FBI had a conspiracy theory about Richard Feynman

[noncryptic]

Richard Feynman's FBI Files Released
Slashdot
June 06 2012

"The FBI files of noted physicist, esteemed author and all-around geek Richard Feynman have been released. Feynman and the FBI had an extended encounter after the Bureau discovered he had been invited to speak at the USSR, which set off a flurry of investigations into his loyalty — even as he pestered the State Department for guidance on whether he should or shouldn't go, guidance they only gave belatedly. Of particular interest to the FBI was his avid devotion to the art of lock picking, his high school membership in a socialism club (for social reasons, he swore), and the fact that he was a godless scientist who loved his bongo drums. Original documents are available. One other element? A seven-page letter detailing a conspiracy theory that Feynman was a sleeper agent for enemies unknown, but probably communist ones."

[grapes]

A seven page letter on Feynman being a sleeper agent? Sounds like an exercise assigned to a junior agent to encourage thinking outside the box.

[noncryptic]

Sure it sounds funny but was serious enough that Feynman was caught up for a bit in McCarthy's anti-communist dragnet, the same that messed up the lives of more than a few people. That's no joking matter. Apparently national security policy is was driven by that sort of thinking outside the box.

In an interview Feynman talks about his role in the investigation of the Challenger space shuttle accident, he tells that in hindsight he concluded he was manipulated/steered 'from up high' to get onto the right track regarding that investigation. He also had outside support for his famous and controversial final words of the report.
So possibly Feynman had 'friends in high places' (unbeknownst to him) who protected him even back then, if for no other reason than that he was just to important as a scientist to be thrown to the wolves.


Quest for Tannu Tuva (Part 4/5)
http://www.feynmanphysicslectures.co...u-tuva/tuva-p4

"....I found out later, that while i though i was doing something independently, i was being "worked" - operated by somebody else who wanted to get something done without involving himself.
Those guys are clever, you know. I think i'm running around on my own hook, getting a clue here and a clue there. But those clues where just little taps to make me run in the right direction. I was being had to a certain extent, on the other hand i enjoyed it. It was fun to see what that crazy place is like."

[HenrikOlsen]

In an interview Feynman talks about his role in the investigation of the Challenger space shuttle accident, he tells that in hindsight he concluded he was manipulated/steered 'from up high' to get onto the right track regarding that investigation. He also had outside support for his famous and controversial final words of the report.
So possibly Feynman had 'friends in high places' (unbeknownst to him) who protected him even back then, if for no other reason than that he was just to important as a scientist to be thrown to the wolves.

From one of the books he wrote (I'm afraid I can't remember which one) it was clear that he thought the engineers were perfectly aware of the cause but were unable to tell him outright because they'd warned about the potential for disaster before the accident and had been told to shut up. But they did help steer him in the right direction through which parts of the data they were most eager to provide information about.

[stutefish]

Given Feynman's involvement in topics of national security and potentially global strategic interest, I would be surprised if the FBI didn't have a dossier on him as long as my arm, highlighting all sorts of trivial Feynmaniana that might turn out to be relevant later on.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "conspiracy theory", though. Not the way the word is usually used around here, anyway. I know we don't normally talk about politics, but the relationship between the USSR and the US is often brought up as a counter to Apollo CTs (since they require complicity from known and dire enemy of the US). So I'll invoke that relationship here: Given what was known at the time about the USSR, looking into the possibility of connections between it and people like Feynman is, IMHO, a totally reasonable precaution.

[Van Rijn]

Given Feynman's involvement in topics of national security and potentially global strategic interest, I would be surprised if the FBI didn't have a dossier on him as long as my arm, highlighting all sorts of trivial Feynmaniana that might turn out to be relevant later on.

I was going to say the same thing. Given what he worked on, there is no doubt the FBI would have a thick dossier on him. And then with his hacker attitude, his sense of humor, his eccentricities, and the way he would show security problems by demonstration, no doubt some things would be jotted down in his dossier.

[vonmazur]

"Ahem, surely you're joking Mister Feynman..." (From one of his books?)

Dale

[noncryptic]

But they did help steer him in the right direction through which parts of the data they were most eager to provide information about.

