#paul ziff

[bocadosdefilosofia]

«Insisto en que ningún robot hará nunca lo que una persona. Y ello independientemente de cómo se construyan, o por complejos y variados que sean sus movimientos y operaciones. Los robots pueden calcular, pero no razonar en sentido estricto. Quizás agarren cosas, pero no las eligirían; matarán, pero no cometerán homicidio; presentarán excusas, pero no las sentirán. Todo esto son actos que sólo las personas pueden realizar: ex hipothesi, los robots no son personas.»

Paul Ziff: «El sentir de los robots», en Controversía sobre mentes y máquinas (Alan Ross Anderson, edit.). Tusquets Editorial, págs. 152-153.  Barcelona, 1984.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia

@dies-irae-1

[monkeyssalad-blog]

Amazing Stories / February 1950 by Michael Studt Via Flickr: Amazing Stories / Magazin-Reihe - William P. McGivern / The Galaxy Raiders - Rog Phillips [Peter Worth] / Typewriter from the Future - Charles Dye / The Last Orbit - Paul W. Fairman / No Teeth for the Tiger - V. E. Thiessen / Spiders of Saturn - Henry Hasse / Tomb of the Seven Taajos - Rog Phillips / The Pranksters - Robert Moore Williams [Russell Storm] / And No Tomorrow cover: Robert Gibson Jones (cover illustrates "The Galaxy Raiders") Editor: Howard Browne Ziff-Davis Publishing Company / USA 1950 Reprint: Comic-Club NK 2010 ex libris MTP en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Stories www.pulpartists.com/Jones.html

[arpov-blog-blog]

...."John Durham—the special counsel who was appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the FBI’s investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal and who utterly failed to produce evidence it was a hoax—testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. In doing so, he made false statements to Congress. He might even have lied.

Durham spent four years on a crusade that Donald Trump and others hoped would back up Trump’s claim that the Russia investigation was cooked up by his enemies within the supposed Deep State. Yet Durham came up empty on this front, losing two jury trials unrelated to the origins of the FBI’s inquiry and winning a guilty plea from an FBI lawyer who had altered an email to support a surveillance warrant for a former Trump campaign adviser. He prosecuted no FBI officials or Obama administration officials for the supposedly big crime of mounting a plot (or witch hunt!) against Trump. Durham even concluded there was justification for the FBI to have initiated a preliminary investigation, just not a full investigation, of Russia’s attack on the 2016 election and contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.  

When Durham came before the committee, House Republicans eagerly picked over the scraps in his final report, which has been much criticized, and they treated him as a hero. But under questioning from Democratic and Republican members, Durham misrepresented key aspects of the Russia scandal, suggesting he was either unfamiliar with basic facts or was purposefully trying to mislead the committee and the American public. 

During his turn to question Durham, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Durham about the infamous meeting held in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, when Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort—three of Trump’s top campaign advisers—sat down with an emissary of the Russian government whom they were told had dirt on Hillary Clinton to share. An email sent to Trump Jr. from a business associate that set up this session informed the candidate’s son that this meeting was part of a secret Russian scheme to help Trump’s campaign. Durham dismissed the matter, remarking, “People get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that.”

This meeting signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was receptive to Russian endeavors to intervene in the election to boost Trump’s chances, and Schiff expressed surprise that Durham found it insignificant. “Are you really trying to diminish the importance of what happened here?” he asked.

Durham answered: “The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.”

That is not true. 

The report produced by special counsel Robert Mueller notes that the Russian emissary, a lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya, did discuss Clinton: “Participants agreed that Veselnitskaya stated that the Ziff brothers [an American family investment firm] had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. She asserted that the Ziff brothers had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering in both the United States and Russia.” (There was no evidence that Ziff Brothers Investments had engaged in wrongdoing.)

The Mueller report points out that Trump Jr. zeroed in on this: “Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States.” The report quotes a participant in the meeting recalling “that Trump Jr. asked what they [the Russians] have on Clinton.”

Durham’s characterization of the meeting—that it had nothing to do with Clinton—lined up with what the Trump camp first claimed when the meeting was revealed a year afterward, in 2017. At that time, Trump Jr. issued a false statement dictated by his father that insisted the conversation had focused “primarily” on the adoption of Russian children by Americans. That was a phony cover story. Later on, when more information came out, even the elder Trump conceded that the point of the meeting was to gather negative information on Clinton from a foreign adversary. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent,” Trump said. Yet years later, Durham was still pushing the original disinformation about the meeting propagated by Trump and his allies. 

In a subsequent exchange with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Durham misled the committee about another key element of the Trump-Russia scandal. McClintock observed that the “central charge in the Russia collusion hoax was that Trump campaign operatives were in contact with Russian intelligence sources.”

Replying to that remark, Durham said, “There was no such evidence.”

That’s not true.

While running Trump’s campaign in the summer of 2016, Manafort had regular contact with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Manafort employee in Ukraine who has been repeatedly identified by US government officials as a Russian agent. 

In a detailed, bipartisan 2020 report, the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, called Kilimnik “a Russian intelligence officer.” A year earlier, the Mueller report said, “The FBI…assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.” The US Treasury in 2021 declared Kilimnik was a “known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf.” The department added, “During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy.” In 2018, Mueller indicted Kilimnik on charges of obstruction of justice. 

The contacts between Manafort and Kilimnik have been well chronicled by Mueller, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and media reports. Durham should be well-versed in this. Manafort and Kilimnik met secretly in a Manhattan cigar bar. Manafort handed Kilimnik Trump campaign polling data that were to be passed to an oligarch close to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and he arranged to continue sharing sensitive campaign information through Kilimnik.

Kilimnik also wanted something from Manafort. He asked Manafort to secure Trump’s backing for a Kremlin-approved “peace plan” for Ukraine that would have entailed creating an autonomous zone in eastern Ukraine, a scheme Manafort knew would offer a “’backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine,” according to the Senate report. This sounds like an early attempt to gain Trump’s assistance in securing what Russia later invaded Ukraine to obtain.

The Senate committee also revealed that it had found information, which it did not publicly detail, “suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the [Russian] hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” And it referenced “two pieces of information” that “raise the possibility” that Manafort, too, was connected to Russia’s “hack-and-leak operations.”

The Manafort-Kilimnik connection—which the Senate Intelligence Committee report characterized as a “grave counterintelligence threat“—is one of the most serious and still not fully explained components of the Trump-Russia scandal. It belies all the claims of Trump and his crowd that the Russia investigation was nothing but a hoax orchestrated by a nefarious den of anti-Trump vipers within the law enforcement and national security communities. It is inconceivable that Durham is unaware of this troubling link. But by ignoring the well-documented contacts between Manafort and an identified Russian agent and asserting that there was no evidence of interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, Durham was supporting Trump’s never-ending coverup.

Durham’s investigation and report raised several questions about his aims. Was he running a fair and balanced probe or weaponizing a government inquiry to buttress Trump’s self-serving lies about the Russia scandal? Durham’s false statements to Congress about essential facts provide more reason for suspicion, and they further undermine his credibility. They might even merit their own investigation. "

[thehauntedrocket]

Vintage Pulp - Amazing Stories (Aug1926) (Ziff-Davis)

Art by Frank R. Paul

[raypunkzero]

Frank R. Paul (1884 - 1963) Amazing Stories cover art (Ziff-Davis, 1927) https://ift.tt/2Ycyrss June 18, 2020 at 12:07AM +visit our fellow Goethepunk art page

[lateliernyc]

Steven Canavan for Vogue Spain

Photographer: Bec Lorrimer

Stylist: Kate Carnegie

Models: Sara Ziff and Nykhor Paul

[mianonnadellozen]

Gabriele Ghiandoni e il linguaggio di crescita.

Gabriele Ghiandoni e il linguaggio di crescita.

V.S. Gaudio

Da:  Divagazione ziffiana sulla poesia di Gabriele Ghiandoni

Come si legge la poesia dialettale ?

Confrontiamo:

Sapìti cchi successi a la Licata

‘u porcu assicutava ‘na criata

c’aveva ancora lordi li piatti

e cincu jatti ‘nta ‘n malu furrìu

ca vulevunu ‘u pizzu,

amminazzannu:

serva fitusa, dannìnni ‘na parti,

jettini ‘a rristatura d’a pignata,

bbrutta criata;

cu stava sodu-ggiubbu…

[tsgmiamiflorida]

September 2018 Miami Calendar

September 7th Ghost Tour at Deering Estate:Starting this month, we can learn about sightings and paranormal experiences of Miami’s most haunted property with P.R.I.S.M. (Paranormal Research & Investigative Studies).  The Deering Estate offers a variety of ghost tours, paranormal investigations, and overnight experiences.

