In the April, 2003, issue of *Physics World*, John Stachel,
one of the early editors of Einstein's *Collected Papers*, published what he styled
as a "review" of my book *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist*.
The so-called "review" opens with a personal attack against me stated in
particularly meanspirited terms in an alleged effort to justify the otherwise sacrilegious
"review" of a book that dares to accurately and thoroughly document the history
of the theory of relativity. No mention is made of the facts and circumstances which
precipitated the production and publication of this *ad hominem *attack against me,
and I can only imagine that an innocent reader who happens upon Dr. Stachel's statements
will find them bizarre and inexplicable.

The truth of the matter is that John Stachel coauthored an article
"Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute" in the journal *Science*,
Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273, which rewrote the history of David
Hilbert's well established priority for the generally covariant field equations of
gravitation. The claims made in this article relied largely upon a set of printer's proofs
dated 6 December 1915 of Hilbert's famous 20 November 1915 Goettingen lecture "The
Foundations of Physics". Stachel claimed that David Hilbert's proofs did not contain
generally covariant field equations of gravitation, though the final paper eventually
published in 1916 on this lecture did contain generally covariant field equations of
gravitation--the implication being that David Hilbert learned the equations from
Einstein's 25 November 1915 lecture. However, Stachel did not inform his readers of a
material fact in his sensationalistic article. Hilbert's proofs were mutilated at some
point in their history, and a critical part of the proofs has gone missing. No one knows
when the proofs were altered, or why. Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of
Nevada, Reno, informed me of these facts in the late summer of 2002.

Prof. Winterberg has demonstrated that even in their mutilated state
these printer's proofs show that Hilbert had the generally covariant field equations of
gravitation, before Einstein. This constitutes positive proof of Einstein's plagiarism,
because we have a letter from Einstein to Hilbert dated 18 November 1915 in which Einstein
acknowledges receipt of a copy of Hilbert's manuscript, which Einstein had requested from
Hilbert on 15 November 1915. The chronology is straightforward. Einstein received a copy
of Hilbert's work on 18 November 1915. Hilbert delivered his lecture to the Goettingen
Academy on 20 November 1915. Einstein betrayed Hilbert's trust and plagiarized Hilbert's
work on 25 November 1915.

I wrote to Dr. Stachel in September of 2002, informed him that I
intended to publish on this subject and asked him to state for the record why he did not
mention the mutilation of Hilbert's proofs in his article in *Science*. A brief
correspondence ensued, with Dr. Stachel behaving very much as he did in his subsequent
"review."

Dr. Stachel's avowed reasoning for not mentioning the mutilation of the
proofs was, *inter alia*, that the article was an incomplete and preliminary report.
I observed that his explanation seemed to conflict with the title and tone of his article
in *Science*, which was dubbed a "Belated Decision". I failed to find a
statement in Stachel's report that it was incomplete and preliminary, and found that since
this was the case, it was all the more reason to mention the fact that the evidence was
mutilated, so that those reading the article could arrive at an informed opinion of its
claims, and test them against the facts in the full light of day.

Stachel had tried to change the subject to a review of my book he said
he intended to write sometime in the future. I ignored his queries in this line and he
presented me with an ultimatum that if I did not answer his questions he would consider
the "discussion at an end." I refused to allow him to change the subject, and so
ended our brief correspondence. Apparently, Dr. Stachel did not deem it necessary to
inform his readers of these facts and circumstances, which preceded his nasty
"review" of my book in *Physics World*.

Dr. Stachel calls attention to the fact that in my book I quoted
portions of Wolfgang Pauli's factual statements of the objective priority of Lorentz and
Poincare over Einstein, but quoted only some of Pauli's apparently insincere praise of
Einstein--fully informing my readers that such praise follows in Pauli's article for the *Encyklopaedie
der mathematischen Wissenschaften*. Though I find Dr. Stachel's dwelling on this
nonissue petty and a distraction from the real issues of Einstein's plagiarism, which
Stachel conspicuously avoids throughout his undignified rant, he seeks to attack my
credibility, and I am, therefore, compelled to respond to his poorly thought out remarks.

Dr. Stachel refers to a letter from Felix Klein to Wolfgang Pauli, a
transcription of which appears in *Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein,
Heisenberg, u.a. = Scientific correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, a.o.*,
Springer, New York, (1979), pp. 27-28. It appears to Dr. Stachel that there is a mutual
exclusion between Klein's directive to Pauli in this letter, that he should credit
Poincare with Poincare's innovations, and my contentions that it appears that Pauli felt
forced, or compelled, to praise Einstein with evidently insincere comments after proving
that Poincare and Lorentz had created the special theory of relativity before Einstein.

No such mutual exclusion exits. The factual disclosure that Poincare
and Lorentz hold priority for the special theory of relativity rather requires that
Pauli's statements of praise of Einstein be insincere, and indeed Pauli qualifies his
statements, "in a way," which fact Dr. Stachel avoids addressing. All the
elements of pressure and submission exist in Klein's letter, and one should bear in mind
the stature of Felix Klein--then the world's leading expert on non-Euclidean geometry and
one of the greatest of the great minds responsible for the reputation of the Goettingen
Academy as a world leader in mathematics. In his letter, Klein directs Pauli as an
authority, informs Pauli of his like for Einstein and Einstein's peculiar remarks, and
makes clear to Pauli that he wants Einstein praised, albeit with the leftovers from
Poincare. Wolfgang Pauli was quite young at the time and Felix Klein's attitude towards
Einstein must have served as a source of pressure on Pauli to praise Einstein, even after
proving that Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of
relativity. However, Felix Klein's attitude is but one factor. Einstein had recently
emerged as an international celebrity, and this, too, must have served as a source of
enormous pressure on Pauli to praise Einstein. But these are many words wasted on a
nonissue. If Pauli was as sincere in his praise of Einstein as sincere can be, it would
not change his arguments that Lorentz and Poincare created the special theory of
relativity, before Einstein--which subject Stachel avoids. John Stachel has apparently
lost sight of the fact that I am not the issue, rather the history is the issue.

Far more interesting than Klein's directives to Pauli, is Klein's
statement that Poincare, who stated before Einstein that the Lorentz transformations form
a group, felt an animosity towards Einstein and that this was the sole reason why Poincare
did not mention Einstein in his Goettingen lecture "The New Mechanics". Similar
comments are found in the writings of Stjepan Mohorovicic, who pointed out that Einstein
repeated (without an attribution) Poincare's method of synchronizing clocks with light
signals, and, as a result, Poincare did not mention Einstein in the context of relativity
(*See: Die Einsteinsche Relativitaetstheorie und ihr mathematischer, physikalischer und
philosophischer Charakter*, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, Leipzig, (1923), pp.
23-24, 30).

Dr. Stachel has tried to manufacture contradictions in my work which do
not exist and has wondered off into odd lists of what he incorrectly believes I did and
did not cite, and he is so vague and timid in his remarks, that I would be required to
state the implications of his remarks in order to thoroughly contest them, and in so doing
run the risk of being accused of misrepresenting him. I will instead leave it to my
intelligent readers to understand that Dr. Stachel's comments are so petty, inappropriate
and insulting as to not merit further consideration.

However, it is noteworthy that in his long "review" Dr.
Stachel nowhere mentions the fact that Einstein had an international reputation as a
plagiarist throughout his career, and that his plagiarism was widely discussed in such
reputable sources as the *New York Times*, and in the scientific literature around
the world. Nor does Dr. Stachel refer to the fact that the original 1905 paper on the
principle of relativity was signed "Einstein-Marity", or the fact that the
theory of relativity was known as the "Lorentz-Einstein" theory from 1905
through the 1920's. There was apparently no room in Dr. Stachel's "review" for
mention of the fact that the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the principle of relativity did not
contain any references, though it was largely unoriginal; nor did Einstein's 1915 paper on
the field equations of gravitation contain a single reference to the work of others, and
it was clearly plagiarized from David Hilbert and Marcel Grossmann. Einstein clearly
plagiarized the Lorentz transformation; as well as Poincare's principle of relativity, and
his concept of, and exposition on, relative simultaneity; and Einstein failed to
acknowledge that Poincare was the first to introduce the four-dimensional concept of
space-time into the theory of relativity. Einstein's 1915 formula for the perihelion
motion of Mercury is identical to the formula Paul Gerber published in 1898, as even
Einstein's closest friends noted, with Einstein, under enormous pressure, eventually
grudgingly acknowledging the fact in 1920. Einstein's 1911 prediction for the deflection
of a light ray around the sun is nothing but a repetition of the Newtonian prediction made
in the 1700's, as Einstein acknowledged in his private correspondence in 1913; and
Einstein's revised 1915 prediction comes remarkably close to duplicating the prediction
Johann Georg von Soldner made in 1801. Dr. Stachel completely avoided addressing any of
the legitimate reasons for the numerous accusations of plagiarism and anticipation, which
have been made against Einstein's work from 1905 onward. His silence on these issues
speaks loudly.

I share Dr. Stachel's concern for the abuse Mileva Maric suffered, with
the difference between us being that I properly attribute that abuse, perhaps even
physical abuse, to its source, Albert Einstein. I could quote some of Einstein's hateful
and misogynist diatribes, or offer up the evidence of his perverse behavior, his neglect
of marital and familial obligations, his smear campaigns against Mileva Maric, but since I
have already addressed these issues and since Dr. Stachel avows that he, like me, is
genuinely concerned for her, I will leave it to him to expound upon these important
issues. Strange though, Stachel found no room in his article for citation of my praise for
Mileva Maric, and my arguments in the alternative. It would be nice, and it would be
appropriate, if he would leave me as a personality out of the history, and return to that
history.

In conclusion, we should all acknowledge the importance of recognizing
and recording the facts of the history of the theory of relativity and the history of the
"insane publicity" which has promoted and which continues to promote Einstein,
virtually to the exclusion of his predecessors. We face a moral imperative to give
Einstein's predecessors justice, if only posthumously, and we must acknowledge their
legacy. We have an obligation to the science of history to accurately record the past. It
was for this purpose of accurately recording the history that I wrote my book. I am quite
proud of my Jewish heritage, and if John Stachel wants to change the subject to
anti-Semitism, I will join him in condemning it in all its forms, and go about the work of
a historian recording the facts surrounding Einstein's career of plagiarism, even if it
means enduring Dr. Stachel's petty insults. I do not think that alarmist slogans and
attempts to render the subject taboo have any place in a scholarly exploration of the
facts.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes