STOP CASSINI Newsletter #92 -- February 8th, 1999

Copyright (c) 1999

STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index

Sent to: Subscribers, Press, Public officials.

Subject: Obviously, we're not in the same movement: -- STOP CASSINI #92, February 7th, 1999

People write me all the time, insulting me and then asking for privacy for their comments. James Oberg, a very famous space science writer (who is not involved in this movement) did it recently, though I believe he and I have since reached a wholesome peace. Carol Rosin has done it. Now Regina Hagen wants to do it, but it's just absurd. None of these people have earned it. None gave secret news for that request. No, they just wanted to insult me, inform me I am shut out from their sphere of consciousness, and THEN they ask for privacy so the world won't know what walls people put up against me and my attempts to wake up the world to Cassini!

I cannot possibly have a policy of letting these famous and influential people insult me and THEN ask for privacy at the end of their insulting letter, letters which block further discussion of the important issues AND prevent the truth about what back-room discussions are being had. And wastes my time, because I write responses (generally) to letters as they come in, as I read them. So an hour into responding to Hagen's letter, I find she wants "privacy" but clearly, she is not trying to have a frank discussion or protect her reputation (or mine), she merely does not wish the world to know she has effectively shut me out of all future anti-Cassini movement activity in her neck of the woods. That's news. That's public.

This movement is in shambles and the public deserves to know all possible views as to why.

Sincerely, Russell D. Hoffman, Editor, Stop Cassini newsletter

Today's subjects:

*** From the mailbag: More letters from/to Regina Hagen (part 1)


At 01:25 PM 2/7/99 +0100, Regina Hagen wrote:

Hi Russell,

I don't understand why you didn't know about the conference. I am pretty ssure that I sent you a mail with the program several weeks ago. It was on the same day when I sent the information to Joe McIntire who has then posted it on the NoFlyby page. Don't know what went wrong. Anyway, find below a few introducing sentences and the program.


END OF INCOMING EMAIL (attachment about Darmstalt shown below)


to: "Regina Hagen" (
from: "Russell D. Hoffman" (
date: February 7th,1999

Re: Everything

Dear Regina,

Thank you for your email and for information about the meeting in Darmstalt.

I don't know if you will get this reply, because I noticed your name dropped off the subscription list; mail was not being delivered. If you are angry at me for my recent statements to you and/or my statements about Bruce, frankly in retrospect, I don't blame you. I realize, rereading what you wrote and what I wrote back, that I overstepped the bounds of decency with you; you didn't deserve what you probably perceived as an attack on YOU. I'm sorry. It WAS a bit of a tirade and you may rightfully feel "broadsided".

But nevertheless, I have created -- mainly in the course of answering Carol Rosin and Jonathan Haber (and one other) about my concerns about Gagnon over the past two years (that is, my entire time in the movement) -- a list of literally dozens of things Bruce Gagnon has done where either the timing is consistently (and I say purposefully) ineffective or the information is flat-out wrong. Some of the items on the list are big, and some are little. Some are personal, but many have absolutely nothing to do with me. Some of the items, some may not perceive as a crime at all -- like not even collecting water and air samples after the Titan explosion last August -- but I most certainly do (in that specific instance, for example).

You are welcome to become part of those conversations -- I will forward ALL of my recent correspondence with Rosin and Haber on the subject and await only your specific request to do so, or you may ask them for a copy -- I don't mind.

I don't want to fight you, Carol, Jonathan -- or even Gagnon, though in his case, I do not believe there is ANY choice. And I do not wish to exclude anyone from the conversation or the facts. So if you want to be involved, you and I needn't even debate the issue (at this point) directly ourselves, because I can just send you the conversations that have already happened. You can then decide what you want to do: Either stay on (or rather, get back on) my newsletter list, or badmouth me, or ignore me, or accuse me, or whatever. But at least it will be in the open and we will all then (presumably) be able to simply accept how we each feel.

Not to fight with you anymore about this (or anything) would be wonderful thing.

But the problems I see with Gagnon are just too important to not have them on the table, open for discussion among the group. Even if no one in the movement agrees with my position on Gagnon, I feel so firm about it, and feel I have so much evidence, and feel I have seen enough people leave the movement because of it, that it is impossible -- immoral -- for me to keep quiet. But of course, not everyone in the movement disagrees with me. Mark Elsis of Lovearth ( who organized several rallies in a few minor backwater communities (like NYC and Wash DC), and did who much work prior to launch, can second much of what I have written about Bruce. He too found Gagnon impossible to work with. Subversive, is the only word I know that fits the way Gagnon works. I'm open to hearing alternative opinions, but with one condition -- that I be allowed to express the reasons for mine. Rosin and Haber have been rather strident (I think "brutal" is actually a better word, but let's go with "strident") in their claims that it is "all in my head" and is somehow my "ego" problem. If you read all that we've written back and forth this week (if it doesn't bore you, a distinct possibility -- it bores me by now, that's for sure) and feel that way too, I cannot stop you. In fact I would still value your opinion (as I do theirs) but it probably would not change my opinion at this point. They (Carol and Jonathan) have not been able to provide me with counter-examples which show that Bruce is in fact a cooperative sort with most people, and really does the right thing most of the time. That's not what they argued. It seems, as far as they are concerned, the only argument, is whether discussing it at all is bad for the movement or not. But this is NOT about petty opinions of how to run a movement or what our goals are. This is about active efforts to divide us all and to destroy our effectiveness. I think it needs to be discussed.

As an aside almost, I personally agree with Hans Karow of Canada, that the Venus flyby (or rather, a few days before it, at the latest) is a good moment we all should be working towards in terms of public awareness of Cassini, since it is the best time to redirect to probe to a harmless sun-bound trajectory.

But I don't think this movement will accomplish anything until it recognizes the very real problems it faces. If after facing my version of the facts, you still don't like me, or disagree with my position, or want me to leave the movement -- well, I value your opinions, even if I don't think at this point, I would act on them.

I just have to go with what I believe will help us all the most. I believe that is to simply present the truth as I see it, from the facts I can gather before me, and from the comments of whatever trusted advisors I am able to find. I can do no more than that.

Thanks again for writing me again and for sending the details of the Darmstalt meeting. I haven't looked into why I didn't see it before, though of course, what I actually said about it was that I hadn't been specifically invited, (i.e., offered a platform) which remains true of course. I would not have planned to attend, anyway, since without an invite, it would clearly be perceived (and properly so, I guess) as attempting to horn in on Gagnon's party. It looks like a great meeting though, and I hope it goes well for you. I hope you all decide to concentrate on the Venus flyby like Hans Karow is doing. And I hope you all discuss Gagnon. (And I won't be surprised if there is also some discussion of me as well; fine, no problem. Hopefully one of you will let me know if anything I ought to hear gets said.)

By the way, NASA/JPL, from what I recall reading, considers the Darmstalt meeting to be Nostradamus-related. I don't see anything in the listing you sent me which indicates that. Do you happen to know how NASA/JPL came to that opinion?


Russell Hoffman


*** Darmstalt meeting -- overview


In the light of the recent announcement by US President Bill Clinton to increase the military budget as well as the efforts to build a National Missile Defense, the conference "Space Use and Ethics" seems to come at just the right time. The conference will be held in Darmstadt/Germany on March 3-5, 1999. Inviting groups are among otheres IANUS, INESAP, Darmstaedter Friendensforum, Friedens- und Begegnungsstaette Mutlangen, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

After the scientific conference (which will be held in English), the Global Network will have its annual meeting, also in Darmstadt, on March 5 and 6.

Feel free to contact me with any further questions about the conference and/or the Global Network meeting.

You can contact for questions about the conference as well as to register for the conference.

Friedliche Gruesse

Regina Hagen

Darmstaedter Friedensforum
Teichhausstr. 46
64287 Darmstadt
phone [49] (6151) 47114
fax 47105


Program for the Scientific Conference
"Space Use and Ethics. Criteria for the Assessment of Future Space Projects"
(mainly in English) as of January 15, 1999

March 3-5, 1999
at the Darmstadt University of Technology
in Germany,
Room 46/56, Darmstadt Castle

(Interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgruppe Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Sicherheit),
Research Group Science, Technology and Security
at the Darmstadt University of Technology (TUD)

in cooperation with:
Institut für Theologie und Sozialethik at the TUD,
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation
Darmstädter Friedensforum,
Friedens- und Begegnungsstätte Mutlangen,
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

Space activities are increasing. Who is doing what? Who is watching? Who sets
the standards? Who benefits? What are the consequences?
These questions were addressed at the conference "The Ambivalence of Space
Technology" which took place in March 1997 and was organized by IANUS and
several other groups.