That's entirely possible, but those engineers are probably not the individual who Feynman described as "somebody else who wanted to get something done without involving himself".

Given Feynman's involvement in topics of national security and potentially global strategic interest, I would be surprised if the FBI didn't have a dossier on him

"Having a dossier" on someone is not entirely the same as suspecting that person of being a communist (or otherwise anti-American) agent.
The former sounds harmless, the latter is not - and the latter is reality (in the case of Feynman without much consequence, but in that he's an exception).

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "conspiracy theory", though.
Not the way the word is usually used around here, anyway.

Popular convention versus formal definition. I'm aware that this particular forum is more one of fun and games than of serious discussion - a virtually inevitable result of the constraints placed by the rules (which are understandable given the context of the website).

Within law enforcement the words "conspiracy" and "theory" are routinely spoken in the same breath, just not usually one immediately after the other.

[R.A.F.]

I'm aware that this particular forum is more one of fun and games than of serious discussion...

I don't agree at all...why would you say that this forum isn't for "serious discussion".

[Gillianren]

Within law enforcement the words "conspiracy" and "theory" are routinely spoken in the same breath, just not usually one immediately after the other.

That, if true (and it doesn't appear to be based on my reading), is because law enforcement doesn't understand what the word "theory" means. Conspiracies are real; conspiracy theories generally are not. In fact, that's why I've generally stopped using the term when I can. "Theory" implies that there's a whole lot more reality involved than conspiracy theories do.

And, yes, in the FBI of that era, having a dossier was often synonymous with suspecting they were a Communist. Do a little reading about J. Edgar Hoover.

[Luckmeister]

I'm aware that this particular forum is more one of fun and games than of serious discussion - a virtually inevitable result of the constraints placed by the rules (which are understandable given the context of the website).

Perhaps you're saying that because many conspiracy ideas proposed here are downright laughable from the getgo but they are seriously responded to by the majority of the membership, in fact responses show that many members invest quite a bit of time in research for their answers. It's also a fact that moderators chastise us if we treat the ideas frivolously.

[stutefish]

"Having a dossier" on someone is not entirely the same as suspecting that person of being a communist (or otherwise anti-American) agent.

My bad; I was using the terms interchangeably, not trying to downplay the seriousness of what went on.

What I was trying to say is that investigating the possibility that someone like Feynman has ties to the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, an entirely reasonable precaution. It's easy for us to look back with 20/20 hindsight, and without having any responsibility for matters of national security, and without being charged with confronting the realities of the Cold War every day... it's easy for us to say that Feynman was harmless and the FBI was overreacting.

Easy, but wrong, in my opinion. I think it is part of the FBI's responsibility to have these kinds of suspicions, and to follow up on them in a responsible manner.

The former sounds harmless, the latter is not - and the latter is reality (in the case of Feynman without much consequence, but in that he's an exception).

Is he, though? I don't think we really have any metrics on how many people the FBI investigates for reasons of national security, versus how many of them are harmed by the process. It may very well be that Feynman is the norm.

Didn't he work on the Manhattan Project? That must have involved thousands of people, all of whom probably were "suspected of being Soviet agents" by the FBI, in the sense that the FBI investigated the possibility and kept the results on file, and kept track of the subjects to some extent.

It's part of the FBI's job to act suspicious of people in positions of national importance, and who have the freedom of action to put the nation at risk by virtue of that position.

What else could they have done?

[Noldi400]

"Having a dossier" on someone is not entirely the same as suspecting that person of being a communist (or otherwise anti-American) agent.
The former sounds harmless, the latter is not - and the latter is reality (in the case of Feynman without much consequence, but in that he's an exception).

Following the links, it appears the "7 page letter" was from a would-be tipster outside the FBI; naturally it was filed in Dr. Feynman's dossier, but there's no indication that it was followed up on or taken very seriously. And it looks like the term "conspiracy theory" was applied by the writer at slashdot. The letter itself reads like something that could have been written by... well, I'll not call names, but if Dr. F. were an astronaut he might have been tempted to take a punch at him.

[noncryptic]

why would you say that this forum isn't for "serious discussion".

Because the consensus here seems to be that "conspiracy theories generally are not true".
How does one go about seriously discussing something that one thinks is not true?

No doubt many of the participants are serious, but i do see a lot of ridicule in this forum (certainly a lot more than in astronomy Q&A), and the occasional thread that contains little else.

That, if true (and it doesn't appear to be based on my reading), is because law enforcement doesn't understand what the word "theory" means. Conspiracies are real; conspiracy theories generally are not.

On the other hand, within a scientific approach "theories" are generally 'true'.

Law enforcement does not know whether or not a conspiracy that they suspect might exist in relation to a crime that's under investigation is true or not, until they have investigated possible leads that emerge from theories they develop about that suspected conspiracy.

In that the meaning of the word "theory" isn't all that different than what it means in science.

To say that "conspiracy theory" means something different than "a theory about a conspiracy" is to use a very liberal definition of the word "theory" - as is typical in the every-day use of the term "conspiracy theory", where the primary point seems to be to ridicule the very idea of having theory about a conspiracy.

Seriously: how would you determine whether or not a conspiracy is real -without- developing one or more theories about it? How does one investigate anything, without theory?

Of course people can and do have theories about conspiracies that do not exists, in which case that particular theory is nonsense. Although just as in science it's not always so clear-cut beforehand, and it certainly does not not mean that theories about conspiracy are generally not true.

I don't think we really have any metrics on how many people the FBI investigates for reasons of national security, versus how many of them are harmed by the process.

We do have some metrics, because much of what the FBI was doing in the '60s and '70s regarding the anti-war movement has since been released. Scores of students and professors in academia were "on the list". At least one rather well known scientist (of whom the name has escaped me) who worked on the Manhattan project was side-lined as a result even though he was not a communist agent.
I'd like to say something about how that is these days, but i think the forum rules prohibit saying anything other about it than that "we don't know".

As far as harm goes:

American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War
http://www.amazon.com/American-Scien.../dp/080782447X
"...Jessica Wang demonstrates the stifling effects of anticommunist ideology on the politics of science. She exposes the deep divisions over the Cold War within the scientific community and provides a complex story of hard choices, a community in crisis, and roads not taken."

[Gillianren]

The reason we go in with the premise that conspiracy theories aren't generally true is that not one has yet met the burden of proof. In any field. It's limited here to space-related conspiracies, but that's largely because this is a space-themed board. You can go over to Apollo Hoax, where non-space conspiracism is discussed, and nothing there has ever met the burden of proof, either. Bulletin boards where conspiracy theories are taken seriously are the ones with low scientific standards.

[Van Rijn]

Because the consensus here seems to be that "conspiracy theories generally are not true".
How does one go about seriously discussing something that one thinks is not true?

By seriously discussing the technical merits (or lack of technical merits) of presented claims. The vast majority of discussions here are about technical arguments: How photographs are taken on the Moon, the thrust of the lunar ascent engine, why comets don't cause earthquakes, why Nibiru claims don't make physical sense, what are common image artifacts found in SOHO images, and on and on.

No doubt many of the participants are serious, but i do see a lot of ridicule in this forum (certainly a lot more
than in astronomy Q&A), and the occasional thread that contains little else.

Funny you'd say that. I was recently looking at another board where conspiracy theories are discussed, and was thinking about the lack of civility there - discussions tend to be much more polite here on BAUT.

On the other hand, within a scientific approach "theories" are generally 'true'.

No, a theory is not a statement of Boolean logic - it is neither "true" or "false." Rather, a scientific theory is a hypotheses that has gained a great deal of supporting evidence.

Law enforcement does not know whether or not a conspiracy that they suspect might exist in relation to a crime that's under investigation is true or not, until they have investigated possible leads that emerge from theories they develop about that suspected conspiracy.

In that the meaning of the word "theory" isn't all that different than what it means in science.

By your own statement it clearly is different, since you are discussing something that doesn't have well established supporting evidence. "Hypothesis" would be a better fit.

[Van Rijn]

We do have some metrics, because much of what the FBI was doing in the '60s and '70s regarding the anti-war movement has since been released. Scores of students and professors in academia were "on the list". At least one rather well known scientist (of whom the name has escaped me) who worked on the Manhattan project was side-lined as a result even though he was not a communist agent.

Okay. What's your point? If you're discussing McCarthyism, that gets very political and has been discussed to death anyway. However, if you're talking about nuclear weapons development, that's a subject that has the highest stakes possible, so naturally the people involved are going to be of interest to the FBI. Would you expect otherwise?

[Geo Kaplan]

In an interview Feynman talks about his role in the investigation of the Challenger space shuttle accident, he tells that in hindsight he concluded he was manipulated/steered 'from up high' to get onto the right track regarding that investigation.

A General Kutyna claims credit for having been the fellow who "worked" Feynman. He was rebuilding a carburetor with Feynman during the time of the Challenger investigation and used the occasion to note that rubber gaskets could have difficulty when cold. Kutyna was aware of engineers' concerns about the O-rings, but couldn't directly convey them without endangering his own position. Feynman took it from there.

[R.A.F.]

Because the consensus here seems to be that "conspiracy theories generally are not true".

We have examined conspiracy theories in general, and have found them lacking in evidence...and that means we are not discussing this topic seriously?

I still don't understand your reasoning...please clarify.

How does one go about seriously discussing something that one thinks is not true?

In the same manner as any unproven idea is discussed. By realizing that evidence must be provided before an idea can be "taken seriously".

[Swift]

The general discussion of conspiracy theories and how they are dealt with on BAUT is becoming a serious derailment of this thread. Let's stick to the topic of CTs as they relate to Richard Feynman.

[Gillianren]

Frankly, I have yet to hear one. The FBI had a dossier on Feynman. There was discussion that he might be a Communist. Well, all right, that's true of literally hundreds if not thousands of other people in that era. It's also not surprising given who he was and where he worked over the years. Why is this news?

[stutefish]

Okay. What's your point? If you're discussing McCarthyism, that gets very political and has been discussed to death anyway. However, if you're talking about nuclear weapons development, that's a subject that has the highest stakes possible, so naturally the people involved are going to be of interest to the FBI. Would you expect otherwise?

This.

Thanks, Van Rijn!

[noncryptic]

Okay. What's your point? If you're discussing McCarthyism

My point is in response to Grapes first reply which i think reflects a common tendency regarding CTs: to not take it seriously.
I'm referring to (not discussing) McCarthyism to point out that although CTs are generally ridiculed, the FBI (law enforcement in general) takes their own *theories about conspiracies* rather seriously. Even this silly document on Feynman is taken serious enough that it's in the dossier.

A General Kutyna claims credit for having been the fellow who "worked" Feynman....

Sounds plausible enough, thanks for that bit of info.

We have examined conspiracy theories in general, and have found them lacking in evidence.

It seems to me you have examined only a certain class of "theories about conspiracies".

You would find the same for theories about science put forth by people who claim to be scientists (but who on closer inspection turn out not to be doing real science). Following the same logic regarding examination of such "science theories" would lead to the conclusion that science theories are lacking in evidence and are generally not true.

The problem seems to be that theories about conspiracies are considered to be the same as "conspiracy theories" in the popular meaning of the term. That's not far removed from laypersons claiming that say, the theory of evolution is "just a theory" (where the term "theory" is not used/understood in the formal sense of the word).

Using the formal definitions of the words "conspiracy" and "theory", there is no basis to conclude that "conspiracy theories" are generally not true, even though many popular ones are nonsense. The only way to conclude that would be to use the terms "conspiracy" and/or "theory" in a non-formal meaning when combined in that particular order.

[HenrikOlsen]

Using the formal definitions of the words "conspiracy" and "theory", there is no basis to conclude that "conspiracy theories" are generally not true, even though many popular ones are nonsense. The only way to conclude that would be to use the terms "conspiracy" and/or "theory" in a non-formal meaning when combined in that particular order.

Arguing about the precise meaning of a phrase based on dictionary definitions of the component words is really quite silly.. Englidsh doesn't work that way.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" has a rather specific meaning in this context and you won't get far is you try to argue by redefining it.

[NEOWatcher]

My point is in response to Grapes first reply which i think reflects a common tendency regarding CTs: to not take it seriously. I'm referring to (not discussing) McCarthyism to point out that although CTs are generally ridiculed

I take "evidence" seriously. I take "claims" with a grain of salt. CT's have a range of both but tend to have much more of the latter, which results in the tendancy. It's thier tendancy, not ours.
As far as "ridiculed" is concerned, it's the persistant ones, or the ones picking up on stuff that's been thoroughly hashed out that are ridiculed. There's plenty of those around.

Which leads me to Feynman.

, the FBI (law enforcement in general) takes their own *theories about conspiracies* rather seriously. Even this silly document on Feynman is taken serious enough that it's in the dossier.

If the FBI took this dossier seriously (as you say), and nothing has resulted in it, then doesn't that imply that the authority (the FBI) has already shown that there's nothing to it?

They have a folder, so what is the conspiracy and by who?

I had a neighbor with a dossier and investigation. He simply applied for a job at the FBI. Nothing sinister about it.

[Gillianren]

I take "evidence" seriously. I take "claims" with a grain of salt.

And in this, science and law investigation are mostly in accord! Yes, the FBI would have investigated Feynman. Indeed, in those days, they probably would have investigated any claim not made by a known crank--and maybe even some of those. But investigation would have been a search for evidence. Since nothing came of that investigation, the claims were obviously not found to be important enough to have consequences. Merely being investigated, for someone in Feynman's position, was not actually a consequence.

[R.A.F.]

noncryptic...I will not be responding to your post re. Swift's post.

[schlaugh]

A General Kutyna claims credit for having been the fellow who "worked" Feynman. He was rebuilding a carburetor with Feynman during the time of the Challenger investigation and used the occasion to note that rubber gaskets could have difficulty when cold. Kutyna was aware of engineers' concerns about the O-rings, but couldn't directly convey them without endangering his own position. Feynman took it from there.

Just to add, Gen. Donald Kutyna was a member of the Rogers Commission with Feynman and chaired the Accident Analysis Panel. I suppose you could call it manipulation by Kutyna since he was chair and was (IIRC) reluctant to introduce himself directly into the process, preferring the investigation to proceed through the other commission members. Others here can correct my recollection.

[Swift]

It seems to me you have examined only a certain class of "theories about conspiracies".

You would find the same for theories about science put forth by people who claim to be scientists (but who on closer inspection turn out not to be doing real science). Following the same logic regarding examination of such "science theories" would lead to the conclusion that science theories are lacking in evidence and are generally not true.

The problem seems to be that theories about conspiracies are considered to be the same as "conspiracy theories" in the popular meaning of the term. That's not far removed from laypersons claiming that say, the theory of evolution is "just a theory" (where the term "theory" is not used/understood in the formal sense of the word).

Using the formal definitions of the words "conspiracy" and "theory", there is no basis to conclude that "conspiracy theories" are generally not true, even though many popular ones are nonsense. The only way to conclude that would be to use the terms "conspiracy" and/or "theory" in a non-formal meaning when combined in that particular order.

The general discussion of conspiracy theories and how they are dealt with on BAUT is becoming a serious derailment of this thread. Let's stick to the topic of CTs as they relate to Richard Feynman.

OK, this time I really mean it. noncryptic, no more general discussion about CTs. If you want such a discussion, start a new thread.

Frankly, the topic of whether Richard Feynman was a sleeper agent (see the OP) is VERY borderline for BAUT, as it is VERY borderline that this is a space and/or astronomy related topic.

I highly suggest everyone get their last words in, because I think this thread will be closing shortly.

[Van Rijn]

Even this silly document on Feynman is taken serious enough that it's in the dossier.

Naturally they would want to keep documentation of serious allegations. They don't have to believe them to do that. Imagine if they get questioned about the allegations later, how do you think it would look if the response was "Maybe there were allegations, but we don't know, we threw away all our documentation on it"? That could look suspicious if not just incompetent, and could have forced a pointless investigation and caused more trouble for Feynman. After all, the person who made the allegations might have taken it to another level, sending their claims to newspapers and so forth, or done other things against Feynman. You don't throw away documentation on something like that.