|
Tutti i numeri
del giornale aperiodico di ufologia "Camelot Chronicles" si possono scaricare gratuitamente
da questo sito in formato PDF e HTML, e si possono trovare in formato cartaceo alle conferenze del Gruppo Camelot
e dei suoi Collaboratori
Numero
5 - Anno 2003
Speciale
Hessdalen - N°5, 2003
Hessdalen
e Oltre: Teodorani a Pavia, 18-09-2003, Abstract e Conferenza
M. Teodorani’s Reply to M. Leone’s Confutation
of EMBLA 2002 Paper
MASSIMO TEODORANI, Ph.D. (Curriculum
Vitae)
Astrophysicist – CNR-IRA
Stazione Radioastronomica di Medicina – 40060 Villafontana (BO) – Italy
mteodorani@ira.cnr.it e mteodorani@libero.it
Anche in Versione PDF
Si allega la mia nota di risposta all'articolo di Matteo Leone, pubblicato alcuni giorni fa nella sezione "Articoli" del sito web del Comitato Italiano per il Progetto Hessdalen (
http://www.itacomm.net/PH ). Il sottoscritto ritiene che tale articolo, pur basandosi su indagini erronee da parte del suo autore, abbia arrecato (miratamente) un grave danno di immagine al mio lavoro e alla mia persona, sulla base di argomentazioni completamente gratuite da parte del suo autore, partite da alcune possibili inesattezze nel mio lavoro che lui attacca, e da lui successivamente gonfiate e sapientemente ed elegantemente artefatte al fine di costruire poi un castello di carte con ben altri scopi. Il sottoscritto, visti anche i numerosi precedenti (il più delle volte sotterranei), ritiene che questa azione da parte del CIPH faccia parte di un piano a lungo termine mirato a distruggere la mia persona, e sospetta che dietro a tutto questo si celi un piano ben più grande e inquietante proveniente da altrove, mirato a sopprimere qualunque reale informazione di natura scientifica riguardante i fenomeni luminosi anomali in atmosfera e tematiche ad essi correlati. Il sottoscritto ritiene inoltre che il Dr. Leone, come probabilmente la maggior parte dei membri del CIPH, siano solo strumenti di decisioni più grandi di loro, a cui essi si sono assoggettati senza probabilmente esserne pienamente consapevoli o direttamente responsabili. La mia nota di risposta a Leone si articola nei seguenti punti: 1) si documentano tecnicamente le ragioni per le quali Leone ha sbagliato l'oggetto della sua presunta indagine anche con madornali errori metodologici nell'acquisizione dei suoi presunti dati, 2) si critica la presunta validità scientifica della cosiddetta "ufologia testimoniale", che il Dr. Leone sostiene nel suo articolo, 3) si avanza il libero e legittimo sospetto che azioni del genere rientrino nelle tematiche di "debunking", "cover-up" e "conspiracy", che prima il sottoscritto (da sempre, e tuttora, ben lontano da qualunque coinvolgimento con l'ufologia) aveva considerato solo leggende metropolitane, ma che ora, sulla pelle del sottoscritto, assumono una inquietante valenza, 4) si condanna l'etica seguita sia dal Dr. Leone che dal CIPH nella procedura non editorialmente ortodossa che ha portato alla pubblicazione di quell'articolo, e nell'utilizzo indiscriminato, anche a scopo diffamatorio, di mio materiale protetto da copyright. Nell'interesse del benessere altrui, si invitano inoltre tutti gli altri scienziati seriamente intenti a svolgere la ricerca sui "reali fenomeni anomali", a blindare per ora le loro ricerche all'interno dei loro istituti di affiliazione e ad avere contatti esclusivamente tra loro e il sottoscritto. Si invita inoltre l'attuale governo italiano a prendere in esame l'opportunità di creare in tempi brevi un centro di ricerca statale analogo al SEPRA francese, possibilmente come una costola del vecchio CNR, centro a cui dovranno fare riferimento tutte le ricerche svolte in tal senso, con l'impegno dei ricercatori a informare puntualmente il governo sui risultati e a definirne con esso i criteri da adottare sia per l'utilizzo di esperti esterni che per la comunicazione dell'informazione ai mass media.
27 Aprile, 2003
Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D.
