copycat82, the Un-credible Ph.D.
a prototypical case of fake-credibility

The Un-credible Ph.D. is an abuse, in several ways. We may ask:

And how may we trust the professional levels of those professors who approved it, either? Especially, if that means they were too ignorant to notice the obvious plagiarism, or the faultfullness, etc.

A Conspiracy-Evaluation Template

As a case-study of the anti-abuse strategies section, the concern of this page is to establish ways to fight against manipulations when we make important evaluations. How was copycat82 granted a Ph.D. degree? And how was copycat83 published as a paper in an IEEE journal?

A high frequency of such cases, in the works of that period, would only signal laxness of the professional-standards, overall. I do not expect that, though. The other papers I have read, are quite satisfactory.

Since 1970s, it was public knowledge (even patented technology, e.g: USPTO 3,951,134) to read/write other people's minds through electronics. We cannot neglect a possibility of such techno-witchcraft being used, especially, in a case, where only a single side appears to win unexplainable spoils.

To investigate the case about spoils, we may study the stats of the involved people. Evaluate the other publications by the involved people - whether as authors, or as jury members.

on the jury

After we evaluate their works, if we find out that the jury members were hopelessly ignorant people, then this may explain that part of the case. But if they were well-achievers, considered as experts, then we may ask:

"Too nice" to oppose? The jury is supposed to keep critical. At the very least, they ought to refuse approval, until they were convinced why the nominee was supposed to be granted a Ph.D. Keep your response-bias as the rejection - especially about a Ph.D. It may hurt people - even if not your pocket.

an example, two-step, soul-lobbier strategy
the satanical, meets new breachers

Does anybody, especially among the jury, remember the following sequence of events, which may have lead to swallow their objections? This silencer-strategy is similar to the ages old manipulations of the satan (& co.). These steps were known since millenia, as the satanical-exaggerations to let people leave worship-to-God. Now, sufficiently intrusive technology, lets not-so-bright people to meet their egos, by being parasitic to other people's minds.

The two-step procedure may especially be the case when that person, at first, rightfully objects, next he/she may "find" yet other objectible-points, in his/her mind. Initially, he/she may subscribe to them, too, and even with extra enthusiasm. Only next to notice, or be told by others that, that particular (second, third, etc.) idea(s) was/were false. He/she may leave even the original pursuit, upon disappointment. i.e: The exaggerations, as urged by the satan(s), may let give up with the issue, altogether. The fake-extras wipe the real objections.

This is one of those infamous, satanical strategies. If any strange sequence can be remembered, check out to see whether it fits one of those strategies.

An example:

copycat82 publishes what existed before itself, in a vague way. Such vagueness may only be to hide its plagiarism. If the Ph.D. nominee is such an ignorant person, to the extent that, he cannot notice that his sentences could mean a variety of things, in its vagueness - and all, except the most trivial alternative turn out to be untakeable, although the sort of words do appear to suggest them. For example, the fake claim, or the vagueness-except-prior-art, of about "Postponeability of Data", is only absurd, unless it means the macros, as NN73 (Macro E-nets) had published about. After others had published such, it is trivial to duplicate, and coat it with vagueness. (Vague word-changes.)

the authors

The Un-credible-Ph.D. person, is stuck with his unproductivity. Period. Therefore, nothing is a surprise with his case, except how a jury would approve it. In fact, I had, at the very first, started to read his Ph.D. work, after I had extensively ridiculed his later publications. (A "standard C" textbook, and a symposium-paper.)

The surprise about that copycat82/83 case, is about his advisor, an IEEE V.I.P.

"owns" the place?

The Ph.D. advisor of copycat82, is also the co-author of the associated paper, copycat83, published in an IEEE journal. At the time, he was the editor-in-chief of an IEEE computer-society magazine/journal. As such, a possible explanation is the social-dominance of the advisor/co-author, with his assumed-credibility.

This does not explain, though, how nobody would care to read what "such an important person" has written - in which case, they would certainly notice its plagiarism, and exaggerated faultfulness.

Every single figure in that paper contains [several] fault(s) - except Fig.4 where copycat83 only shows/copies the operator signs, imitative of SARA.

To repeat: How about the peer-review jury, of the paper? Would they also not care to read it, at all? It is especially strange, because if you think he is a successful, important person, why would you not read his paper yourself, when you permit its publication? No expectancy of any benefit out of it?

who wrote it?

Was the advisor otherwise-successful, but only a victim in the case of copycat82/83? Was he a victim of his trust towards an un-credible Ph.D. nominee? (Or, was he a target of such [electro-]witchcraft?)

But does he not feel any interest to read the paper which is published with his name, as the first author of it?

Does he join in writing, or does he let his students/assistants write a text - as if that were subcontracts? In such a case, as long as the assistant/student does his/her job, nobody would know any problem, but when the text is totally un-credible, the case about, "who writes what?" becomes public.

Still, it is possible that, this case may be the (only) exception where he yielded to such [internal] pressures/suggestions, and let the task to the Ph.D. nominee. As a hypothesis-check, we may evaluate other published papers of his, to find out whether any such problems exist.

a case of "emperor's unvisible clothes?"
Or, Can Public Opinion be Manipulated [on an individual basis]?

The situation of those other readers of copycat83, who have not objected (or, have not been heard publicly) is possibly the emperor's new clothes syndrome. i.e: If they knew who was the co-author (the Ph.D. advisor), or if they read the biography of him, published with copycat83, the objection-maker might have either felt suspicious about his/her own perception (cf. the social-psychological phenomenon of bystander (non-)intervention), and/or would not want to "tangle" with such a socially-linked person (the editor-in-chief of an IEEE magazine/journal).

The alternative explanation is the extra horrible. It extends the witchcraft-based explanation, to such objecters, too. That means, a net to spot those who object, and (mind-lobbies, soul-attacks) to puppetize him/her, too. Is that possible? If so, how may a "little fish" get noticed by the "big fish" who/which assign themselves, such a priority, to eat-up others?

Public Opinions, Target of Attack?

ELF-waves are reported (by Puharich) to invoke riotous behavior (at 10.8 Hz), or make a person "feel good" (at 7.83 Hz., the earth's pulse rate). This suggests ways to manipulate the audiences at rooms where the jury, or voters may gather together, to listen to the nominee(s). It is inferrable that, for example, if I speak, in presence of 7.83 Hz. waves, people would more favorably evaluate my presence, and thereby my words. And, vice versa.

Also, opinion polls may be manipulated through either SLP, or soul-shots, or even with the old-times genies, while the interviewee is supposed to tell "his/her own" opinion.

The worst of all, as we discuss in this subsection, is about set-up nets, originally probably to steal industrial-secrets, or to combat in "cold war," but it may also notice any reports of plagiarism, or reports about any wrong-doings, of their members.

With efficient nets, even without whole-society-control (which would/may need to control many thousands, or millions, of people), the objecters who mention their first notices/impressions, might be tracked, and next, they may be targeted, mind-lobbied/hypnotized through those soul-lobbier strategies.

Hooks. The hooks to trap the little-fish, may be needed at both steps of grabbing, and owning what is stolen. Initially, the talent, the new ideas, must be spotted, wherever it is - unless, plagiarized out of published texts. Next, when the thieves try to own/publish the stolen ideas, although the juries who evaluate the material, may be easy, open, targets, the witch-beings (SS TROOPS) need the "little-fish net" with its hooks set at the guessed centers, where "little-fish" would first report to. e.g: When a plagiarism is noticed, that person may report to the publisher, or to an academic center, etc. If the industrial-spywar nets were already set at those central/important points, then the "little fish" is trapped when he/she talks about the spotted theft/plagiarism, and SS-TROOPS may work on them, to brainwash.

Conclusion: the culprits must be bracketed

How could such a case occur in real life, in such a public view? Who may be involved with it?

Was it social-pressures? Was it a type of bribery? Was it witchcraft/hypnosis ?

Of relevance: The industrial spying empire may have its steals - unless we notice. Cf. the books that discuss "Psychic Warrior"ship, and the many post-cold-war articles that alarmed the focusing of the national intelligence agencies, or their ex-members's, on industrial spying.

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 0.0.1
Last-Revised (text) on Oct. 4, 2004 . . . that was
mirror to (& repairing a broken link), on June 16, 2009
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth)
Copyright (c) 2004, 2009 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.