stake - and a total incapacity to hit the nail on the head.

"While the authors displayed a sympathy for Wilhelm Reich's work, expressing a desire to rehabilitate him in the eyes of the classical scientific world, they appear committed to doing so only within the context of their own aetherometric theory."

What would DeMeo have us do? Be committed to doing so in the name of Marxism, Reichianism, Saharasianism, Social-Biology, Nanotechnology, Fish-Wives United????

"They claim to "correct" Reich on various points, which by itself is certainly a legitimate thing to attempt - no scientific work is beyond critical review and rational correction- but this is attempted from the problematic foundations summarized in this document."

It is hard to believe that DeMeo could believe that those errors of Reich which can and must be confronted by the scientific spirit are only there to be 'corrected', and that this 'correction' depends essentially upon what we wrote in Volume 1 of Aetherometry. As far as we are concerned, we could be wrong about much in this volume, about the 'corrections' we made to Orgonometry regarding the electric and nonelectric theories of the electroscope, regarding the instrumental value of the OP, regarding the positive result of the Reich-Einstein experiment, regarding the thermal anomaly in ORACs which DeMeo claims is mere thermal lag, when he doesn't know what it is a lag of... It would suffice that we were correct about just everything that belongs to Volume 2, or even the volumetric structure of the electron, for those errors of Reich to be just as real as they are when we describe them in Volume 1, or for our entire aetherometric effort to have been worth it.

Only small men make judgements of smallness on the basis of their lack of perspective on their own perspective: what soars high always looks small to that which stays below.

"More irritating,however, is where the Correas take some of Reich's original observations and concepts, and simply reword and present them in new aetherometric terms, as if they were the products of the Correa's aetherometry, rather than of Reich's orgonomy. "

We should very much like to have such imaginary instances pointed out to us...

"From all this - the incomplete data, quick dismissals of valid classical concepts, misrepresentations of Reich's findings, etc. - the authors conclude their aetherometry is a more scientifically valid and superior understanding of Nature and Reich's discoveries, than what Reich developed in his original orgonomy. The result is a net diminishment of Reich, who is presented as both genius and incompetent, his work finally "corrected" of claimed "errors" and assumed oversights, and vigorously "swept clean" of his problematic long-time supporters and defenders , whose work is dismissed with an arrogant contempt, and no explicit critique. Only the Correas, then, remain to correctly inform us about Reich. Reich's revolutionary orgonomy is thereby filtered down and absorbed into a flawed and more narrow,theoretically top-heavy "aetherometry"."

This indictement is priceless - simply priceless! For these various reasons, ladies and gentlemen, we concur with the prosecutor: the Correas should be expelled from the Reichian Party, the Reichian International! Only they have never been members of it. Happy as crabs running on the seashore sand, they have a revulsion for parties, sects, churches and clubs. And opinions, doxa.

Some diminishment of Reich... - where the Chandala of revolutionaries and the radical headdress of conservatives merge in the prosecutor's figure to denounce, in no uncertain terms, the serious and committed scientific work of discoverers. No, DeMeo - we claim no mantle from a despot, but instead claim the simple fact of our discoveries.

"It is the recommendation of this reviewer, that all the disparaging statements be removed from the S-2 and subsequent publications, or alternatively be restated in a highly explicit manner with names and citations so everyone will know exactly what, and about whom the authors are being critical."

We may as well suppress Aetherometry, while we're at it. Frankly, we would rather transmit our science imperceptibly, even in the guise of political commentary, than have such bad readers. All those that can believe DeMeo's contention that -

"they have a very high standard to meet, which in fact has not been met in their aetherometry publications"

can wait their lifetime to know, and are well advised to stay away. As for the standard of our publications, we hope we ourselves made it - and no one else, no self-elected peer or jury, and certainly not our epoch. Aetherometry did not supplant Orgonomy, because there is nothing to supplant. Orgonomy died the day Reich was murdered.

And Aetherometry is simply the justice of his eternal sleep. The justice of science.


  "learn to fly
where only eagles dare to try"
Procol Harum, 1991




A few basic aetherometric discoveries for which DeMeo has failed to show any prior Reichian art:

1. A stringent replication of the (indoor) Reich-Einstein experiment with a naked ORAC.

2. A demonstration of the nonequivalence of the work performed by charge against charge with the work performed by trapped charge against terrestrial gravity.

3. An electroscopic study of atmospheric leakage AND SEEPAGE rates.

4. A single experimental and comparative test of leakage AND SEEPAGE rates inside ORACs.

5. A physical and mathematical demonstration of the uselessness of the concept of OP.

6. A formal and experimental demonstration of two different actions of reverse potentials at work in living systems, the ground and water - radiative nonelectric draw versus electric contact draw.

7. A readily reproducible method for the determination of the charged states of the electroscope - including the identification of the novel contact-control charging method.

8. A demonstration, both experimental and formal, that blackbody radiation does not account for the sensible heat observed to evolve inside and above ORACs.

9. A comparative study of black versus white ORACs.

10. A demonstration of the functional energetic equivalence of the org.

11. The experimental discovery of the kinetoregenerative power of LFOT photons.

12. A re-examination of the Hallwacks effect, and the discovery that it also affects seepage rates, unlike what is accepted by the current theory of the photoelectric effect.

13. A study demonstrating that OR energy induces LFOT photons and DOR energy induces HFOT photons, both of which are distinct, formally and experimentally, from ionizing radiation, with their limits being provided, along with a new functional mathematical theory of massfree energy, latent heat, gravitation and sensible heat.

14. A chemical study of the allotropic cycle of oxygen and water, where enthalpies are balanced and DOR-induced HFOT photons as well as OR-induced LFOT photons are identified.

15. A physical and mathematical process for the asymmetric creation of massbound monopolar charges arising from secondary superimposition of identified Aether energy elements.

Even one reference for each of the above would suffice!

(And note that there are no mentions of Aether or OR motors in the above list....)



The Correas' reply to a letter from Dr. Courtney F. Baker, published in #39 of Infinite Energy, concerning the Correas' article The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions (Infinite Energy #37):


Much as we regret to say this, Dr. Baker does not seem to have understood what our article The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions was about. It was about Einstein's verification of the thermal anomaly discovered by Reich in Faraday cages, whether or not they were surrounded by dielectric insulation. Had Einstein confirmed Reich's results and had Reich thereby obtained the supportive publicity he rightfully expected, we doubt that Dr. Baker would begrudge to the jointly conducted experiment the title "the Reich-Einstein Experiment", would he?

Since Reich and Einstein could not agree on the outcome or continuation of the validation experiment they had initiated, and since their exchange of letters stalled - mostly due to Einstein's failure to follow up on the joint project (these authors believe that emotional and political reasons, just as well as scientific ones, account for this) but also, one might legitimately say, due to Reich's failure to provide an unequivocal control - this experiment, which could potentially have been so critical to the theories of both thinkers, was de facto bungled. And, we could add, a constellation of political and social forces which has remained in place to this day has prevented any scientific airing of the matter on either side.

In this essay, we were not interested in confronting the entirety of the other issues raised by Reich in his long letter of rebuttal to Einstein; that is the matter of The Einstein Affair. We were interested in focusing only upon the Reich-Einstein experiment - what we think is the crux of that affair - such as it was conducted and such as it became de facto narrowed down to the effect of a naked Faraday cage (see the record cited in extensio in our paper). Specifically, we were interested in:

1. Experimentally addressing Infeld's convective current objection - something which we contended in our essay Reich never properly did with any of his controls; 2. making the experiment so stringent that the temperature difference would reduce to zero if such were possible; and 3. following the results of this set-up around the clock.

Dr. Baker's statements of what would be the better way to proceed indicate he missed entirely the rationale of our paper. We were not, in any way, attempting to maximize the temperature difference but, instead, to minimize it or eliminate it altogether if one could! That is why it was a stringent replication!

We found that, by employing a simple control which others had not come up with before, and conducting the experiment indoors, under stringently controlled conditions - designed specifically to be as disadvantageous as possible - the thermal anomaly still remained and was irreducible. None of the papers Dr. Baker cites did this: none explored To-T with a simple Faraday cage employed as a suspended control, in the absence of significant thermal radiation, and equalizing any and all convection currents over long time periods, i.e. effectively addressing Infeld's objection. We did not, in this paper, set out to study the ORAC per se, but the irreducibility of the thermal anomaly under the most disadvantageous and the simplest conditions. This was never done, which is a tribute to the slowness of even an orgonomist's understanding of what is at stake. However, if Dr. Baker or other IE readers would like to improve upon their understanding of the ORACs, then we recommend a careful reading of our ABRI monograph AS2-05 entitled "The thermal anomaly in ORACs and the Reich-Einstein experiment: implications for blackbody theory", available from AKRONOS Publishing at www.aetherometry.com.

Lastly, since Dr. Baker claims to be an expert in measuring orgone energy (rather than just temperature differences), perhaps he can tell the readers of IE whether "orgone" energy carries electric charge or not, and just what are the exact ranges of this energy - in orgs, ergs or joules will do. If he cannot, then perhaps he might wish to learn about it at the above website. It is never too late to learn.

Obviously, the work of W. Reich has been the object of organized suppression by official physics. Sadly, however, in these authors' view, it is too often the officiating "orgonomists" who further muddle Reich's work and thereby impede the continued understanding of nature.


Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA