Epstein Secrets

From: Brian Boyd To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:26:44 +0000 The Lolita book is bubbling away in a corner of my brain, but I have to

From: Brian Boyd To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Date: Sun,

From: Brian Boyd To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Da

Lolita book is bubbling away in a corner of my brain, but I have to keep it on the back burner, since I have a fellowship to write the biography of Karl Popper and really have to finish that this time, having allowed myself to get distracted before by Nabokov and Darwin on another fellowship for the same pr

From: Rupert Sheldrake < To: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: fields Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields themselves, you'

From: Rupert Sheldrake < To: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: fields Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosoph

elds Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields themselves, yo

:41:45 +0000 Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, about it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fields, a very similar concept to your pr

From: "Nowak, Martin" To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:01:12 +0000 ... he has already replied Begin forwarded message: From: "Brian Boy

From: "Nowak, Martin" To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Date: Tue

From: "Nowak, Martin" To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: D

stitute. I would also be very interested in doing research together, although I am supposed to be focusing my energies on completing a biography of Karl Popper (I see you are from Vienna and UV) for the next three years. This has to be very brief as a conference I am organizing will kick off in just over an

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:38 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields are you having fun On Tue, Jul 12, 2016

y, July 30, 2016 7:38 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields are you having fun On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rupert Sheldr=ke vrote: Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a fairly general shape, also seen in species frequencies etc. =till not sure how it might apply to morphic resonanc

, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rupert Sheldr=ke vrote: Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a fairly general

wrote: Dear Jeffr=y, They could be probability fields themselves, you4k=80.re right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:08 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields Be patient . I will leave you to your holi

en=. . your morphic field forces it into a non random direc=ion. have a good trip. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:=4 AM, Rupert Sheldrake wrote:=br> Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a fairly general shape, also seen in species frequencies etc. =till not sure how it might apply to morphic resonanc

6 at 11:=4 AM, Rupert Sheldrake wrote:=br> Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for the gra=h. Yes, its a fairly general

wrote: Dear Jeffr=y, They could be probability fields themselves, you4o=8040re right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded EFTA_R1_01560705 EFTA02457133 like what he called propensity fie=ds,

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 2:22 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields free floating probablity fields. 4> too w

I would ar=ue that a bell curve is the graphic representation of your field the=ry. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < > > wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosoph

6 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < > > wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, yo

< > > wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

r"> <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, yo

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:48 PM To: Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sh

Rupert Sheldrake Subject: Re: fields On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake <=pan dir="ltr"> <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosoph

o.uk» wrote: Dear Jeffrey, They could be probability fields thems=lves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, abo=t it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity fie=ds, a very similar concept to your pr

From: Rupert Sheldrake Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:54 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: fields Dear =effrey, Thanks for the graph. Yes, =ts a fairly general shape, also seen in species frequencies etc. Still =ot sure how i

hat has come =efore it its very very elegant. =nd as good a theory as any scientist can propose. On Mon, Jul 11, =016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake Dear Jeffrey, Yes, = think Brian Josephson is indeed rather scattered. rote: I don't think =eepak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you

rake Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:54 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: fields Dear =effrey, Thanks f

o.uk> =rote: Dear =effrey, They could be probability fields =hemselves, you're right. When I first put forward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, =bout it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity =ields, a very similar concept to your pr

From: Rupert Sheldrake Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:42 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: fields Dear =effrey, They could be =robability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put =orward this hypothesis I corresponde

e it its very very =legant. and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. =br> On =on, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < > =rote: Dear Jeffrey, Yes, = think Brian Josephson is indeed rather scattered. I don't think =eepak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll suc

rake Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:42 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: fields Dear =effrey, They cou

Re: fields Dear =effrey, They could be =robability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put =orward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, =bout it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity =ields, a very similar concept to your pr

To: Jeffrey EpsteinUeevacationagmaii.comj From: Nowak, Martin Sent Tue 1/10/2012 9:01:12 PM Subject Fwd: ... he has already replied Begin forwarded messag

stitute. I would also be very interested in doing research together, although I am supposed to be focusing my energies on completing a biography of Karl Popper (I sec you arc from Vienna and UV) for the next three years. This has to be very brief as a conference I am organizing will kick off in just over a