The conference on March 3-5, 1999, will focus on ethical criteria for the assessment of space research and use. Goal is the critical dialogue between representatives of space organizations, science, military, industry, and peace and ecological groups.

On the first evening, criteria for space use and research will be presented by a science astronaut, a professor of social ethics, two physicist, and another representative of a space organization.

On the second day, these criteria will be used to assess several concrete space projects:

The military use and international control of space is the topic of an open panel discussion on the second evening.

The third day is planned for the discussion of consequences originating from the criteria for space use. Political recommendations, public expectations of challenges, and implementation possibilities are to be discussed.

Regular fee for complete conference including meals is DM 70,-

Registration and contact:
Hochschulstrasse 10
D-64289 Darmstadt
Tel. [49] 6151/16-43 68
Fax [49] 6151/16-60 39

Wednesday, 3.3.99

18:00 - 18:15 Welcome address
* Conference organizers
* Dr. Braun,
(official representative of the City of Darmstadt)

18:15 - 21:00 Criteria for Space
30 minutes Research and Use
"Experiences of a Science Astronaut"
* Dr. Ulf Merbold
(physics, astronautics, scientific consultant for the ISS program with the
European Space Agency, Köln)

"Peaceful and Sustainable Use of Space - Criteria for Evaluation"
* Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bender
(theology and social ethics, Institut für Theologie und Sozialethik,
IANUS/Darmstadt University of Technology)
* Dr. Jürgen Scheffran
(physics and mathematics, IANUS/Darmstadt University of Technology)

"On the Justifiability of Space Missions"
* Prof. Hartmut Sax
(applied physics and systems technology, department for engineering science at
the Fachhochschule Ingolstadt)

" Criteria for Space Use - an ESA Perspective"
* N.N.
(European Space Agency)

Plenum Discussion

Thursday, 4.3.99

Assessment of Concrete Space Projects

9:00 - 12:00 1. Use of Nuclear Power in with a break Space

"German Participation in the NASA 'Mars Surveyor' Program - Aspects of Power Supply"
* Dr. Göstar Klingelhöfer
(nuclear physics, Institut für Kernphysik at the Darmstadt University of Technology)

"Are Plutonium Generators for the Cassini Mission Justifiable?"
* Prof. Dr. Walter Flury
(scientist, Head of Mission Analysis Section of the European Space Operation Centre, Darmstadt)

* Roland Wolff
(physics, medical physics, department of nuclear medicine at the district hospital Lüdenscheid)

"Alternatives to Plutonium Use in Space"
* Kai Petzke
(physics, Ph.D. student at Technical University Berlin)
* Dr. Klaus Bogus (invited)
(physics, Head of Solar Generator Section, European Space Research and
Technology Centre [ESTEC], Noordweijk, Netherlands)

Plenum discussion
12:00 - 13:30 Lunch
13:30 - 15:30 2. Remote Sensing Satellites

"On the Current Political Debate"
* Dr. Bernd Kubbig
(political science, Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung,

"Dual Use of Satellite Remote Sensing"
* Dr. Wulf von Kries
(Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., Köln)
* Dr. Dieter Engels
(astronomy, scientist at the observatory of the University of Hamburg)

Plenum Discussion

16:00 - 18:00 3. International Space Station

"Manned Space Missions - Useless or Key to the Future?"
* Wolfgang Engelhardt
(engineering and journalism, Köln)
* Dr. Johannes Weyer
(sociology, Fakultät für Soziologie at the University of Bielefeld; currently Heisenberg scholarship)

Plenum discussion

20:00 - 22:00 Public Event

Panel Discussion: "Who Controls Space? Conflict and International Control in Space"

Convenor: Dr. Götz Neuneck
(physics, Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik Hamburg)
* Brad Duty
(Lieutenant Colonel, 3rd Space Communications Squadron with the US Air Force in
Europe, Ramstein)
* Klaus Arnhold
(Oberst im Generalstab, German Ministry of Defense, Bonn)
* Prof. Dr. Karl Grossman
(journalism, State University of New York)
* Dr. R. Balasubramaniam
(Counselor for Science and Technology, Embassy of India, Bonn)
* N.N.

Friday, 5.3.99

9:00 - 13:00 Consequences of the
30 minutes Criteria for Space Use

"Free, Peaceful Use of Space and International Space Law"
* Dr. Hans-Joachim Heintze (international law, Institut für
Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

"The Future of Space Policy"
(in German)
* Edelgard Bulmahn (invited)
(Minister for Research and Education, Bonn)
* Karsten Pfeiffer
(scientific staff member for the parliamentary group Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Bonn)
* Dr. Manfred Bartenwerfer und
* Hermann Kochan
(works council members at Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. [DLR], Köln)
* Regina Hagen
(technical translator, member of the Darmstädter Friedensforum)

Plenum discussion and Perspectives

13:00 Closing Comments

Lunch / End of the Conference

13:30 Press briefing
Conference organizers and other attendants


*** From the mailbag: More letters from/to Regina Hagen (part 2)

This letter is answered with interspersed comments. Nothing has been deleted and the order has not been changed.


At 11:48 AM 2/8/99 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Russell,
thanks for your mail and clarification. I do, however, not want to be involved in the discussion about Bruce you are having with others. I don't think we will agree on him and it would be a waste of time.

Then you might as well unsubscribe from the list. He will remain a discussion topic there as will all the other problems with why this movement is a failure. [Note to readers, especially media types: I don't know if I'll publish all of the writings between Rosin, Haber, and myself, but you, dear readers, should feel free to ask them for complete transcripts -- I have little (not no, but little) objection to them ALL being made public.]

In fact, I must question the motives all (and it is a very small percentage of my total subscriber base) who categorically reject my message about Gagnon and what is wrong with the movement. You choose to stick your head in the sand. I question if it's really just that you trust Gagnon so much and me so little, but there's little else it could be so I'll just have to make my assumptions based on the evidence I have at hand. A far as I'm concerned, you, Carol, Jonathan and Bruce have all let this movement down in one way or another. I just wonder why, but I shall expect no more cooperation from any of you.

I don't know why you say I am no longer on your subscriber list. I did receive your last newsletters.

Just that the last few were returned and had this message attached:

At 12:43 PM 2/6/99 +0100, you wrote:
The original message was received at Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:43:43 +0100 (MET)
from []

--- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ---

--- Transcript of session follows ---
554 MX list for points back to
554 ... Local configuration error
Reporting-MTA: dns;

Although I often do not agree with what you say I decided to stay subscribed to be informed about what's happening from your side.

Nothing is happening here. There is no "anti-Cassini" movement in America.

You were not "invited" to come to Darmstadt because virtually no-one was except the speakers.

My point exactly. You guy's couldn't even find a use for me to speak on, say, the "Using a Computer and the Power of the Internet to Convey this Movement's Message"? I already lecture around the world about the Internet and computers, as many in the movement know. Or how about "The Anti-Cassini Movement: What a few spooks, spies, agents and subversives can do to stop it or any movement." Or how about: "Scientists: Why the movement (and NASA/JPL) tries to ignore their message at the world's peril while concentrating on Nostradamus instead."

The conference is, as you might have seen from the program, a scientific conference, so even Bruce is not a speaker. Karl Grossman is because he is an expert on the militarization of space. I am a speaker because my group is one of the main organizers of the events.

Let's see: a professor of theology and social ethics, Karl Grossman, "another representative of a space organization", a Dr. who is the "official representative of the City of Darmstadt".

As to invitations, here's this one: Dr. Klaus Bogus (invited)

As to topics, even if many of the speakers are scientists, I notice the vast majority aren't even opposed to nukes in space! And the actual meetings are overviews, hardly deeply scientific discussions.

This is not a meeting of those opposed to the weaponization of space, nor of the anti-Cassini movement's members (except Kai). It looks much more like the recent Space Nuclear meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, frankly, but with slightly different attendees.

We informed people about the conference. And everyone who wishes to attend can register - as is usual for this kind of conferences. The Global Network meeting afterwards is what it says - a meeting of Global Network members and supporters, i.e. a grassroots meeting. So we did not "invite" for it either - we informed, and people decide for themselves whether they want to attend.

Oh, I see. Great way to be sure you've got the best people.

I don't know whether the Venus Flyby will be an issue at the Global Network meeting.

I do. It won't.