The first Ghost tour will be Friday, September 7th from 8- 10 p.m., $30 per person.  Additional dates for this guided tour are 9/21/18, 9/28, 10/3 and 10/24.

Want more? Beginning October 20th there are several dates on the calendar that you can visit with the ghosts after hours… I mean this is better than a slumber party with a ouiji board! From 10 pm- 2 am A group of volunteer Paranormal Investigators will take guests to the most active locations on the Estate where you can investigate and attempt communication with the spirits that roam in the historic houses and main grounds. Equipment used to detect spectral presences – such as pendulums, dowsing rods, EMF meters, voice recorders and cameras are welcome! This night will cost $65/person. Check website for dates and ticket purchasing information.

September 8th, ArtsLaunch 2018, Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, 10:00 a.m. This free party marks the opening of public ticket sales for more than 170 Arsht programs—purchasable with no handling fees on this day only. Stay for the author conversations, chef demos, workshops and tours, with 100 arts organizations touting their lineups at the Community Village. Budding performers can participate in dance classes, a cappella singing and much more. Brief musical showcases take place throughout the day (10:30am–5:30pm) inside the Ziff Ballet Opera House and Knight Concert Hall’s green rooms. ArtLaunch2018 is a 12-hour spectacular with plenty to see and do for the entire family. .

September 8, 2018: Paul Simon’s Farewell Tour at the BB&T Center.  This tour is wrapping up and reports from the rest of his show is that he is singing ALL OF MY FAVORITE Paul Simon songs: “Graceland,” “Homeward Bound,”  “Mrs. Robinson,” ,“Me and Julio Down by the School Yard.”  I think we have to venture to Sunrise for this one! Ticket information here

September 15, 2018, 8 p.m. Sting and Shaggy 44/876 Tour: The Filmore Miami Beach at the Jackie Gleason Theatre.  This unlikely duo collaborated to produce an album that has Jamaican undertones and includes Sting classics like, “Every Little Thing She Does is Magic” and “Message in a Bottle.”  I’m just sad it doesn’t include my favorite Shaggy song “It Wasn’t Me.” Good News! Tickets are still available.  Bad News? They are almost $170/per person for General Admission.  I say? Still worth it! I feel like this might be EVEN BETTER than Martha and Snoop! Get your tickets here

September 20-22: Miami Fashion Film Festival, Miami Beach. Bringing attention to the historical interdependence between art and fashion and its influences, the Miami Fashion Film Festival adds to the “fashion is art” narrative with local and international films that highlight fashion design through storytelling, graphics, sound, and motion, in real and digitally imagined environments.  The weekend will include screenings, workshops for budding film makers, panels and parties.  Check out their website for all of the details here.

September 22nd, Miami Trail Festival, Virginia Key.  A unique endurance festival at Virginia Key that will include a variety of events including trail running, mountain biking, stand up paddleboard, and yoga.  Click here to register: l

September 22nd, A Conversation with Al Pacino. Location  the Filmore Jackie Gleason Theatre.  The star of, arguably, the most iconic Miami-set movie of all time returns to the Magic City, this time without a chainsaw, mountains of coke and his “little friend.” He’ll discuss his 50 years of acting and directing, a career that has spanned from The Godfather and Serpico to his recent biopics about Joe Paterno and Jimmy Hoffa, in a conversation moderated by radio personality Paul Castronovo.

September 23rd. Miami River Cruise with Dr. Paul George of the History of Miami Museum Tour on the  Miami River on the Island Queen, departing from Bayside Marketplace.  As Dr. George recounts the history of Miami, learn the story of the Miami River from the late 19th century, and hear tales of the area’s earliest known inhabitants, the Tequesta, all while cruising through Miami’s Downtown. See hidden neighborhoods and little-known sites. Tickets start at $50.  Click here for information. http://www.historymiami.org/city-tour/historic-miami-river-cruise-with-dr-george/

September 23rd, Ski Mask the Slump God will be playing at University of Miami’s Watsco Center in Coral Gables.  South’s Florida’s own Stokely Goulbourne, a.k.a. Ski Mask the Slump God, a.k.a. the fastest rapper in the South, comes home. He’s had a big year thanks to his XXL Freshman List appearance and his Beware the Book of Eli mixtape, and he’s poised to go even bigger at this Miami tour stop.

Phew.. what a list! This is going to be a great month. Enjoy!

XO,

Meredith

[bluebicpen]

“To suppose that anything that can be viewed is a fit I’m just for aesthetic attention is not like supposing anything one can put in one’s mouth is a fit object to eat. It is more like supposing that anything that can be seen can be read. Because it can. It isn’t true that one can’t read just anything that one can see. Not everything has a meaning but anything can be given meaning. One can read a blank piece of paper or a cloud or a sea anemone as some read palms and tea leaves and entrails. One can give meaning to stones but one can’t make them edible. And one can see them as displays of solidity as expressive objects.”

Paul Ziff, Anything Viewed

[norbert-weber]

Staatskanzlei des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen

z.Hd. Herrn Regierungssprecher Christian Wiermer

Horienplatz 1

40213 Düsseldorf

 

Per Mail: presse@stk.nrw

 

2.

Petitionsausschuss des Landtags von Nordrhein-Westfalen

über (einige der)

im Landtag vertretenen Fraktionsvorsitzenden

(z.B. – siehe Accounts auf Homepage des Landtags)

markus.wagner@landtag.nrw.de

christof.rasche@landtag.nrw.de

 

3.

 

 

(ggf. weitere Empfänger auf Bundesebene)

 

 

Fragen zu den durchgeführten mRNA-Impfungen und etwaigen Nebenwirkungen, insbes. dazu, ob die Menschen nun an oder mit der Impfung sterben; Anregung einen Untersuchungsausschuss einzurichten

 

 

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

 

 

wie Sie wissen, wurde in Deutschland bereits mit den Covid-19-mRNA-Impfungen gegen das Coronavirus begonnen.

 

Die Vergabe von Impfstoffen wurde durch die Bunderegierung priorisiert. 

 

In NRW sollen nach der Darstellung der Landesregierung aktuell 53 Impfzentren einsatzbereit sein und am 8.2.2021 für den Publikumsverkehr geöffnet werden, zunächst für Personen die 80 Jahre oder älter sind:

 

https://www.land.nrw/de/corona/impfung

 

Wie Ihnen sicherlich bekannt ist, handelt es sich bei neuartigen Impfungen gegen Covid-19 um so genannte genetische Impfstoffe.  

 

Bei der Covid-19-Impfung wird so genannte Boten-RNA in unsere Zellen eingeschleust. Diese mRNA programmiert die Körperzelle, in die sie eindringt genetisch darauf, ein bestimmtes Virus-Protein herzustellen. Dieses Virus-Protein, beispielsweise das Stachelprotein, soll dann als Trainingsobjekt für unser Immunsystem dienen.

 

Es sollte bedacht werden, dass Zellen, die mit dem mRNA-Impfstoff in Kontakt kommen und zur Produktion von Virus-Proteinen umprogrammiert werden, aller Voraussicht nach eine genetische Veränderung durchmachen werden, denn sie stellen ihre normale Funktion ein und produzieren Virus-Proteine. Sie werden also durch einen genetischen Eingriff entartet.

 

Wie sich die Entartung von Körperzellen langfristig auswirkt, wie unser Immunsystem auf unsere eigenen, solchermaßen entarteten Zellen reagiert, ist bislang nicht geklärt.

 

Zu weiteren Information verweise ich auf folgende Quellen, in denen einige Aussagen von Prof. Dr. Hockertz über die neue „Corona-Impfung“ zusammengefasst worden sind:

 

Kurzversion:

 

https://christen-im-widerstand.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/A4_Impfflyer_Hockertz.pdf

 

Hier das vollständige Interview mit Prof. Dr. Hockertz vom 30.9.2020:

 

https://christen-im-widerstand.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Interview-mit-Prof.-Hockertz-Final.pdf

 

Sehen sich bitte nur mal die folgenden impfkritischen Fundstellen an:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJd5owgHbQ&t=119s

 

https://t.me/AnwaelteFuerRechtUndFreiheit/3047

 

https://t.me/Dr_Heinrich_Fiechtner/1501

 

 

Auf Grund dieser grundsätzlichen Bedenken frage ich mich, ob der Einsatz solcher „Impfstoffe“ überhaupt zu rechtfertigen ist.

 

Sicherlich ist Ihnen nicht entgangen, dass es zahlreiche Berichte aus aller Welt gibt, wonach Altenheimbewohner kurze Zeit nach der Verabreichung eines Impfstoffs gegen das SARS-CoV2-Virus verstorben sein sollen.

 

Bezogen auf Deutschland möchte ich auf den Sicherheitsbericht des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts verweisen, abrufbar unter:

 

https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/dossier/coronavirus/coronavirusinhalt.html;jsessionid=4EBC4ECF561A2B13C60F8E86DB89F192.intranet211?nn=169730&cms_pos=5

 

Besonders möchte ich in diesem Kontext auf folgenden Umstand hinweisen:

 

„Wegen der erhöhten Gefährlichkeit einer solchen Behandlung bestimmt die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 507/2006, dass die Patienten und die im Gesundheitswesen tätigen Fachkräfte (die das Arzneimittel zur Anwendung bringen) deutlich darauf hingewiesen werden, dass die Zulassung für den fraglichen Stoff nur bedingt erteilt worden ist. 

Dabei muss den Impflingen – ebenso wie den die Impfungen vornehmenden Personen – auch klar dargelegt werden, was eine solche “bedingte Zulassung” im konkreten Fall bedeutet. 

Vorliegend ist dies der Umstand, 

·       dass wesentliche Studien noch nicht vorgenommen bzw. abgeschlossen wurden

·       dass keine Studien zur Erfassung der Wechselwirkungen mit anderen Arzneimitteln durchgeführt wurden,

·       dass keine verlässlichen Studien zum Thema Auswirkungen auf die Fertilität vorliegen,

·       dass zu befürchten ist, dass die Geimpften auch weiterhin das Virus übertragen können,

·       dass laut neuesten Studien die Wirksamkeit dieser „Impfstoffe“ als sehr bescheiden einzustufen ist.“

 

Dies und mehr abrufbar in dem Artikel:

 

https://2020news.de/massenhaft-nichtige-impfeinwilligungen/

 

Mir selbst sind im Kontext mit den aktuell eingesetzten „Impfstoffen“ (bloß unterstellt, dass diese Bezeichnung angemessen ist) u.a. folgende Fragen gekommen:

 

1.

Ist es korrekt, dass eine bedingte Markzulassung des COVID-19 mRNA-Impfstoffes nicht erfolgte, sondern nur die vorübergehende Anwendung eines nicht zugelassenen Impfstoffs zugelassen wurde (Notfallzulassung)?

2.

Ist es zutreffend, dass die COVID-19 mRNA-Impfstoffe neben Spike-Proteinen unter anderem auch Syncytin-homologe Proteine enthalten, die bei Säugetieren, wie dem Menschen, wesentliche Voraussetzung für die Ausbildung der Placenta – und damit für die Fruchtbarkeit – darstellen?

 

3.

Enthalten die COVID-19 mRNA-Impfstoffe Polyethylenglykol (PEG)?  Falls ja, in welcher Konzentration?

 

4.

Werden in der Packungsbeilage der „Impfstoff“-Hersteller vollständig und abschließend alle Inhaltsstoffe des COVID-19 mRNA-Impfstoffes genannt, also auch die Inhaltsstoffe, die nicht deklarationspflichtig sind?

 

Falls nicht, so wäre aufzuklären, welche der Inhaltsstoffe, die nicht in der Packungsbeilage genannt werden, dem Impfstoff gleichwohl zugesetzt worden sind.

 

Weil viele Menschen auf Grund von zahlreichen Berichten hierzu stark verunsichert worden sind, wäre auch zu erhellen, ob mit dem „Impfvorgang“ – ggf. auch über die Spritze oder die Nadel - auch Nanobots verabreicht worden sind.

 

Falls dies der Fall wäre, müsste aufgeklärt werden, welche Funktion diese Nanobots zu erfüllen haben.

 

5.

Muss der SARS-CoV2-Impfstoff bei minus 70 Grad oder vergleichbaren Tiefsttemperaturen gelagert werde? Wenn ja: Warum?

6.

Wie bereits einleitend dargelegt, wird nach meiner Kenntnis mit einer mRNA-Impfung die genetische Information (der Bauplan) für bestimmte Teile (Proteine) des Virus gespritzt. Im Körper erfolgt sodann die Herstellung (Synthese) von Virus-Proteinen, gegen die der Mensch Antikörper zum Schutz vor der Krankheit bilden soll.

Aus diesem Sachverhalt ergeben sich für mich folgende Fragen, die ich nachfolgend unter Ziff. 9 noch ergänzen werde:

Wann hört der Körper auf, die Virus Proteine herzustellen? Oder ist hierüber nichts bekannt? Wird der Körper also ggf. dauerhaft Virus-Proteine herstellen?

 

8.

In diesem Kontext bitte ich insbesondere auch darum, den Verdacht der Immunologin und Molekularbiologin Prof. Dolores Cahill Stellung aufzuklären, wonach COVID-19 Geimpfte Monate nach der mRNA-Impfung sterben werden.

Prof. Chahill erklärt in dem Video

vimeo.com/496720078

anhand der Studie “Immunisierung mit SARS-Coronavirus-Impfstoffen führt nach Injektion mit wildem SARS-Virus zu schwerer Immunerkrankung der Lungen“, warum mRNA-Impfstoffe mit extremen Risiken verbunden seien.

Wenn die Geimpften einige Monate nach der Impfung mit wilden Coronaviren in Kontakt kämen, dann würde ihr Immunsystem in vielen Fälle mit einem tödlichen Zytokinsturm reagieren, eben weil die Impfstoff-mRNA die Körperzellen gentechnisch so modifiziere, dass sie das Spike-Protein des Coronavirus produzieren würden. Wenn dann später ein neues Coronavirus das Immunsystem aktiviere erkenne das Immunsystem die selbst produzierten Spike-Proteine als Gefahr und starte einen Großangriff gegen die eigenen Körperzellen. Als Folge würden die Geimpften einen septischen Schock mit multiplem Organversagen erleiden, was in der Regel mit dem Tod ende.

Sind diese Bedenken von Prof. Cahill unbegründet? Wenn ja, warum?

9.

Meine nächsten Fragen ergeben sich aus Aussagen der französischen Genetikerin Dr. med. Alexandra Henrion-Caude, ehem. Direktorin des nationalen Instituts für Gesundheit und medizinische Forschung, Inserm, die in dem o.g. Video äußert, dass die Öffentlichkeit vor der Impfung über die lebensgefährlichen Risiken der mRNA-Impfstoffe für Senioren aufgeklärt werden müsse.

 

Sie verweist auf die Schlussfolgerungen aus der Studie “Informierte Einwilligung der Teilnehmer an der COVID-19 Impfstoff-Studie zum Risiko einer Verschlimmerung der klinischen Erkrankung” und deren klinische Implikationen: Das spezifische und signifikante Risiko von COVID-19-Antikörper abhängiger Abwehrverstärkung (Antibody-dependent enhancement, ADE) hätte den Versuchspersonen offengelegt werden müssen – sowohl jenen, die sich derzeit in Impfstoff-Studien befinden, wie auch jenen, die für die Studien rekrutiert werden.

Ebenso müssten die zukünftigen Patienten nach der Zulassung des Impfstoffs aufgeklärt werden. Diese Offenlegung müsse an prominenter Stelle und unabhängig erfolgen, um den Standard der medizinischen Ethik für das Verständnis und eine informierte Einwilligung der Patienten zu erfüllen.

Ihrer Ansicht nach würden mRNA-Impfungen nicht vor Coronaviren schützen, sondern machten sie zu einer tödlichen Gefahr! Es gelte also zu klären, ob sich hinter dem Begriff “Impfstoff” ein biologisches Waffensystem verberge. In jedem Fall würden die Impfstoff-Hersteller, die WHO und ihre Ableger in den nationalen Behörden versuchen, die Nebenwirkungen (aus militärischer Sicht: Hauptwirkungen) der mRNA-Impfung auf ein mutiertes Virus abzuschieben.

Von daher wäre aufzuklären,

a)

wann und in welcher Form die Impfstoffhersteller und die Regierungen von Bund und Land die Öffentlichkeit – an prominenter Stelle – vor (!) der Impfung bzw. vor dem Beginn der Impfkampagne über die lebensgefährlichen Risiken der mRNA-Impfstoffe für Senioren informiert haben,

b)

ob es zutrifft, dass mRNA-Impfungen nicht vor Coronaviren schützen, sondern sie vielmehr zu einer tödlichen Gefahr machen können,

c)

ob es Überlegungen gab oder gibt, für die Nebenwirkungen von mRNA-Impfungen ggf. Virus-Mutationen verantwortlich zu machen,

d)

ob gegenüber den Versuchspersonen das signifikante Risiko von COVID-19-Antikörper abhängiger Abwehrverstärkung (Antibody-dependent enhancement, ADE) offengelegt worden ist, also sowohl gegenüber jenen, die sich in Impfstoff-Studien befanden als auch gegenüber jenen, die sich derzeit noch in Impfstoff-Studien befinden und aktuell für diese Studien rekrutiert werden.

10.

Dürfen die „Impfstoffe“ gegen das SARS-CoV2-Virus unter Berücksichtigung der CDC- und FDA-Standards überhaupt als „Impfstoff“ bezeichnet werden?

Nach diesen Standards darf man nur dann von einem Impfstoff sprechen, wenn dieser bei der Person, die ihn erhält, eine Immunität erzeugt und zudem eine weitere Übertragung (des Virus) verhindert, siehe hierzu u.a.:

https://t.me/deutschlandstehtauf/160

Wenn die aktuell eingesetzten Mittel aber keine Impfstoffe sind, was sind sie dann?

Mit anderen Worten: Wie wirken diese Mittel im Körper des Menschen und welche Bezeichnung wäre angesichts dieser Wirkung angemessen?

11.

Haben sich die Geschäftsführer und leitenden Mitarbeiter der „Impfstoff“-Hersteller und die Mitglieder der Regierungen und Parlamente von Bund und Ländern – hier: NRW - auch selbst mit diesem „Impfstoff“ gegen das SARS-CoV2-Virus impfen lassen?

Wenn nicht: warum nicht?

12.

Nach täglich aktualisierten Listen von weltweit gemeldeten Impfschäden besteht Grund zu der Annahme, dass die gegen das SARS-CoV2 verabreichten „Impfstoffe“ bzw. Mittel bereits in vielen Fällen mit schweren und schwersten Folgeschäden verbunden waren, insbesondere auch zu einem Ableben der Geimpften geführt haben.

Von daher ist aufzuklären, ob die gegen das SARS-CoV2-Virus eingesetzten „Impfstoff“ kausal für die Entstehung von schweren Krankheitsverläufen bis hin zum Ableben des Geimpften verantwortlich waren.

In diesem Kontext ist folglich aufzuklären:

Wie wurden diese Nebenwirkungen und Folgeschäden von den Herstellerfirmen und von staatlichen Stellen statistisch erfasst?

Wo sind Ihre Statistiken veröffentlicht worden bzw. abrufbar?“

Nach welchen Kriterien wurde Impfschäden in diese Statistiken aufgenommen oder auch nicht aufgenommen?

Bekanntlich wird jeder als Covid-Toter erfasst, der (angeblich) „mit“ dem SARS-CoV2-Virus stirbt, wobei es keine Rolle spielt, ob er wirklich „an“ diesem Virus oder auf Grund seiner (schweren) Vorerkrankungen gestorben ist.

Wieso wird dann auch nicht jeder Mensch als „Impftoter“ erfasst, der kurze Zeit nach dieser „Impfung“ – also „mit“ dem „Impfstoff“ – verstorben? Wieso wird hier – genau anders herum als bei der Covid-19-Sterbe-Statistik – regelmäßig behauptet, dass diese Menschen nicht auf Grund dieser „Impfung“, sondern auf Grund ihrer schweren Vorerkrankung gestorben sind?

Wer hat denn diese Kriterien festgelegt?

Sind diese Kriterien aus objektiver, d.h. unabhängiger wissenschaftlicher Sicht sachgerecht oder nicht?

Wie viele der Menschen, die unmittelbar nach einer Impfung mit einem SARS-CoV2-Virus-„Impfstoff“ verstorben sind, wurden obduziert?

Wenn diese nicht obduziert wurden? Warum nicht?

13.

Wie gewährleistet die Landesregierung von NRW, dass alle Menschen, die gegen das SARS-CoV2-Virus geimpft worden sind oder noch geimpft werden sollen, zuvor über die o.g. Umstände dieser Impfung und insbesondere über alle damit verbundenen Risiken korrekt aufgeklärt worden sind bzw. aufgeklärt werden?

 

Wie auch immer Ihre Auskunft ausfallen wird, ich erlaube mir folgende Anmerkung:

Es steht m.E. keinem Menschen auf Erden zu, auf diese Art und Weise – mit solchen Mitteln - in den Schöpfungsplan und die Genetik von Menschen einzugreifen.

Wer – wie Bill Gates – durch seine öffentlichen Erklärungen den Eindruck erweckt, als hätte er ein erstes Eigentumsrecht an dem Körper aller Menschen dieser Erde, so dass er auch einseitig bestimmen könne, wann alle Menschen dieser Erde wieder eine „Normalität“ (nach seinen verquerten Vorstellungen freilich) erleben dürfen, offenbart damit eine größenwahnsinnige und geradezu satanische Anmaßung.

Gott hat die Schöpfung gemacht, nicht dieser anmaßende Vollpfosten mit Namen Bill Gates, der bekanntlich viele Jahre lang nicht einmal sein eigenes Betriebssystem vor Viren(-Programmen) schützen konnte.

Wer hat ihn legitimiert für die Menschheit zu sprechen oder der Menschheit sogar seinen Willen aufzuzwingen?

 

Ihre Antwort übermitteln Sie mir bitte an meine Mailadresse:

 

….

 

 

Bereits jetzt bedanke ich mich herzlich für Ihre Müheverwaltung und Mithilfe.

 

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

[dragoni]

Natalia had “guidance” from Putin to feed Dana Rohrabacher, French Hill and Trump campaign with the same accusations about Clinton. Why? Putin wanted Clinton to lose but more importantly, their money and assets back. Yuri Chaika had a vested interest because his assets were also frozen. #MagnitskyAct

The memo that Ms. Veselnitskaya brought to the Trump Tower meeting alleged that Ziff Brothers Investments, an American firm, had illegally purchased shares in a Russian company and evaded tens of millions of dollars of Russian taxes. The company was the financial vehicle of three billionaire brothers, two of them major donors to Democratic candidates including Mrs. Clinton. By implication, Ms. Veselnitskaya, said, those political contributions were tainted by “stolen” money. 

Remember, the Trump Tower meeting didn’t happen until June 9, 2016.

In April 2016, Ms. Veselnitskaya teamed with Mr. Chaika’s office to pass the accusations to an American congressional delegation visiting Moscow. An official with the Russian prosecutor general’s office gave a memo detailing the charges — stamped “confidential”— to Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is considered to be one of the most pro-Russia lawmakers in Congress and who heads a subcommittee that helps oversee U.S. policy toward Russia.

Ms. Veselnitskaya handed a nearly identical memo to Representative French Hill, Republican of Arkansas. She has said she also met with Mr. Rohrabacher then, although he said that he does not recall the encounter.

But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya had discussed the allegations with one of Russia’s most powerful officials, the prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo she brought with her closely followed a document that Mr. Chaika’s office had given to an American congressman two months earlier, incorporating some paragraphs verbatim.

The coordination between the Trump Tower visitor and the Russian prosecutor general undercuts Ms. Veselnitskaya’s account that she was a purely independent actor when she sat down with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul J. Manafort, then the Trump campaign chairman.

In the past week, Ms. Veselnitskaya’s allegations — that major Democratic donors were guilty of financial fraud and tax evasion — have been embraced at the highest levels of the Russian government. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeated her charges at length last week at an annual conference of Western academics. A state-run television network recently made them the subject of two special reports, featuring interviews with Ms. Veselnitskaya and Mr. Chaika.

The law, known as the Magnitsky Act, froze Western bank accounts of officials on the sanctions list – including Mr. Chaika’s deputy — and banned them from entering the United States. It was named after Sergei L. Magnitsky, a tax lawyer who had worked for Mr. Browder and who died in a Moscow jail after exposing a widespread fraud scheme involving Russian officials.

Yuri Y. Chaika, right, Russia’s prosecutor general, with President Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in March.

#2016Election #RussiaCollusion  #RussiaCoverUp 

#ItsMuellerTime

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."Did Durham lie?

John Durham was supposed to be the great Trump hope — the anti-Mueller, who would blow the lid off something something something. His years-long probe ended with multiple courtroom humiliations and a damp squib of a report.

His testimony before a House committee yesterday didn’t go any better. He stumbled, hedged, and made it clear that he didn’t really know much at all about the Rusia probe. Here’s Jonathan Chait:

Durham seemed to be unaware of the major factual elements of the alliance between the Trump campaign and Russia. This ignorance came through in several awkward exchanges with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee panel. Eric Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.” This was a deal, described in the Mueller report, in which the Russian government promised Trump several hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk to himself to license a tower in Moscow. The proposed payoff, and Trump’s public lies at the time about it, gave Russia enormous leverage over his campaign. Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”

There was a lot more like that.

When Adam Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts, he replied, “I’m not sure.” Schiff responded, “The answer is yes,” to which Durham reported, “In your mind, it’s yes.” When Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails, Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.” When asked if Trump referred to those stolen emails more than 100 times on the campaign trail, Durham answered, “I don’t really read the newspapers and listen to the news.” And when Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump, Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”

David Corn isn’t having it. He writes, “John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress.”

“The Manafort-Kilimnik connection — which the Senate Intelligence Committee report characterized as a ‘grave counterintelligence threat’ — is one of the most serious and still not fully explained components of the Trump-Russia scandal. “It is inconceivable that Durham is unaware of this troubling link.”

Corn walks through Durham’s other false statements, including his account of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in which Don Jr. hoped the Russians would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton.

This meeting signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was receptive to Russian endeavors to intervene in the election to boost Trump’s chances, and Schiff expressed surprise that Durham found it insignificant. “Are you really trying to diminish the importance of what happened here?” he asked. Durham answered: “The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.” That is not true.  The report produced by special counsel Robert Mueller notes that the Russian emissary, a lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya, did discuss Clinton: “Participants agreed that Veselnitskaya stated that the Ziff brothers [an American family investment firm] had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. She asserted that the Ziff brothers had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering in both the United States and Russia.” (There was no evidence that Ziff Brothers Investments had engaged in wrongdoing.) The Mueller report points out that Trump Jr. zeroed in on this: “Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States.” The report quotes a participant in the meeting recalling “that Trump Jr. asked what they [the Russians] have on Clinton.” Durham’s characterization of the meeting—that it had nothing to do with Clinton—lined up with what the Trump camp first claimed when the meeting was revealed a year afterward, in 2017. At that time, Trump Jr. issued a false statement dictated by his father that insisted the conversation had focused “primarily” on the adoption of Russian children by Americans. That was a phony cover story. Later on, when more information came out, even the elder Trump conceded that the point of the meeting was to gather negative information on Clinton from a foreign adversary. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent,” Trump said. Yet years later, Durham was still pushing the original disinformation about the meeting propagated by Trump and his allies. 

As Hayes Brown notes, Durham’s testimony was “a far cry from when the former president was promising that Durham’s probe would reveal ‘the crime of the century’.”

Instead, Durham said in his opening statement that his report “should not be read to suggest in any way that Russian election interference was not a threat; it was.” And when it came to Mueller himself, Durham didn’t hold back in his praise. “Our object, our aim, was not to dispute Director Mueller,” Durham said. “I have the greatest regard, the highest regard for Director Mueller. He is a patriot.” That’s again not what Trump’s most ardent devotees would like to hear coming from the man who they expected to expose Mueller’s role in the “witch hunt” against Trump."

[thehauntedrocket]

Vintage Pulp - Amazing Stories (May1927) (Ziff-Davis)

Art by Frank R. Paul

[raypunkzero]

Frank R. Paul (1884 - 1963) Amazing Stories cover art (Ziff-Davis, 1927) https://ift.tt/2YQSlZw June 18, 2020 at 12:06AM +visit our fellow Goethepunk art page

[sarcasticcynic]

Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner last summer, has released some specific details evidencing the Trump campaign’s willingness--nay, eagerness--to collude with Russia against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election:

“...the Ziff brothers, wealthy Democratic donors, allegedly evaded paying U.S. taxes on Russian investments. Trump Jr. was very interested in that detail, but only if it related to Clinton, his father's 2016 rival. During the meeting, Trump Jr. pushed one question: ‘This money the Ziffs got from Russia, do you have any financial documents showing that this money went to Clinton’s campaign?’ he asked, according to Veselnitskaya. When she admitted there was no proof, the meeting ‘quickly fell apart’ as the Trump team lost interest.”

Trump Jr. even offered Russia political favors if Clinton lost as a result of Russia’s help against her:

“With the hint that Veselnitskaya would provide dirt on Clinton, Trump Jr. promised to revisit the sanctions. ‘Looking ahead, if we come to power, we can return to this issue and think what to do about it,’ Trump Jr. told Veselnitskaya.”

REMEMBER:

Veselnitskaya has confirmed links to the Kremlin.

The Kremlin lies. (For example, it has repeatedly denied that it influenced or interfered with the 2016 presidential election in any way.)

The Kremlin does not like us.

The Kremlin is very pleased when there is more chaos and dissent in the United States.

Veselnitskaya thus has every motive to fabricate this.

That said, in a contest of credibility between Veselnitskaya and the perennially dishonest associates of our Liar-in-Chief, I’ll take Veselnitskaya.

[amazingstories]

The other day I got into a brief discussion of cover mentions throughout the history of the science fiction magazine.

Of course we all focus on the cover image first, but unless it is a really extraordinary sample of the genre’s art (between BEMs and brass brassieres it’s a bit tough to hit “extraordinary”) the very next thing we look at are the names of the authors to be found within.

To the first time buyer, these mean little to nothing.  To the aficionado however,  they can serve as an instant assessment of the expected quality of the issue.  Lots of top names, stands a chance of being an excellent issue.  No recognizable authors – well, either the title is on its way out (the editors are scraping the bottom of the submission barrel) or – we’re about to discover the next great thing to come down the genre pike.  This latter possibility can only be found in the “vanishingly small probability” box, and represents more of a hope for the reader than a real possibility.

I decided to take a look at how the various magazine titles handled this bit of self-promotion.  I then decided to use 1953 as my exemplar year.

Why 1953?  Because 1953 was THE banner year for science fiction and fantasy magazines.  And because the frenzy surrounding this boom year somewhat resembles what we’ve been seeing for the past several years – an explosion of electronic magazine titles, each of which carefully lists it’s available contents.

1953 was also a year in which the genre was changing;  more markets meant that more authors could stretch, had a few more places they could pitch to.  Many of the “old guard” were still publishing, and a lot of familiar names had become firmly established.  The short story was still the dominant form for the genre and thus, it’s at least as good a year as any other to pick on.

(Wikipedia only lists 219 SF novels published in 1953.  There were undoubtedly a handful of others, but this is a pretty good indicator of how few novels were published, as opposed to short fiction in the magazines.)

Here’s a gallery, displaying the magazine covers from 1953, in alphabetical order by magazine title.

AMAZING STORIES

Published by: Ziff-Davids Publishing Company Edited by: Howard Browne Format: Pulp

Charles Creighton, Mallory Storm, Chester Geier, Guy Archette, E. K. Jarvis, Paul Lohrman (2), Jack Lait, Lee Mortimer, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, H.L. Gold (2), Theodore Sturgeon, Harriet Frank, Walter M. Miller Jr., Kendall Foster, Henry Kuttner, Algiss Budrys, R. W. Krepps, Richard Matheson, Robert Skeckley (2), Vern Fearing, William P. McGivern, Wallace West, Evan Hunter 2/26

ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION

Published by:  Street & Smith Publications Edited by: John W. Campbell, Jr. Format: Digest

Poul Anderson (3), H. Beam Piper, John J. McGuire, John Loxmith, Hal Clement, John E. Arnold, Lee Correy, Mark Clifton (2), Alex Apostildes (2), Tom Godwin, Raymond F. Jones

0/11

AVON SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY READER

Published by: Avon Novels Inc, & Stratford Novels Inc. Edited by: Sol Cohen Format:  Digest

Arthur C. Clarke (2), John Jakes (2), Alfred J. Coppel Jr., John Christopher, Milton Lesser (2), Jack Vance

0/9

BEYOND FANTASY FICTION

Published by:  Galaxy Publishing Edited by:  Horace L. Gold Format:  Digest

Ted Sturgeon (2), Damon Knight, T. L. Sherred, Jerome Bixby (2), Joe E. Dean, Richard Matheson (2), Roger Dee, Frank M. Robinson, James McConnell, Isaac Asimov, Robert Bloch, T. R. Cogswell, Philip K. Dick, John Wyndham, Wyman Guin, Richard Deeming, Algis Budrys, Franklin Gregory, Zenna Henderson, Ted Reynolds

1/23

COSMOS SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY MAGAZINE

Published by Star Publications Edited by Laurence M. Jannifer Format:  Digest

Poul Anderson, Carl Jacobi (2), Philip K. Dick, Evan Hunter (2), Ross Rocklynne, John Jakes, Bertram Chandler (2), Robert S. Richardson (2), B. Traven, N. R., Jack Vance

0/15

DYNAMIC SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Columbia Publications Edited by: Robert A. W. Lowndes Format: Pulp

Cyril Judd, Raymond Z. Gallun, James Blish, Michael Sherman, Algis Budrys

0/5*

FAMOUS FANTASTIC MYSTERIES

Published by:  All Fiction Field (imprint of Popular Publications) Edited by:  Mary Gnaedinger Format:  Pulp

Talbot Mundy, H. Rider Haggard, Ayn Rand, Kafka

1/4

FANTASTIC

Published by: Ziff-Davis Publications Edited by: Howard Browne Format: Digest

Samuel Hopkins Adams, Joseph Shallit, Kris Neville, Edgar Allan Poe, John Collier, Billy Rose, B. Traven, Stephen Vincent Benet, William P. McGivern (3), Isaac Asimov, Alfred Bester, John Wyndham (2), Esther Carlson, Evelyn Waugh, Ralph Robin (3), Walter M. Miller Jr., Robert Sheckley (2), Richard Matheson, Frank M. Robinson, Rog Phillips, Robert Bloch

2/27

FANTASTIC ADVENTURES

Published by: Ziff-Davis Publications Edited by: Howard Browne Format: Pulp

Frank McGiver, Peter Dakin, E. K. Jarvis, Mallory Storm, Ivar Jorgensen, Alexander Blade

1/6

FANTASTIC STORY MAGAZINE

  Published by:Best Books Edited by: Samuel Mines Format: Pulp

Edmond Hamilton, Murray Leinster (3), L. Sprague de Camp (4), Thomas L. McClary, Leigh Brackett, Henry Kuttner, Carl Jacobi, Horace L. Gold, Jerry Shelton, Ed Weston, Kevin Kent, Jack Townsley Rogers, Frederic Brown, Cleve Cartmill, Manly Wade Wellman, Otis Adelbert Kline, Roscoe Clark, Robert Moore Williams

1/23

FANTASTIC UNIVERSE SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: King-Sized Publications Edited by: Sam Merwin Format: Digest

Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Belknap Long, E. Hoffman Price, Evan Hunter, Irving Cox, William Campbell Gault, A. Bertram Chandler (2), Walt Sheldon, Clifford D. Simak, Poul Anderson, Richard Matheson, Eric Frank Russell, Jean Jaques Ferrat, William F. Temple, Wallace West, C. M. Kornbluth, William Morrison, Philip K. Dick, Evelyn E. Smith

1/21

THE MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Mercury Press Edited by: Anthony Boucher Format: Digest

Fritz Leiber, Mabel Seeley, John Wyndham, Idris Seabright (2), Robert Louis Stevenson, R. Bretnor (2), L. Sprague de Camp, Fletcher Pratt, Oliver la Farge, J. T. McIntosh, Wilson Tucker, Richard Matheson, Anthony Boucher (2), Kris Neville, Chad Oliver, Esther Carlson, Alan Nelson, William Bernard Ready, Poul Anderson, Ward Moore, John D. MacDonald, Edward W. Ludwig, Arthur Porges, Manly Wade Wellman, Winona McClintic, Tom McMorrow Jr.,

4/29

FANTASY MAGAZINE/FANTASY FICTION

Published by: Future Publications Edited by: Lester Del Rey Format: Digest

Robert E. Howard (2), John Wyndham, (Philip K) Dick, Elliot, Fritch, (H.B.) Fyfe, H. Harrison, MacLean, L. Sprague de Camp, Pletcher Pratt

0/10

FUTURE SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Standard Publications Edited by: Robert A. W. Lowndes Format: Pulp

John Wyndham, Poul Anderson, William Tenn, Gordon R. Dickson, Kriss Neville, Robert Sheckley

0/6

GALAXY SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Galaxy Publishing Edited by: Horace L. Gold Format: Digest

Philip K. Dick, Damon Knight, H. L. Gold, Willy Ley (3)*, F, L. Wallace, J. T. McIntosh, Theodore Sturgeon, Isaac Asimov

0/10

GALAXY SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS

Published by: Galaxy Publishing Edited by: Horace L. Gold Format: Digest

This “magazine” Doesn’t really count as these are single novel publications.  However, for completeness’ sake:  John Taine, Isaac Asimov, J. Leslie Mitchell, James Blish (2), Lewis Padgett*, Edmond Hamilton

0/7

IF WORLDS OF SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Digest Publications Edited by: Larry Shaw Format: Digest

Walter M. Miller Jr., Ivar Jorgenson, Arthur C. Clarke, Jack Vance, Walt Sheldon, H. B. Fyfe, James Blish, William Tenn, Mark Wolf

0/9

ORBIT SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Hanro Corporation Edited by: Donald A. Wollheim Format: Digest

Richard English, August Derleth (2), Mack Reynolds, Charles Beaumont (2), Paul Brandts, H. B. Fyfe, John Christopher, James Causey

0/10

OTHER WORLDS

Published by: Clark Publications, later Bell Publications Edited by: Raymond A. Plamer & Bea Mahaffey Format: Digest

H. B. Fyfe, Richard S. Shaver (2), L Sprague de Camp (3), Eric Frank Russell, (William F.) Temple, (Robert Moore) Williams, Edward L. Smith, (Joe) Gibson, (Raymond A.) Palmer, S. J. Byrne, Robert Bloch, James McConne

0/15

PLANET STORIES

Published by: Love Romances Edited by: Jack O’Sullivan Format: Pulp

Bryan Berry (4*), Roger Dee, Gardner F. Fox, Robert Moore Williams, Ross Rocklynne, William Tenn, Ray Gallun, B. Curtis, Gordon R. Dickson, Hayden Howard, Stanley Mullen, Leigh Brackett, Ray Bradbury, Fox B. Holden

1/17

ROCKET STORIES

Published by: Space Publications Edited by: Lester Del Rey, Harry Harrison Format: Digest

(?) Bernard, (Henry) De Rosso, (John) Jakes, (Milton) Lesser (2), (Poul) Anderson, (Algis) Budrys, (?) Cox, (James) Gunn, (A. F. ?) Loomis, (?) Mullen

0/12

SCIENCE FICTION ADVENTURES

Published by: Space Fiction/Future Publications Edited by: Lester Del Rey, Harry Harrison Format: Digest

(William) Morrison (2, (Alan E.) Nourse, (George O.) Smith, (Erik) Van Lhin* (5), (Chad) Oliver, (Algis) Budrys, (Raymond Z.) Gallun, (Theodore R.) Cogswell, (Robert) Sheckley, (Poul) Anderson, (Irving E.) Cox (Jr.) (2), (Samuel) Moskowitz, (Richard) Snodgrass, C. M. Kornbluth

0/20

SCIENCE FICTION PLUS

Published by: Gernsback Publications Edited by: Sam Moskowitz Format: Slick

Eando Binder (2), Hugo Gernsback (2), Philip Jose Farmer (2), John Scott Campbell, Dr. Donald H. Menzel, Richard Tooker, Clifford D. Simak (2), Raymond Z. Gallun, Frank Belknap Long, F. L. Wallace, Robert Bloch, Harry Walton, Murray Leinster (2), Pierre Devaux, H. G. Viet, Gustav Albrecht, Frank R. Paul, Chad Oliver, Thomas Calvert McClary, Jack Williamson, Eric Frank Russell (2), Harry Bates, James H. Schmitz

0/29

SCIENCE FICTION QUARTERLY

Published by: Double-Action Magazines Edited by: Charles D. Hornig, Robert A. W. Lowndes Format: Pulp

Poul Anderson, Philip K. Dick, Randall Garrett, Milton Lesser

0/4

SCIENCE FICTION STORIES

Published by: Columbia Publications Edited by: Robert A. W. Lowndes Format: Digest

Poul Anderson, Raymond Z. Gallun, Robert Sheckley, Algis Budrys, Philip K. Dick, Noel Loomis, M.C. Pease

0/7

SCIENCE STORIES

Published by: Clark Publishing, Bell Publishing Edited by: Raymond A. Palmer, Bea Mahaffey Format: Digest

Jack Williamson, John Bloodstone, S. J. Byrne, T. P. Caravan, Mack Reynolds, Edward Wellen, Richard Dorot

0/7

SPACE SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Space Publications Edited by: Lester Del Rey Format: Digest

H. Beam Piper, (John) Christopher, (William) Morrison (2), Damon Knight, T. L. Sherred, Lester Del Rey, Poul Anderson

0/8

SPACE STORIES

Published by: Standard Magazines Edited by: Samuel Mines Format: Pulp

Leigh Brackett, William Morrison, Sam Merwin Jr.

1/3

SPACEWAY STORIES OF THE FUTURE

Published by: Fantasy Publishing Co Edited by: ? Format: Digest

Only a movie title is listed.

STARTLING STORIES

Published by: Better Publications Edited by: Samuel Mines Format: Pulp

Damon Knight, Murray Leinster (2), George O. Smith, Sam Merwin Jr (3)., Chad Oliver, Kendall Foster Crossen, Willy Ley, Fletcher Pratt, Noel Loomis, Philip Jose Farmer, Theodore Sturgeon, Edmond Hamilton

0/15

THRILLING WONDER STORIES

Published by: Beacon/Better/Standard Magazines Edited by: Samuel Mines Format: Pulp

L. Sprague de Camp, Kendall Foster Crossen (3), Damon Knight, Katherine MacLean, Wallace West, R. J. McGregor, George O. Smith, Dwight V. Swain

1/10

TOPS IN SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Love Romances Edited by: Jack O’Sullivan, Malcolm Reiss Format: Pulp

(Ray) Bradbury, Leigh Brackett (2), (Robert) Abernathy, (Hugh Frazier) Parker

TWO COMPLETE SCIENCE-ADVENTURE BOOKS

Published by:Wings Publishing Edited by: Katherine Daffron Format: Pulp

Like The Galaxy SF Novel, these “magazines” only published two full length novels, so it doesn’t really fit the standard pulp magazine cover listings thing.  However –

James Blish, Vargo Statten, Killian Houston Brunner, Bryan Berry, Poul Anderson, John D. MacDonald

0/6

UNIVERSE SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Bell Publications, Palmer Publications Edited by: Raymond A. Plamer, Bea Mahaffey Format: Digest

Theodore Sturgeon, Murray Leinster, Nelson Bond, Robert Bloch, William T. Powers (2), William Campbell Gault, Gordon R. Dickson (2), Mark Clifton, Sylvia Jacobs, Roger Flint Young, Poul Anderson, (Isaac Asimov, (L. Sprague) de Camp, (Eando) Binder, F. L. Wallace, George H. Smith

1/18

VORTEX SCIENCE FICTION

Published by: Specific Fiction Edited by: Chester Whitehorn Format: Digest

(Nobody listed on the cover, probably owing to the fact that this was a terrible magazine.)

WEIRD TALES

Published by: Weird Tales Inc Edited by: Dorothy McIllwraith Format: Digest

Everil Worrell, Joseph Payne Brennan, Leah Bodine Drake, August Derleth (2), (Manly Wade) Wellman, C.(lark) A.(shton) Smith

2/6

WONDER STORY ANNUAL

Published by: Best Books Edited by: ? Format: Pulp

Jack Williamson, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, Henry Kuttner, Isaac Asimov

0/5

***

Text markup key:  A bolded name is an author who still resonates today (at least in my estimation); italics indicate a pseudonym – sometimes a house name, sometimes not; a number in ellipses indicated that the author was cover mentioned more than once during the year’s run.

The numbers following the names related the ration of female/male mentions for the year’s run.  The best that can be said about this is that Space Stories managed to achieve 33%, while the majority of the magazines featured no female authors.

***

Thirty Eight different titles, if we include serious name changes:

Amazing Stories, Astounding Science Fiction, Avon Science Fiction and Fantasy Reader, Beyond Fantasy Fiction, Cosmos Science Fiction and Fantasy Magazine, Dynamic Science Fiction, Famous Fantastic Mysteries,Fantastic Adventures, Fantastic*, Fantastic Story, Fantastic Universe, The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Fantasy, Fantasy Fiction*, Future Science Fiction, Galaxy Science Fiction, Galaxy Science Fiction Novels, If Worlds of Science Fiction, Orbit Science Fiction, Other Worlds, Planet Stories, Rocket Stories, Science Fiction Adventures, Science Fiction Plus, Science Fiction Quarterly, Science Fiction Stories, Science Stories*, Space Science Fiction, Space Stories, Spaceway, Startling Stories, Thrilling Wonder Stories, Tops in Science Fiction, Two Complete Science-Adventure Books, Universe Science Fiction, Vortex Science Fiction, Weird Tales, Wonder Story Annual. (*This was a title change) (and I’ve got 32 of the 38 first issues in my personal collection!)

Phew!

Incidentally, if you’d purchased all of these at the newsstand back in the day, it would have set you back a grand total of $55.80.  Adjusted for inflation, it would be a bit over $500 bucks today.  That’s a bit low.  There are 176 issues in question and current asking price for a digest magazine on the stands these days is $7.99.  At that price, these issues would have set you back about $1400.00.  This suggests that things really were cheaper back then!  (It’s also a lot easier to scrape up 25 cents looking for pennies on the street than it is to find $7.99….)

Beyond anything else, I simply can not imagine what it must have been like to be standing in front of the racks of a 1953 news shop.  During they heyday of my purchasing magazines from news shops, I had Amazing, F&SF, Fantastic, Galaxy, If, Analog, Odyssey, Galileo, and a handful of reprint mags to choose from, as well as a number of “graphic” magazines like Heavy Metal and “media” magazines like Star Warp.  I’d have been overwhelmed and terribly frustrated to find 38 different titles – I wouldn’t be able to choose which ones to spend my nickles on!

Truth be told, though, the regularity of these magazines was anything but regular.  If you averaged out their production over twelve months, there’d only be 15 titles to choose from at any given time.

No doubt quality suffered to some degree, but the chances of finding good stories was also increased.

Note, interestingly, that only 45 percent of these titles include the identifier “science fiction” in their name.  Among those that don’t include “science fiction”, seven consist of a descriptor and the word “stories”:  Amazing, Planet, Rocket, Science, Space, Startling, Thrilling Wonder, and two a descriptor plus “story” – Fantastic and Wonder.

I think it safe to say that the majority of magazines back in 1953 still felt the need to be very specific about what they were offering readers.  The cover image was apparently not quite enough, though I’m sure they worked hand-in-hand:  the outre image would catch your eye and the properly worded title would confirm your suspicions:  rocketships plus “Amazing” equals “science fiction”.  (Anyone seeing a scantily clad “space babe” and hoping for titillation was going to be sorely disappointed, and unlikely to be interested in anything “science stories”.)

Those two elements were probably believed to be sufficient come-ons to new customers, none of whom had a computer or databases to consult.  (In fact, whether or not you ever even saw a particular title on the newsstands was often hit or miss:  if the magazine distributor didn’t cover a particular territory (or deliver to that territory that month), you’d never see the issue(s).

But then, most of the magazines also went ahead and put two other items on their covers.  Frequently a statement about the contents was made -All New Stories!- and the title and author of at least one story listed on the table of contents.

I find it interesting that they felt a need to proclaim “All Stories Complete!”  “All New Fiction!” and even “A Selection of the Best Stories of Fantasy and Science Fiction, new and old.”  This was of course due to the fact that there were numerous reprint magazines on the stands (Famous Fantastic Mysteries among them) and woe to the reader who spent that hard-earned quarter, only to discover contents they’d already read!

Another thing regularly stuck on the cover of these ‘zines was a sort of sub-title:  Strange Adventures on Other Worlds…Preview of the Future…Stories of the Future…Science Fiction…Best in Fantasy….

If you stand back and take a look at all of the covers shown previously, you may notice that there seem to be two general format layouts – “framed” and “unframed”, and further that the unframed titles break down into two sub-groups – boxes or no boxes.

Framed layouts present the cover image, untouched, and surround it with (usually) an inverted ‘L’ shaped border (Galaxy, Space Stories), while unframed titles print a full-sized cover image and slap text directly over the image.  Some of these restrict the listing of contents or highlighted story in an opaque box (which is printed over the image).

It seems that two different schools of design thought were expressing themselves.  Both have advantages:  unframed present a larger image, framed present one that lets you see everything, no textual interruptions, please, but are small in area.

Also note that 1953 was a year of transition for magazine format:  some of the titles shown were published in “pulp” format (about 9 inches tall), such as Two Complete Science-Adventure Tales and Fantastic Adventures, while most had or were switching to the familiar digest (about 7 inches tall) format – such as Fantastic Universe and Galaxy.

The larger format almost exclusively utilized an unframed layout, while many of the digests went with the framed format, though not exclusively.  Notably, Amazing Stories seems to be all over the place.

Now, with all that being said…why’d they put those names on the cover?

These magazines had three basic markets they were trying to reach – the educated fan, the fan who didn’t know they were a fan, the casual reader.

The publishers didn’t really have to worry about the educated fan too much;  chances were they were a subscriber, or belonged to a club that subscribed, or had fellow fans who shared issues around.  Fan readers of SF&F were always hungry for more and needed no other motivation than “the new issue is on the stands” to go and seek it out.

Further, this kind of consumer had already developed their tastes and would have been pretty familiar with the regularly published authors and those who were considered to be headliners.  Any given name on the cover stood a 50-50 chance of attracting or deterring that reader.  You could get a lot for a quarter and a dime back then – almost a beer, almost a movie ticket; Mark Watney would probably like to know that ten pounds of potatoes cost the same as a magazine.

I ponder the wisdom of a promotional campaign that runs the risk of turning your potential customer off, up to fifty percent of the time.

On the other hand, publishers, at least in regards to this demographic, were probably counting on a few other things as well:  most fans were rabid fans by necessity.  Even if every single author in a given issue was disliked, there was still the editorial and the letter column (often worth the price of admission alone), whatever other features might be included and, of course, the cover, along with the interior illustrations.  (Remember those?)  Having probably already been through the demise of many prior titles, the experienced fan back then probably had a well-honed sense of historical preservation.  All of which would tend to encourage them to ignore front cover unpleasantness.

One thing is for sure though:  this segment of the market didn’t have to be sold.  They were already bought and paid for.  The only competition a magazine faced with this particular buyer was whether or not a competing title was more “attractive” this month.  Which suggests that one purpose of the names on the cover was to play one-ups-manship with the other titles.

This then leaves us with two segments – the unrealized fan and the casual reader.

The only difference between these two market segments is that the unrealized fan reader might have heard of an author or two.  I stress might, since the novels they might have been exposed to were few and far between and no one was advertising SF magazines on television or radio, nor even in the mass-circulation magazines of the day.  You weren’t going to see Isaac Asimov on a Wheaties box (though this might not be a bad idea…), Jack Parr wasn’t interviewing Ray Bradbury and the movies they might have caught rarely, if ever, mentioned the origin of their script.

Space Patrol, Tom Corbett, Tales of Tomorrow (ended this year), some fans might have caught Atom Squad, some kids were maybe watching Johnny Jupiter, Rod Brown was competing with Tom, and it would be several years before Science Fiction Theater, The Twighlight Zone and Men Into Space would grace the small screen;  these 1953 television shows did little to elevate the profile of the science fiction author.

Likewise, radio (still a popular medium) wasn’t producing much of serious fan interest either:  Dimension X had been off the air for a couple of years, and it would be a couple more before X Minus One would air (both prominently featured stories largely drawn from Astounding Science Fiction).  The radio companion for Space Patrol was airing, but, again, any author involved probably tried to keep as low a profile as possible.

The only real benefit any of the magazines might have derived from these other media might have been creating the initial interest in the subject matter.  Given the right circumstances, it is entirely possible that a consumer walking past a newsstand would make the connection between a television show featuring outer space and the image of a rocketship on the cover of one of the magazines.

This works, potentially, for the unrealized fan, though it begs a question:  why didn’t any of the magazines attempt to capture this television show audience with various forms of tie-in?  (Tom Corbett Isn’t the ONLY Space Cadet.  We’ve got space cadets in every issue!  A New Short Story by the author of the latest Tales of Tomorrow episode!)  It could be suggested that most of SF on television back in the day was focused on “kids”, and that the magazines were going after an older audience, but most of the magazines on sale were perceived, at least  by the general public, as being kid-stuff too.  I can imagine a well-meaning parent, noting their child’s interest in Space Cadets, picking up a copy of Universe, or Science Fiction Plus, or Science Fiction Adventures (check out the cover art) as an attempt to support the kid’s interest.  But then again, we’re talking about an era that generally despised science fiction, so it’s more likely that mom or dad would be scheduling homework time during Corbett’s 15 minute episodes….

The casual reader…the only thing I can imagine that would attract them to an SF pulp (or digest) would be the cover art, perhaps reinforced by one of the come-ons.  But certainly not the names.

This of course brings us back full circle.  It’s pretty well established that the names on the cover did little to help market these titles.  Existing fans knew the titles and would pick them up regardless of who was featured;  unrealized fans could make no informed judgement about the content, and the casual reader would be attracted by art and possibly blurbs.

So why?  Why go to the trouble to select the names, why the belief that doing so was beneficial?  There’s probably only two reasons:  tradition (magazines had been printing the contents on the cover from the beginning) and ego boo:  ego boo for the authors (who were getting paid very little and had only two sources of fan interaction – letters and conventions.  Not to mention wanting to keep valued authors on the submission hook.  And ego boo for the editors and publishers who got to brag among themselves and play a game of one upsmanship.

So what have we got?  Here’s the list, most cover mentions to least, in alphabetical order.  There are quite a few names we still engage with these days…and quite as many we have forgotten.

14 Anderson Poul 11 de Camp L. Sprague  8 Leinster Murray  7 Dick Philip K., 7 Sheckley Robert  6 Asimov Isaac, Budrys Algis, Matheson Richard, Morrison William, Sturgeon Theodore, Wyndham John  5 Berry Bryan, Blish James, Bloch Robert, Brackett Leigh, Bradbury Ray, Crossen Kendall Foster, Gallun Raymond Z., Knight Damon, Lesser Milton, Lhin Erik Van,  4 Chandler A. Bertram, Clarke Arthur C., Derleth August, Dickson Gordon R., Gold Horace L., Hunter Evan, Jakes John, Ley Willy, McGivern William P., Merwin Jr Sam, Oliver Chad, Russell Eric Frank  3 Binder Eando, Christopher John, Clifton Mark, Cox Irving, Farmer Philip Jose, Fyfe H. B., Hamilton Edmond, Jacobi Carl, Kuttner Henry, Miller Jr. Walter M., Neville Kris, Robin Ralph, Simak Clifford D., Smith George O., Tenn William, Vance Jack, Wallace F L., Wellman Manly Wade, West Wallace, Williams Robert Moore, Williamson Jack,  2 Apostildes Alex, Beaumont Charles, Bixby Jerome, Boucher Anthony, Bretnor R., Byrne S. J., Carlson Esther, Cogswell Theodore R., Dee Roger, Gault William Campbell, Gernsback Hugo, Heinlein Robert, Howard Robert E., Jarvis E. K., Jorgensen Ivar, Kornbluth C. M., Lohrman Paul, Long Frank Belknap, Loomis Noel, MacDonald John D., McIntosh J. T., Mullen Stanley, Piper H. Beam, Powers William T., Pratt Fletcher, Reynolds Mack, Richardson Robert S., Robinson Frank M., Rocklynne Ross, Seabright Idris, Shaver Richard S., Sheldon Walt, Sherred T. L., Storm Mallory, Temple William F., Traven B.,  1 Abernathy Robert, Adams Samuel Hopkins, Albrecht Gustav, Archette Guy, Arnold John E., Bates Harry, Benet Stephen Vincent, Bernard (?), Bester Alfred, Blade Alexander, Bloodstone John, Bond Nelson, Brandts Paul, Brennan Joseph Payne, Brown Frederic, Brunner Killian Houston, Campbell John Scott, Caravan T. P., Cartmill Cleve, Causey James, Clark Roscoe, Clement, Hal, Collier John, Coppel Jr. Alfred J., Correy Lee, Cox (?), Creighton Charles, Curtis B., Dakin Peter, De Rosso Henry, Dean Joe E., Deeming Richard, Del Rey Lester, Devaux Pierre, Dorot Richard, Drake Leah Bodine, English Richard, Fearing Vern, Ferrat Jean Jaques, Fox Gardner F., Frank Harriet, Fritch Elliot, Fyfe H.B., Garrett Randall, Geier Chester, Gibson Joe, Godwin Tom, Gregory Franklin, Guin Wyman, Gunn James, Haggard H. Rider, Harrison H., Henderson Zenna, Holden Fox B., Howard Hayden, Jacobs Sylvia, Jones Raymond F., Judd Cyril, Kafka , Kent Kevin, Kline Otis Adelbert, Krepps R. W., la Farge Oliver, Lait Jack, Leiber Fritz, Loomis (A. F. ?), Loxmith John, Ludwig Edward W., MacLean Katherine, MacLean Mabel Seeley, McClary Thomas Calvert, McClary Thomas L., McClintic Winona, McConne James, McConnell James, McGiver Frank, McGregor R. J., McMorrow Jr. Tom, McGuire John J, Menzel Donald H., Mitchell J. Leslie, Moore Ward, Mortimer Lee, Moskowitz Samuel, Mundy Talbot, Nelson Alan, Nourse Alan E., Padgett Lewis, Palmer Raymond A., Parker Hugh Frazier, Paul Frank R., Pease M.C., Phillips Rog, Poe Edgar Allan, Porges Arthur, Pratt Pletcher, Price E. Hoffman, R. N., Rand Ayn, Ready William Bernard, Reynolds Ted, Rogers Jack Townsley, Rose Billy, Schmitz James H., Shallit Joseph, Shelton Jerry, Sherman Michael, Smith Clark Ashton, Smith Evelyn E., Smith George H., Smith Edward L., Snodgrass Richard, Statten Vargo, Stevenson Robert Louis, Swain Dwight V., Taine John, Tooker Richard, Tucker Wilson, Viet H. G., Walton Harry, Waugh Evelyn, Wellen Edward, Weston Ed, Wolf Mark, Worrell Everil, Young Roger Flint

Resources for this article were obtained from Galactic Central and the Internet Science Fiction Database.

On Cover Mentions The other day I got into a brief discussion of cover mentions throughout the history of the science fiction magazine.