Monica Vandory’s forceful email secured six pages of copy from an accredited expert in electromagnetic theory, the first for 40 years apart from the circa 2012 peer reviewed  misrepresentation and defamation by the Italians.

Von: Monika Vandory []

Gesendet: Montag, 4. Dezember 2017 17:34

An: ''

Cc: 'Ivor Catt'; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; 'Stephen Crothers'; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''

Betreff: Prof. Gian-Luca Oppo's scientific threat

Dear Dr. Oppo,

About 10 years ago the former Austrian minister of science, Dr. Johannes Hahn, publicly questioned the benefit of the billions in taxpayers’ funding for science projects like CERN. He found, in common parlance, that the soup in return was poor. For me this was the impulse to question what was served in return for the money; also my money. The first shocking discovery was that the so called black hole (at that time the money, urged the scientists benefiting from it, should be granted for its research) are "insane products of a wishful fiction". It is interesting to learn that there were voiced sober objections against the alleged existence of black holes, by, for example, Angelo Loinger, the former head of the department of physics at the University of Milan, and Stephen J. Crothers, a mathematician and astronomer, and critic of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This led me to search for and subsequently follow critical analyses and papers in science.

To my consternation I discovered the unseemly means by which officially employed academics (like you, Massimiliano Pieraccini, Giuseppe Pelosi, Stefano Sellerie, Mahta Moghaddam) are dealing with critical research papers and the scientists who have written them. This was the next disturbing discovery: To forbid publication of critique in peer reviewed journals, with lame excuses (e.g. too long, too special, not fitting with editorial preference, pushing back to the start of the steeplechase, and so on ad infinitum), or because the editor immediately disagrees with the content, already before being peer reviewed,  seems to be common practice. To permit ridicule at the same time [ ] , of the critical scientists and their work, by convenient and diehard mainstream dogmatic scientists in peer reviewed journals, and failing to allow the affected scientists their right of public reply or correction, in the very same journals, is a poor and conspicuous power game of hubris and malfeasance. To resort to ad hominem attacks, maligning in public with trumped-up accusations as to the state of health or medicinal regimen of a critical scientist, instead of answering in a right and proper fashion in a scientific paper, is offensive and disgusting, not just to me, but to any reasonable person.

But you, believing you have sanctuary at law in your university department, to permit you escape from the responsibility of giving a scientific answer to a legitimate scientific question, you really take the biscuit. You wrote this to Mr. Ivor Catt:

"Please be aware that under no circumstances are you authorised to include my email address in any of your personal communications. If you do this again I will be forced to take legal action through the University system."

Ivor Catt questioned you openly. It can be seen as a public exercise concerning your public lecture on the 1st of December 2017, titled "The genius of James Clerk Maxwell, the man who made Equations speak".  When Mr. Catt asked you "whether you referred to Maxwell's Quaternions or the Heaviside-Maxwell differential equations" and included me in his email circulation, he did it openly. Moreover, your email address can be easily found on the internet as you are an employee and representative of a public university (Strathclyde, Glasgow). As such you are in fact accountable to the public for what you say in your academic capacity, and at a public lecture to boot. Mr. Catt did not question you as to anything other than electromagnetic theory and Maxwell’s equations, pursuant to your public lecture on the subject matter. He did not inquire as to your personal life. You are accountable to the public for your assertions and claims in your academic capacity, on the academic matters you speak about, before the public. Threatening legal action to evade your responsibilities is quite dishonourable.

I am very curious as to what comes next. Academics, including you, seem to believe that the taxpayer, because he is generally a layman in scientific matters, takes an ambivalent or benign view of your professed research and authority. A related problem is that too few politicians question too little the so called ‘scientific work’ of publicly funded scientists and their particularly publicly reported claims in the mass-media. But this does not mean that we all admire your work. You are just privileged and misuse your privileged position.  I do not agree, for example, that the hands of a man-made clock can indicate the extension or dilation of time, or define time itself, and I wouldn't give a dime voluntarily for the palaver preached on this. Whatever makes the hands of a clock move forward or backward (my own hand, or substandard production, or Einstein’s ‘gravity’), the clock doesn't influence the motion of celestial bodies and thereby our basis for our perception and understanding of time - whatever rapidly moving observers might, according to Einstein, see, feel or think. Your reasons as to why you might think I am wrong are welcome, provided you explain your reasons by means of scientific arguments, not threats of legal action.

Meanwhile, Stephen J. Crothers, in Australia, has informed me as to the importance of the "Catt Question" [ ], concerning electromagnetic theory and the stagnation in its research: and it's very intriguing. I very much want to hear your comments on the two Catt articles on Maxwell's equations, added as links below.

[Will Oppo ever comment on cattq? ]

Yours sincerely

Monika Vandory

A-5101 Bergheim, Austria




Dear Tony, [Professor Tony Davies]

I am very sorry you have had such dreadful medical problems. Being over 80 is no joke.

The last fifty years between me and the institutions (and everyone else) have been grotesque. I very much want to have your cooperation in finding out what has happened and discussing the way forward.

I have assembled a group of representative people representing every role in the tragedy. You are a key member.

I am not sure about meeting face to face, perhaps over lunch again, or on the phone, or by email. When on the phone for the first time, I talked for an hour.

Ten days before the Oppo lecture I asked him to read and comment on my two (as I thought) articles on Maxwell's Equations. (I forgot the third.) Finally we agreed that he would do this after his lecture, but he had received the two immediately.

I don't think the Oppo misbehaviour is so culpable. It is par for the course. He had to up the ante. You probably have not read the two articles I asked him to read. The first one was 1980, when I had the temerity to investigate Maxwell's Equations, which one is not supposed to do, but merely worship them. It is a great shame, when the editor Tom Ivall, received 19 replies, and decided to publish only a representative comment, which will have been by Scarrott, whom you probably knew. (The other 18 have disappeared.) Bear in mind that at the time I did not know so much about the essentially religious nature of high science - Maxwell's Equations. However, there is evidence that I knew it was dangerous.  So although all previous articles in Wireless World had three authors CDW, I reduced to one author, myself, so the other two would be unscathed. When the 1980 article produced no response (bar 18) during the next few years, I wrote a more abrasive nov1965 article. Still no response at all. These two, 1980 and nov85, are the two that Oppo received. For someone who will live or die by Maxwell Eqns., they are red rag to a bull. He will have glanced at them in the 10 days before his lecture, and felt the need to express disapproval in some way.

Liba was horrified at my attitude to Oppo. She greatly enjoys regularly attending the Italian Institute, where Oppo was to give his lecture. Attending the Spanish, French, Italian Institutes she gets away from the English.

Fearing that my behaviour during the Oppo lecture would lead to her being banned from the Institute, she demanded that I behave. As expected, Oppo arrived 30 minutea early. There were we three in the room. Oppo complained it should have been in the big room, to which I (anonymously) replied; "Not many people would be attracted to Maxwell's Equations". I sat in the front row, and Liba hid at the back, expecting the worst.

50 attended, including the woman President of the Kings College Maxwell Society. I just did not know how to deal with the situation, whether to ask to hand out three pages to each attender. In the end I did nothing except ask two innocuous questions. One was to say that I did not understand either side in the argument as to whether aether existed, to which he gave a waffle reply. The other was to say he had mentioned the Maxwell Society, so he pointed out the woman President in the audience.

(The Kings College Max Soc President will not reply to me. A few months later, the new, male President will not reply to me.)

I have to sympathise with everyone else since it took me so many decades to see the fatal flaws at a fundamental level in the things we are taught and believe. Nowadays we should home in on "The Catt Question", which "breaks the bank".

I look forward to taking some of your time when you are well.


During the wine and snippetts afterwards, Liba fround herself alone in the big room with Oppo. She approached him and said Ivor Catt was there, handing him the three sheets and pointing me out through the doorway. Extaordinarily, Oppo approached me, and my immediate response was to tell him he was a brave man. I emphasised that I was keen to receive his comment on my two articles. The interview lasted 7 minutes.

Monica of Salzburg received his email threatening legal action, and wrote him a long vicious email. Largely because of her, Oppo did write what I call six pages "deconstructing" my two articles. I call them "the second longest suicide note in history". During the last fifty years, I have only managed to extract perhaps nine pages of copy from accredited "experts" in electromagnetic theory. For instance, no professor in the world when asked will comment on the results of the Wakefield Experiment. Of course, if they read it, they know that any comment in writing would destroy their career and reputation.



Monika Vandory <>


to me

Ivor, my congratulation! You hit this phrase monger and now he is in the proverbial corner - I am curious what will come next. What a step forward if he can mobilize the legal department of his university instead of answering to your questions. Probably then a brave reporter will write about this Shakespearian (English-Italian) tragicomedy. "Much ado about nothing by the two Gentlemen of Florence  and a Not-Noble Scotsman -  a Comedy of Errors".   I wished I was there on 1st of December to listen to his lecture. 

Hope you are well - best regards – Monika