My group in Darmstadt will not make it an issue, maybe not even the Earth Flyby. I know this is a problem, but we are a small group and time to be politically active is limited.

Uh huh. Sure. I have no doubt you have thought this all through quite thoroughly. Obviously, we're not in the same movement.

Russell, I will continue to inform you about what we plan and learn in the course of our space-related work here in Darmstadt and hope you do the same. I do not want to be involved in your fight over Bruce. And I agree with Carol and Jonathan that it harms the movement in general to talk about the disagreement in public.

Why what a coincidence! You, Carol and Jonathan (and Bruce) are all doing so little, yet are so afraid to talk about what the problems are! Yes, Regina, you are right. The movement should not air it's dirty laundry, and most of all, it should not attempt to kick out anyone who is counterproductive. After all, if it did there would be no one left!

By the way - what do you mean by NASA/JPL considers our meeting to be Nostradamus-related???? Can you send evidence!?!?

Yes. See an upcoming newsletter which responds.

This mail is not meant to be used for your newsletter.

Don't be absurd.

I cannot grant you that sort of privacy and you know it and knew it when you wrote this drivel. This movement is too full of secrets, and the truths need to come out. You cannot ignore me, refuse to discuss openly and cooperatively the problems I see, fail to invite me to take part in high-level discussions (or low-level ones, for that matter), cut me off from the meetings, the group, and the movement, and then expect me to go quietly into the night. No way. This letter will be made public because not to do so would be absurd. It would be nothing more than an attempt to sweep all this under the rug. The only possible reason for you to have even requested privacy is because you don't like insulting me in public, for surely there is nothing else here you could possibly "worry" about, nothing that reflects on you, and insulting me is a meaningless worry and of no concern. So forget it. You can if you so choose never write me again, but for the #1 activist in Germany to write such a letter to the editor of the #1 newsletter in the movement, and then end it with a request for privacy (after I've wasted all this time answering your drivel) -- that is absurd. I would not have wasted my time reading your work of fiction had I known I was not going to be "permitted" to respond in public. You are a public figure writing to a public figure and your request is utterly denied for it makes no sense. The public needs the whole truth about the movement and this is it. We need a million voices for every ONE in the movement now. Maybe 10 million. Maybe 100 million. We won't get them from sweeping the problems under the rug, or from silencing (with pleas for "privacy" AND a refusal to talk about it) to opposition voices in the movement who have recognized the extreme problems being faced.

This one letter you wrote is more than you've written me altogether in the past two years. It was your choice to write the letter. If others think that such drivel deserves privacy, then my ability to gather drivel will suffer. But I doubt anyone would expect me to keep your work of fiction private. You should have written me a letter first saying you had private things you wished to say. Then, if I agreed to it, which I certainly would NOT have done, you could have said what you wanted. But you knew I would expect to publish your response because you KNOW that I intend to make this a public issue whether you, Carol, Jonathan or anyone else likes it or not. So your request is considered an attempt to subvert the process of having an honest movement and is utterly and unequivocally denied.

Neither you, Jonathan, Carol or Bruce have any rights to privacy when talking to me, and I had made that quite clear in my previous correspondence that I am NOT keeping discussions about Bruce -- or anything else -- quiet.

>Friedliche Gruesse >Regina

I don't know what Friedliche Gruesse means.

Good day.


Russell Hoffman



Please feel free to post these newsletters anywhere you feel it's appropriate! THANKS!!!

Welcome new subscribers!

Thanks for reading,
Russell D. Hoffman
STOP CASSINI webmaster.


Next issue (#93)
Previous issue (#91)

********* SUBSCRIPTION INFO *********
To subscribe to this newsletter just email me at
with the words:

Please include something else:
It can be an indication of where
you found our newsletter, or what you
read that made you want to subscribe, but
you do NOT need to include your name.

To unsubscribe email me and say

Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Available at the source by blind carbon copy
subscription ONLY--free. Subscription list never
sold or bartered or divulged (except if by
government order, and then only after
exhausting all legal arguments against such
disclosure). Subscribing in no way
constitutes endorsement of our positions and
may indicate opposition!
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman.
May be freely distributed but please include all
headers, footers, and contents or request
permission to excerpt. Thank you.


This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
Mail to:
First placed online February 8th, 1999.
Last modified February 9th, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman