FBI files on Richard Feynman | Hacker News Reader

FBI files on Richard Feynman

muckrock.com

98 points001sky56 comments

None of the controls on the document viewer are sufficient to see anything but the two-page cover letter. After several minutes of head-scratching, I figured out that you have to click on the tiny, illegible thumbnails under the viewer to see the actual FBI file.

Fantastic UI here.

Even after reading your comment it took me a minute to figure it out. Probably because I noticed the the first document was 2 pages and saw 2 thumbnails, so immediately assumed it was just the second page.

And here I was thinking of congratulating the author on having filed a FOIA request.

Sometimes I wonder whether the difficult-to-read PDF-like interfaces are intentionally made hard to use.

Funny thing is that they probably have some UI-expert on site.

Probably not, but that document viewer is the product of the DocumentCloud project, which was at one point headed by Jeremy Ashkenas, and from which Underscore and Backbone.js are derived: http://www.documentcloud.org/opensource

However, like most viewers, the DC viewer is best in its standard view, not its embedded view: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/338833-cover-letter.h...

edit: Ttough yes, the thumbnail nav to go between different documents is not great, though that's more an issue of the site implementation...probably this is a landing page for the docs that would presumably be direct-linked to elsewhere

Like most viewers, the DC viewer is best when it's gone and I can use a proper pdf viewer.

If this were the movie Brazil, I'd have a fresnel lens over my screen to help read that liliputian typeface.

Thanks for the feedback. Would love to hear about better embedded options. As far as we can tell, they almost all have drawbacks.

> Would love to hear about better embedded options

How about just posting an image of the first page with an href to the raw pdf? I could then simply read the pdf in my browser. The embedding adds nothing.

#178: "the applicant's wife was suing him for divorce charging him with 'playing the bongo drums too much and studying physics the rest of the time'"

#184: "a deeply ingrained belief that he had a superior intellect and that he could do no wrong. <redacted> self-centered, opinionated, dogmatic and extremely egotistical. <snip> She said that her personal feeling is that FEYNMAN is without character or acceptable moral fiber." Seems not everyone was a fan of Mr. Feynman.

Multiple references to The Communist Party and statements from anonymous informants within the party around #170. More about the Young People's Socialist League at #245

> Seems not everyone was a fan of Mr. Feynman

Oh. Many people didn't really like him (in spite of acknowledging his ability). For example, Murray Gell-Mann - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE

That's a terribly fun and interesting video for a couple of reasons, but what I note is that Gell-mann after explaining how eventually he felt Feynman spent too much effort creating anecdotes about Feynman then launched into several anecdotes about Feynman that were really wonderful.

To stand out, it often pays off to be different, especially when it comes to 'normal' things. The reasons for doing so are, I suspect, often a murky combination of on the one hand truly wanting to be different and applying that in all areas of life, and on the other hand just a need to signal how different you are.

Whatever the reasons, it can be really irritating to those close to you, but it pays off when it comes to those further away and your 'legacy'. And those close to you get used to it anyways and might even sort of like it despite the superficial frustration.

I have quite a few friends who are 'different', and without exception their 'differentness' at times crosses over into what I'd consider bullshit territory. But even the bullshit differences seem to be worth the drawback of minor irritations to those close to them, at the greater benefit of signalling their differentness in an obvious way.

> Acquaintances state appointee and wife divorced over year ago and have no reason to question moral character of either. Pertinent news articles re appointee set forth including article reporting divorce result of appointee's interest in calculus and African drums and his choking wife and smashing furniture when interrupted by wife.

I kind of have to wonder if Feynman would have been diagnosed with ADD in this day and age. ADD folks tend to hyperfocus on stuff like that, and unfortunately it jars relationships (ADD people have a 50% higher divorce rate)

In the present day war on boys and brains, our institutions would have had Feynman locked up and medicated at age 5.

"War on boys and brains" and "locked up" are rather florid characterizations of the ADHD condition and its treatments.

You don't say! Especially given all his experiments on radios, chemistry and other gadgets. I have little doubts that he would have been a prankster computer hacker if he were in school today.

Is it possible to hyperfocus the way Feynman did when you have ADD though? From my limited understanding, the 'hyperfocus' is really just a focus on smaller things, not sustained obsession with specific, difficult problems.

I recognize many symptoms of ADD in myself, but most of these have to do with boredom. I just cannot sit through a lecture if it doesn't capture my interest, and I get distracted. I find it difficult to converse sometimes, because an argument is one I've heard once too often, or it's with one of those people where I can finish most of their sentences.

But when I find the right topic, I can easily spend days obsessed with specific things. In fact, it seems that it's all or nothing for me. Is that a characteristic of ADD?

> Is it possible to hyperfocus the way Feynman did when you have ADD though?

I wouldn't say everyone with ADD can come up with the same results Feynman did, but I would say they can generally focus effectively on "the right topic," if it really interests them. The problem is they can't choose what this will be: in other words, their mind still gets set on tasks, but they can't set their minds to tasks.

It seems like the divorce suit was less about his bongo playing than it was his choking her when she interrupted his bongo playing.

Playing the bongos is a quirk. Choking your spouse is assault.

EDIT: that said, Feynman's divorce happened before no-fault divorce existed. At the time, a married couple wanting to divorce would often fabricate a story of spousal abuse, in order to establish grounds for granting one. This could be an instance of that practice.

Here is the direct PDF link for anyone interested @ http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/366921/responsive-docu...

Interesting bit from page 64:

"An article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, a Los Angeles daily newspaper, dated 7/18/56, to the effect that the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he choked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture. This antic reflects that the court approved a $7500 cash settlement in favor of the appointee's ex-wife, giving her an automobile, furniture and objects of art, as well as $300 per month for two years and $250 a month for a third year"

To anybody else who first skimmed over this quote: the first half is funny, 'classic Feynman.' The last half is not.

As I noted in the edit to my comment in another sub-thread, their divorce happened before "no-fault" divorce was created. At that time, couples wishing to divorce would often concoct stories of abuse or adultery to give the courts grounds on which to grant their request.

It's doubtful anyone alive today could say definitively, but this could be an instance of that practice. I certainly hope it was.

More often an instance of adultery would be concocted with pictures (hence rise of PIs with cameras "investigating" divorce cases).

Whilst not impossible it is likely our heroes have feet of clay.

Ultimately, one way or another, don't we all?

I have two left feet, of clay :-)

I can't say I knew him well but I knew him out of school, and this is completely unlike the guy I knew. Your theory makes sense -- especially the humorous elaboration about thinking about calculus at all times as grounds for divorce -- THAT sounds like the classic sense of humor.

I wonder which prominent physicist tried to throw him under the bus in the letter beginning on page 110? Teller, maybe?

Given the following passage

> There are many able and eminent physicists [...] Some of these persons are practical physicists--with a very thorough knowledge of creative as well as theoretical physics and of the scientific world--not mere mathematicians as is the case of theoretical physicists.

(these people, if one reads on, being considered by the author as better candidates than Feynman) I'd have guessed someone with a less theoretical background than Teller. It could just be an attempt to appear impartial, I guess.

Accusing someone of being a communist is hardly impartial.

I wasn't for an instant suggesting that the person who wrote that anti-Feynman screed was actually impartial, nor that they expected to be thought not hostile to Feynman.

But a theoretical physicist might have thought their attack would look less like a matter of professional jealousy if they couched part of it in terms of how much more appropriate an experimental physicist would be.

(I don't think that's very likely. I think the person who wrote this was probably not a theoretical physicist. That's why I think it was unlikely-ish to have been Edward Teller. I was simply pondering possible reasons why a theoretical physicist like Teller might have written those words about theoretical versus not-so-theoretical physics.)

There are a few more references to that letter, that refer to the writer as a female. See page 252+.

Interesting story on pages 207 and 208. Feynman is giving a lecture entitled, "What one scientist thinks of religion", and gets into a debate with the head of the School of Religion at Caltech.

A few interesting quotes including this one:

"No one can be sure of anything. We must frankly admit we don't know. It keeps our minds open...We must think about what the universe means without man. If we can't, it makes us 'the center of the universe...hard to believe.'"

This makes me thankful for digital culture/internet in general. If it were today, that lecture would be available, very likely free for everyone on youtube. Instead, it's lost forever.

One of the hazards of extreme paranoia is that occasionally your paranoia will create that which you fear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

Was good they did as well given the situation with NASA and launch vehicles, at least it means that some folk are going back to the moon.

From page 151:

is so unpredictable that "you cannot determine what his reaction would be in any particular set of circumstances." ____ stated that FEYNMAN was known at Los Alamos as a reactionary, because he was so conservative in his ideas and would not go along with the ideas of many of the people there of the same profession who were much less conservative in thetr thinking than he was. ________ stated he considers FEYNMAN to be a person of good character and completely loyal to the United States.

...

____ stated that FEYNMAN is not the type to be influenced by people such _______ as he makes up his own mind concerning every problem and a inclined to make a decision although this decision will not be popular with the group with which he is in contact.

All these references to his atheism. As a European, it's hard to believe that that was/is so important.

As a South American (Brazilian, biggest catholic nation by numbers), it's the easiest thing for me to believe. Outside intellectual/academic/art circles, stating you are an atheist = stating you are a satanist, almost.

No not satanist, communist. The communists had a bit of a "thing" for atheism and the general public is pretty stupid about the use and care of Venn diagrams, so for them its close enough that a commie is an atheist so an atheist must be a commie, right? And even worse, the communists did have operatives in the Manhattan project, it wasn't just paranoia.

The other part that really pisses off law enforcement is church members are expected to provide great references for each other. And every clearance "disaster" involved an agent or whatever clearing a bad guy, which is kinda bad for that agent. So when its review time for the security officer who Fed up, he really, really wants to be able to say something like "Well, yes, he did turn out to be an axe murderer. And yes, there were bloodstains in the carpet of his pleasure dungeon and the neighbors did report occasional screams. But his religious leader is just one step away from God himself, and he said he was a great fellow who tithed generously and who are we to declare ourselves more holy than gods representative on earth so clearly I shouldn't be disciplined because either a direct representative of St Peter was also fooled OR disciplining me would be an insult against religion itself" Just a big exercise in CYA.

Read how much paper was spent on trivial and basic details, then imagine how much more and how much easier they'd be able to dig up using the electronic surveilance of today.

Skimmed through it, seems fairly routine given the SOP of the time. What I did find interesting that I was previously unaware about was his association with Oppenheimer and what is blanked out but is likely some sort of communist organization. Followed that rabbit hole and learned that Oppenheimer had his security clearance revoked (which is why here his association is referenced as notable.)

An association with Oppenheimer is not that surprising. He worked with Oppenheimer, they were both on the Manhatten project. Also, Oppenheimer's security clearance being revoked seems to have also been a lot to do with Edward Teller creating FUD after being pissed off at Oppenheimer for not wanting to put resources into the H-bomb.

Page 85 discussed the Independent Progressive Party that he had registered to (later cancelled). According to the "Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities" the party was being run by the same people who ran the Communist Party. It also noted that a few people who joined it (and it seems this is where they categorized Feynman) were liberals who were dissatisfied with the two party system and had no Communist leanings.

Amusingly enough, there's a letter (page 110) to the president from an acquaintance accusing Feynman of being a Communist and a master of deception. Page 252+ elaborates a little more and identifies the acquaintance as female.

He and Oppenheimer worked together on the Manhattan project. Why would that be surprising?

I've seen interviews where Feynman talks about how everyone else was intimidated by Oppenheimer, while he was too excited about the physics and ideas to realize he should be intimidated. I also think the PBS documentary "The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer"[1] was really excellent.

However, I can just easily imagine not having come across either of these before.[2]

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/oppenheimer...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1053/

Simply because it was something I was unaware of, not that is particularly surprising in general.

For a site (muckrock) dedicated to transparency I'm wondering why there is no easy way to find out (without apparently signing up) what they charge to make these requests on someone's behalf. [1]

[1] https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=/accounts/buy_...

$20/one time to file 5 requests. $40/month for 20 requests plus additional features. Full info here:

https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/register/

Slowly working on our registration flow, which is admittedly somewhat confusing now.

Thanks.

You should place a link at the top which clearly says "pricing". And putting that link in the faq and all the other obvious places.

Another thing I would suggest (and I can help with this actually) is a different name for the actual requests. I suspect that some people in government might take this more seriously (not that they aren't) if the requests came from a different (more serious) entity name. I can't back this up with anything other than being in business for a long time and knowing human nature and from my own experience.

When I saw the first think you did I though it was some kind of comedy or non serious organization trying to just stir up trouble. Even if only 10% of the recipients feel the same way as I do that's an issue.

For those interested in a summary, here's MuckRock's article on these files: https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/jun/06/feynman-f...

"I do not know--but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist--and as such is a very definite security risk. This man is, in my opinion, an extremely complex and dangerous person, and a very dangerous person to have in a position of public trust,"

Page 110

So how does (did) a special inquiry like the one that was performed on Feynman work? It looks like publications were searched and people were interviewed, but does anyone know how those searches were prioritized? I've googled a bit and haven't been able to determine if there's any established procedure that doesn't rely heavily on the discretion of the officials performing the investigation.

So some Christian FBI agents hated him because he was not Christian but atheist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com