Re: Reich & UFO's

[dsilver@panix.com (David Silver)]

In article <9404291950.tn12396@aol.com>,  <silo@aol.com> wrote:
>Cecil writes:
>
>> "No.  Reich was a nut-an unjustly perecuted nut, it should be said, but
>still
>> a nut.  He claimed that (1) he had done battle with alien spaceships, (2)
>he
>> could produce clouds and create rain with his cloudbuster, and (3) his
>orgone
>> boxes could cure (or at least ameliorate) everything from cancer to the
>> common cold.  He believed living cells arose spontaneously from inorganic
>> matter, that cancer cells are actually protozalike critters that have tails
>> and can swim like fish, and that orgone energy is what makes the sky blue
>> and causes heat shimmer.
>
>> "Even his terminology was like something from a bad science-fiction movie.
>> UFOs he called EAs, for Energy Alpha.  The alien spaceships gave off DOR,
>> for Deadly Orgone.  The aliens themselves he called CORE men, for Cosmic
>> Orgone Engineering.
>
>
>and Jorn writes:
>
>> Reich claimed he could see little wriggling blue orgone particles, both
>under
>> the microscope, and under proper conditions with the naked eye.  His
>theories
>> about their behavior have many of the classic hallmarks of bad science,
>> though, especially his sense that *everything* could be simply solved by
>> appeal to orgone.  And he got really paranoid as he fought his uphill
>battle,
>> comparing his martyrdom to Jesus's, fighting battles with UFOs, etc etc
>etc.

This slanderous misrepresentation of a small portion of Reich's life's
work is typical of the kind of persecution he was subjected to during his
lifetime at the hand of critics such as these who presume to KNOW what is
good science and what is bad, and who with the flick of a keystroke pass
judgement on decades of honest research by a dedicated and brilliant
scientist.  A theory is not "nuts" because someone says it is nuts, it
either holds up under honest scientific investigation or it doesn't.  The
problem is that critics such as these are not interested in serious
investigation, they never seek to understand and disprove Reich's work
scientifically, they simply pick up a few bits of jargon and decide Reich
is an easy target for their misguided ridicule.  My reason for responding
is not to defend Reich's scientific findings, Reich does that perfectly
well in his published writings, but to remind anyone with limited or no
knowledge of Reich that there are those who do not subscribe to such
empty-headed criticisms of Reich's work as are found in these previous
posts.  There is a vast wealth of knowledge and inspiration to be found in
the legacy left behind by this brilliant and misunderstood scientist,
available to anyone with an honest and open mind.

-- 

   David Silver
   dsilver@panix.com