Astrofisico
M. Teodorani’s Reply to M. Leone’s Confutation of EMBLA 2002 Paper
MASSIMO TEODORANI, Ph.D. (Curriculum
Vitae)
Astrophysicist – CNR-IRA
Stazione Radioastronomica di Medicina – 40060 Villafontana (BO) – Italy
mteodorani@ira.cnr.it and mteodorani@libero.it
Abstract.
One UFO researcher confutes the findings of the EMBLA 2002 optical mission. The leader of this mission exposes in brief why the alleged “rebuttal” is wrong, also by discussing the possible reasons of it in the light of a strongly suspected conspiracy towards himself due to several chained reasons which go far beyond a simple personal attach. Some technical issues are briefly discussed. The nature of some “ufology”, probably unconscious instrument of apparently unidentified “higher spheres”, is empirically unmasked in the light of a more general plan aimed at preventing any kind of advancement in science for mankind.
1. Introduction
Some days ago the article “A rebuttal of the EMBLA 2002 report on the optical survey in Hessdalen” by physicist-ufologist Matteo Leone (Ph.D.), was published on the ICPH article-section. Due to the unrealistic claims of the author, a quick answer is absolutely necessary from myself. Two basic aspects cohexist in his “paper”: one is positive and regards some concepts in optical physics, one is negative and regards the pertinence of his topics to the specific investigations which were carried out by the optical team (Massimo Teodorani & Gloria Nobili) of the EMBLA project. I take upon myself the responsibility of what will be written in the following lines, as being the main responsible of the optical part of the EMBLA 2002 mission.
After saying this I can start my “rebuttal of a rebuttal”, so to say, and I will not stop only at this topic as this “rebuttal” is a symptom of a more ominous plan working hiddenly in our present society, at the shoulders of unaware citizens, including maybe the author himself of the rebuttal.
The author makes a lot of good points describing various technical aspects regarding any source of instrumental bias which may affect the quality of experimental results. This aspect, discussed all over the paper, can be a source of very useful reference to any physical researcher on the subject of Hessdalen lights. Had the author devoted his compilation in form of a review paper on subjects regarding photonics in general, he would have been much appreciated, and his paper considered an useful and important guide to instrumental research in the field of anomalous luminous phenomena.
Unfortunately, the applications of the concepts discussed by the author to the investigations and measurements which were performed by the optical EMBLA team, are totally faulty due to Dr. Leone’s inexperience, aimed partiality and inaccuracy both in carrying out his own “measurements” in Hessdalen and in discussing the EMBLA 2002 results, in spite of his intentional zeal towards the established academic chains of power. A healthy criticism and skepticism is welcome for a good advancement of science, in order to construct a consensus between scientists by mutually correcting data by using subsequent approximations. Leone’s “criticism”, even to the inexpert reader, shows to be insane and driven by some sectarian “paradigm” - including probably some severe psychological problems with open confrontation with colleagues even of opposite ideas, before he published his claims - which led this author to miss the main target of his on-field “investigation” in Hessdalen in summer 2002. Moreover, his paper is basically biased from the beginning to the end by his own psychological need to “appear positively” in front of both the two frustrated ufological groups of which he is a scientific advisor (ICPH and CISU) and of the academic establishment, from which the two quoted groups expect a consideration. It is not a surprise that, expecially in Italy, the career of a scientist lacking in ideas, intrinsic talent and real wish to work on a focussed goal, is often built up (with the political approval of scientific institutions) on the aimed (and assisted) attempt of “demolition” of colleagues who are not lacking of these qualities and own the capability to produce and work intensively driven by the only need of constructing new scenarios in science without any strict need to take orders from laughable “authorities” in the ongoing old-style and non-rarely politically corrupted “academy”. Moreover, the author self-attributes the right to “rebut” the work by others, without even knowing that a “rebuttal” can become effective only from the consensus of very many other scientists and only after many years of repeated measurements, tests and joint discussions. This is the history of science. The author of the “rebuttal”, in spite of owning a recent Ph.D. in History of Physics, seems to ignore this concept.
2. Discussion of details
Let’s now pass to some important details which make Leone’s paper rejectable in terms of both science advancement and moral behaviour, in spite of the (badly applied in a specific context) many good general points which he presents sometimes.
1. He totally failed to consider the correct light-phenomenon in Hessdalen, during his come last summer. All the roads in the Hessdalen valley are well known to us, and the effect of car headlights (including many other artificial lights) have been studied and monitored and recorded both in that valley and elsewhere, by taking photos, videos and spectra (e). A car headlight as seen forehead is much stronger than the real Hessdalen light and it often produces a saturation on the film, moreover its spectrum (continuos) is quite a lot different from the one which was taken of the real anomalous phenomenon (Fig. 1). He surely saw once a car, together with all of us (and to us this occurred routinely many times), and also evaluated probably correctly the distance of it, but the real light-phenomenon is not situated where the inexperienced author claims but about 4 times farer on the hill behind (e).
2. He avoids to document the result of his “telescopic observations”. He only tells that he did that visual observation, being maybe confident that anyone of his associates will be willing to believe directly in his sentence, only because he mathematically “onanyzed” his entire paper by thinking to give to it for this reason a “licence of credibility”, but the hypnotic “math effect” doesn’t work here. Apart from his self-anecdotal information, no experimental corroboration of his “visual detection” is present in his claims. This is a grave lack in the application of the scientific method, which even more contributes to demolish practically all the claims that follow in his paper.
3. He doesn’t say which kind of compass he used (conventional compass or a sophisticated data scope able to perform precise measurements?). The evaluation of the error in target position by using the Gauss theory of propagation of errors is absolutely questionable, the error must be measured directly. A conventional compass can furnish substantial errors. He accuses Teodorani not to have used a theodolite, but it is not clear if Leone used it. Due to witness by several collaborators on the field, it seems he didn’t use it at all, even if Leone informed noone on what he was doing (e), and avoided to discuss and ask clarifications to the researchers who were there on the field (sometimes with him during one week), who would have been well willing to answer and discuss all of his questions in the ambit of a collaborative and constructive work between scientists (even if of opposite ideas, in case). He was only equipped with a toy-telescope and a very old camera (which can be found in the free markets). He didn’t even photograph the car-headlights which he claims he has seen, or at least such an absolutely necessary photo is carefully avoided to be presented in his paper. By considering that during a long-exposure the car can appear to be stationary for several seconds near a curve, then slightly move after the turn, occasionally disappear between the trees, and reappear elsewhere, a photo of it would immediately demonstrate the nature of a car. The authors of the EMBLA 2002 paper, by already knowing how car-headlights behave when seen from the observation spot and where this was occurring more often, didn’t consider important to put such photo-tests into their publication because of very scarce importance (anyone can make easily a test of this type) in the economy of a paper which is focussed into the target of investigation. But, in the economy of Leone’s paper, it was his duty to take a photo of a car at night so that he could prove his claims to anyone. And, apart from lacking in scientific correctness and self-witnessing his claims, he did see a car, on which and only on which he concentrated his attention by ignoring all the rest. Teodorani & Nobili, together with several other researchers, passed a lot of nights to collect optical data in Hessdalen: this persistence, very scarcely demonstrated by Leone, and only this, was the only good criterion to distinguish the signal from the noise, by increasing the probability to see the signal. But Leone didn’t show any interest in distinguishing the signal from the noise, and he arbitrarily decided that the noise was the signal.
4. He, not satisfied of what he claimed regarding the car-issue, thinks that in that specific case a good chance exists to illustrate his claims by including a photo taken by Teodorani ( 1 ). This photo totally contradicts what the author claims, and it is one of the biggest mistakes which he could ever make. In addition to severe legal issues, in this way he submitted himself to a detailed control of his claims. Everyone now can make simple tests, by taking photos of car headlights and verify what produced effect comes out, which is certainly not the one shown in the picture which he uses instrumentally in his paper. Had been more artful, more aseptic, and less driven by personal acrimony and “desire of emerging”, he would have simply taken a night photo-exposure of a car. But his “equipment” was humble, and this is even more incredible expecially from a “ufo investigator” claiming to operate in a serious way.
5. He understood nothing when discussing the issue on “intensity-dimension correlation” which was experimentally found by Teodorani et al., or at least he avoided to go deep into the specific way in which a given light-phenomenon changes its luminous surface as observed by the EMBLA 2001 and 2002 teams. Such an abnormal superficiality sent Leone, unfortunately for him, straight to the mistaken road. He discusses issues on light saturation of films (thanks to one of his advisors) and the increase of dimensions of a light source when the film is subject to overexposure. And like in many other issues, the treatment of the author and of his advisory specialistic team (which he uses instrumentally), is correct in its generality but is totally out of the real topic of pertinence regarding the observed increase of dimensions of the light-phenomenon. He did not do any effort to understand that the dimensional increase is not due to the dimensions of the light balls but to the separation of the components of clusters of light-balls. Such clusters appear as a single light when observed from far away, due to the very small subtended angle, but show their intrinsic morphology only when photos and/or videos are enhanced with proper software. Moreover, in Teodorani’s analysis, frames in which the light is overexposed have been avoided in the analysis (after checking their Point Spread Function), only correctly exposed frames have been considered. About 200 out of 4000 video frames have been considered for instance (EMBLA 2001). The components of the cluster can be resolved only when the exposure is correct (this was the main criterion of data selection), on the contrary image enlargement will melt them into a big saturated feature. In spite of this, in addition to well resolved light-clusters, only unsaturated single lights were considered. The clustering behaviour is real and documented and is shown both in videos and in photos, such as in Teodorani’s picture (become Fig. 1 in Leone’s “dissertation”) which Leone uses to defend uncritically his car-headlight interpretation. The quantitative treatment on saturation presented by the author is certainly useful and important as a concept in photonics, but unfortunately not pertinent to the studied case. This author uses quantitative issues (and this is correct) in order to show that without any reasonable doubt he is “serious”, but he parallely manifests a strong lack of seriousness and honesty when he applies these subjects to the wrong case. This philosophy is a constant feature all over his paper, from the beginning to the end. Scientific method doesn’t only need mathematical formulae as “magic tools” to solve everything, but most of all a (certainly documented) aptitude to reasoning in a global and mature way and a creative empiric modelling on the specific target of investigation. Calculus is also very important, but it must be driven by the correct choices and not by partial selection of data. On the contrary a researcher, in spite of being skilled or erudite in quantitative issues, is totally unable to pilot his research by choosing what is important from what is not, and behaves like a car without the pilot, being consequently totally uncapable to produce innovation. This aptitude, apart from several eminent exceptions, is a very diffused characteristic inside the “academy” (an apparently uncontrollable and collapsed micro-world into a larger world), and seems to be very appreciated by long-dated institutions.
6. He criticizes the spectrum which was obtained by the EMBLA 2002 group, by “demonstrating” that it is due to car-headlights. After showing a mono-maniacal literature-erudition on spectra of two sources of car head-lights and of film sensitivity curves the author carries out a meticulous but totally incomplete simulation of their spectrum ( 2 ). The obtained spectrum is then discussed only qualitatively (opportunistic analogic thinking due to a contingency?), by ignoring the parameter given by the ratio of maxima and minima (relative amplitude) for a confrontation with the real spectrum. He superficially concludes that Teodorani et al. took the spectrum of car-headlights. The sensitivity curve of the Kodak 100 Ektachrome film is not unknown to Teodorani et al. but the resulting spectrum, apart from some rough wavelength coincidences, is different from the sensitivity curve mostly because of different ratios between the three peak amplitudes and because of a much higher amplitude of the single peaks, which makes a poor “best fit” between empirical data and simulation. But the author claims to have found the final answer. The author seems to ignore that some sources of artificial illumination and not only the Kodak sensitivity curve, unfortunately, produce very marked spectral peaks exactly at the wavelengths which were found in the original spectrum (f). These sources are mainly represented by some kinds of LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes), consisting of a semi-monochromatic emission mechanism produced by electron transition in solid state devices. There are many types of LEDs according to their color (a, d). The author also ignores the possibility of a blend of lines producing a given peak (discussed in Teodorani et al.’s paper), and also that the table of chemical elements is composed of a lot of elements producing quantum transitions whose spectral lines can occur everywhere in a wavelength vs. intensity diagram, due to many multiplets and to many crowded lines producing “blends” for some of the elements in specific regions of the spectrum. Teodorani has never furnished ultimate interpretations on the spectrum, being conscious that, in the case that the light-phenomenon is not due to light elements like hydrogen (whose few lines are very well resolvable with low-resolution), any spectral feature can be definitely ascertained only when high-resolution spectroscopy will be available. A general ignorance by the author on spectroscopy and his personal preference for car-headlights, driven him to a piloted, highly incomplete and generally unscientific conclusion. The reality of facts may be that the spectrum is an overlap of the Kodak sensitivity curve (here the author made a good point) and of (probably composite) emission mechanisms which are other than car headlights (see Fig. 1), but which might be of artificial nature, maybe man-made or similar to it. The problem is open, not concluded as the author arbitrarily states.
Figure 1. Spectrum in pixel of car headlights in Hessdalen, taken exactly with the same spectroscopic configuration used by the optical EMBLA 2002 team to obtain the target spectrum. Wavelength goes approximately from 4000 to 6700 Å.
7. His arbitrary denial of our ground-sample analysis, has no groundbasis. Simply the author decides that it is better not to face the question, by dogmatically dismissing this case (which also involved a plenty of analytic and interpretative work by the SACMI laboratories in Imola). The ground-sample has been chosen on a precise spot where a light phenomenon was seen almost on the ground by some Hessdalen inhabitants. The presence of some anomalies in the target sample is not encountered in two control samples (at distance and in depth). No conclusion can be reached yet, but the anomaly remains, even if the author of “rebuttal” denies it unscientifically and dogmatically.
3. On some “ufology” and the “academy”
As well arbitrarily the author decides that “ufology” can furnish scientific answers on a still unknown anomaly problem which he and his associates go on calling “UFO”. The analysis of witnesses can be useful, if performed by good impartial investigators, to indicate where a given instrumented monitor should be done (see for instance point 7 of paragraph 2), but cannot in any way be considered a reliable method when used alone. Ufology as a mere “analysis” of witnesses (or similar “police methods”) as a sole method to derive allegedly scientific conclusions is an inconsistent matter which should be abolished by culture, due to the enormous damages which has been creating to the investigation of “earthlights” and to the witnesses themselves. Independent researchers, including professional scientists (g), did a very valuable work on the subject of ufology but this came out only from their own intelligence and not because of their belongings to groups or sects, as they soon understood that the analysis of the anomaly cannot be based mainly on witnesses but mostly on new theoretical models describing the structure of reality which must be supported by (very difficult) experimental measurements, of which, as from quantum mechanical issues and consciousness-related studies, we perceive only the tip of an iceberg. What is Science for? Moreover, the discovery that the light-phenomena can severely affect the witnesses with hallucinations due to some related EM perturbation interacting with their brain electrical activity (c), renders the value of the sole witness analysis probably Nihil, with information errors drastically propagating all over the statistics. From the experimental side, the anomaly-problem can be investigated only by using instrumented means, in order to try to reach scientific conclusions. But experience teaches that this is a very hard task because: 1) the light-phenomenon is elusive and unpredictable, 2) the amount of money-funds which is requested to reach some really concrete results (comparable with the ones of mainstream science) is at least a factor 100 higher than the ones effectively available during the EMBLA missions, 3) the researcher-time is very limited and the joint organization is consequently lacking with all the effects of the case (possible oversights and incompleteness in data collection). Therefore, differently from Leone and his associates who claim to have the truth in their pockets (namely, the most comfortable truth which they can construct: conventional phenomena, otherwise called “IFO”), Teodorani is far from reaching conclusions on what came out from his data, differently from what Leone claims by totally distorting and/or dogmatizing much of what Teodorani ventured as a work hypothesis (by Leone artificially changed into Teodorani’s “conclusions”) which is anyway based on his empirical data. Nevertheless Teodorani is in a condition to admit that the observed anomaly can be now settled into an organic phenomenological scenario where several scientifically significant constants are present. This can help a lot further researches, if ever appropriate money fund will be furnished, to be used only inside totally reformed official scientific institutions in the ambit of a new fully mainstream research and related new key-projects. Unfortunately at present such institutions are affected by a dangerous void of ideas, and very scarce motivation to explore the full nature of reality, due to evil choices, and a total enslavement to the political, religious and (in some cases) industrial power. This devastating “trilateral power”, which usually triggers conspiracies often by using obscure associations or groups, comes mostly from dogmatic doctrines. Present science is enslaved by devastating ideologies, dictatorial religions and/or some aspects of the economic powers, which have impoverished and highly lowered a complete use of the human brain of the single individuals, and is the direct operational responsible of the pollution of planet Earth. The author of the “Rebuttal” paper, unconsciously, strictly follows the dictates of this institutionally degraded science, to which he likes to be enslaved due to probable contingent conveniences to him. Certainly he didn’t follow his own consciousness. He followed his own survival instinct towards who is institutionally over him and turned his back to the very nature of the luminous phenomenon itself, by denying it. He is not the first, and he will not be the last, in the medium-short term, unfortunately.
4. Ethical considerations and conclusions
I am honestly very embittered by the behaviour which was shown by Dr. Matteo Leone in writing his paper, as well as much embittered to have been myself obliged to react (in spite of my very short available time). I aim at building constructive scenarioes and not at passing my time to try to prevent and/or contain destructive attempts by others towards myself and my research. Leone’s paper, in addition to being rejectable as a research-paper in spite of his several (badly used) good points, goes out of any ethics regarding publications. Such kind of behaviour can be encountered only in the most shabby and narrow-minded ones among referee’s reports of submitted papers, but such reports are never published due to commonly accepted science ethics on publications. It can happen that brief articles of criticism towards a given paper are published simultaneously with the paper, but it never happens that destructive long papers (with no original research-work therein by his author) are published alone without giving any possibility of quick reply to the attached authors. But this one was published in that way, and this is evidently also due to the responsibility of the editor and to the coalition of his associates. My research obviously continues (at present with even more solid money funding, and with a good consideration out of Italy ) and I am not alone. But I doubt that now the ICPH organization will receive more funding than in the past, unless the funding will come from some of the present still ill academic nomenclature.
It is very difficult to see what is exactly Leone’s contribution to the Hessdalen research. He based his paper exclusively on the work of others, partly due to the compilation and discussion of useful literature data (which could have brought to a valuable review paper, if rewritten in the proper way) and to the calculately destructive action on my work and person. This goes far beyond a serene discussion and criticism of other researchers’ data, but it is driven only by a personal resentment and group opportunism, much far from what should be expected by an aseptic scientist. Dr. Leone is scientifically well prepared and meticulous but immature for innovation in physical sciences, he has himself cut his hands and legs, due to a huge psychological bias mixed up with a more general conspiratory choral effort, which both brought him to write such a false glitter. If only he had discussed before my data with me, everything could have been clarified, and a positive interaction between different ways to see things in science would have brought maybe to a mutual fruitful collaboration, as it was offered to him in Hessdalen from me and my collaborators as an attempt to reconcile past contrasts and to start to reconstruct a new common house for a real innovation in science. Science would have gained a lot from a constructive collaboration between different visions of reality and anyone of us would have learnt something. But unfortunately he ignored this offer by us.
This letter of reply to Dr. Matteo Leone’s paper is also an invitation to the present “scientific academy”, related institutions and its associates to change soon aptitude towards scientific exploration, and to the present (and relatively new) italian government to support innovative scientists to drastically change the basis of very old scientific institutions and to help them to obtain positions of command inside them, by upsetting an old and stagnating scenario which is still working for scopes which are other than the common well of our society and its concrete energetic necessities. The mystery which hides itself behind the Hessdalen-like phenomena might be a solution to these necessities, once research on its physics, after being adeguately financed, will be fully understood. It’s time to change radically and to make a clear cut with old rubbish and their servants, and with long-dated waste of public money for the only pleasure of zelotes.
References
[a] Lamp Emission Spectra, http://cc.joensuu.fi/photobio/lamps.html#Intro
[b] Nobili G., ‘Possible bio-physical interference of the electromagnetic field produced by Hessdalen-like lights with human beings’, Workshop on Future Research on the Hessdalen Project,
http://hessdalen.hiof.no/news/Workshop-20020810.shtml
, August 10, 2002 . / Extensive article in preparation.
[c] Persinger M. A., ‘The UFO Experience: a Normal Correlate of Human Brain Function’, in book “UFOs and Abductions”, University Press of Kansas, pp. 262-302.
[d] Spectral Images, http://www.assumption.edu/users/bniece/CHE131/LineSpectra/Index.html
[e] Strand E. P., Private Communications, August 2002 and April 2003.
[f] Teodorani M., ‘A Long-Term Scientific Survey of the Hessdalen Phenomenon’ (19 pages), to be Submitted to The Journal of Scientific Exploration.
[g] Vallee J. (1993), “Passport to Magonia”, Contemporary Books ( Chicago ).
( 1 ) The author inserted Teodorani’s picture (Fig. 1 in Leone’s paper) without asking Teodorani’s permission and by violating all the laws on copyright, with all the legal consequences which he will meet, with the aggravating circumstance that this highly incorrect behaviour was perpetrated in the general consciously defamatory character of his paper.
( 2 ) The author inserted Teodorani’s picture (Fig. 6 in Leone’s paper) without asking Teodorani’s permission and by violating all the laws on copyright, with all the legal consequences which he will meet, with the aggravating circumstance that this highly incorrect behaviour was perpetrated in the general consciously defamatory character of his paper.
|
