Sunday, June 25, 2006

 

intelligence failures, Iraq, RSA

I read with interest yet another news story about the intelligence failures in the US leading up to war with Iraq:

"New details on WMD 'fabricator' emerge"
"Warnings that Iraqi was lying about bioweapons ignored, ex-CIA aide says"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13493736/from/RS.4/

Now I remember that period around Colin Powell's speech, and I remember thinking that it didn't sound credible to me, just on what was already publicly known at that time.

But lots of people believed it.

Now I have some math ideas that I say may simply solve what's called the factoring problem.

I just go ahead and put up the math as well.

Trouble for some of you gullible people who think you are skeptics is that the people you rely on for their experties are completely shown to be fauds by my research and their reaction to it.

For years they have painted me as a crackpot and ignored my mathematical findings.

I see no reason to suspect they will not do so here.

Frustrated with this situation I have been pursuing a solution to the factoring problem for over three years now, with a lot of cases where I was wrong, but was more certain than I am here.

If the math community were doing its job then there wouldn't be what I see as political speeches—little different from Powell at the UN—from both sides.

I have my little political speeches. Math people replying to me have theirs.

And you can trust that I am wrong, like I've been wrong before, but if I'm right, then you may lose your life savings, along with a lot of other people, or worse.

One thing for sure, if I am right, then this already is a massive intelligence failure as SOMEONE in the world's cryptographic community should have stepped up by now, so I say that hopefully this idea is wrong again.

But I can put it up so easily:

S = (k_1*sqrt(x) + k_2*sqrt(y))*(k_3*sqrt(x) + k_4*sqrt(y))

and

T = (k_1*sqrt(x) - k_2*sqrt(y))*(k_3*sqrt(x) - k_4*sqrt(y))

now multiply both out, which gives

S = k_1*k_3*x + (k_2*k_3 + k_1*k_4)*sqrt(xy) + k_2*k_4*y

and

T = k_1*k_3*x - (k_2*k_3 + k_1*k_4)*sqrt(xy) + k_2*k_4*y

and now subtract one from the other for one result, and add one to the other for another:

S - T = 2*(k_2*k_3 + k_1*k_4)*sqrt(xy)

and

S+T = 2*k_1*k_3*x + 2*k_2*k_4*y

so you can now go and find all the variables. Like if S=15, and T is your public key used to secure some Internet transaction.

Then xy is the square of a factor of S-T. So you pick x and y using that criteria.

You divide sqrt(xy) from both sides giving your first equation:

(S - T)/sqrt(xy) = 2*(k_2*k_3 + k_1*k_4)

and now you plug in your x and y into the second equation, which leaves you with 4 variables, the k's.

Well, you pick two to solve for, like k_1 and k_2, or k_3 and k_4, and after solving for them, you pick integers for the others such that all are integers, which is the vaguest part of this method at this point—as I haven't solved out the equations yet.

If you think that is the hole here, you may be right, but it's not hard to do. I just have not done it in a post.

But what if it IS easy, and this method works, and the math community is full of frauds as I say?

Then your life may change irrevocably in a few days, when you had the information in front of you, couod have acted, even thought you were a skeptic, but did nothing, just like so many people in the run-up to war with Iraq.

But I did something back then as I sent an email to TIME magazine, and they published a version of it in a November 2002:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1003625,00.html

You can't see the letter there without paying up, so I'll go ahead and post what TIME printed, and then tell you what I sent them:

"Your report on the weapons that the U.S. could use in a war with Iraq [WORLD, Oct. 21] noted that Iraq's best tactic would be to deploy weapons of mass destruction. While Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran, today his troops would have trouble getting close enough to deliver them. So what would be a possible Iraqi gambit? If the U.S. began military operations to soften up Iraq, Saddam would quickly ask the U.N. to send in weapons inspectors. He would then show the inspection team he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. There would be an international outcry to lift the sanctions and force the U.S. to pay reparations for any damage done. The U.S. needs the inspectors to go in before we attack. JAMES HARRIS Atlanta"

That's what they printed in a heavily edited piece.

What I sent was that Saddam Hussein had probably figured out from his war with Iran that chemical weapons were not decisive, and that it was quite possible he did not have any because he realized they were useless.

I did note that part of that was worrying about getting close enough to use them against our troops.

So I outlined what I thought at that time was a possible way Iraq could out-fox us, which was to wait till war started, get some people in to show they didn't have NBC weapons, and try to use that politically.

I even mentioned that Bush might be accused of war crimes, in that part where I talked about an international outcry, and the US being forced to pay war reparations.

Now I am just some guy who has ideas, many of them wrong, and I read the news like lots of people, but how many were motivated to send warnings, and got published?

At that time many people in this "land of the free, and home of the brave" were terrified to talk out against going to war, and if they didn't know what might happen to them if they did, they had examples like the Dixie Chicks to show them exactly what could happen.

(Thankfully some people did try anyway, and marched and did other protests but, of course, were not listened to either.)

People do stupid things. In groups lots of people do stupid things.

You can sit back, not check, and suppose I'm wrong, and tomorrow you may get blown up in some terrorist plot where terrorists used information that people who are supposed to protect us, are ignoring.

So? Life will go on. The planet will still keep spinning.

But you will be dead. And who really will care? Maybe some family if they survive? You might get a news blurb?

But does any of it really matter? Does it really matter how many of you reading this today may be dead in the next few months?

More and more I'm beginning to think it does not because people make their choices, and the consequences from one perspective are then, inevitable.

[A reply to someone who spotted a hole in James' method.]

That doesn't sound like a hole to me.

It sounds like you're making—a political post.

The politics here are brutal. I say the math community is full of frauds who deliberately ignore valid mathematical methods, like my new factoring idea.

They ARE frauds, so you see replies that have no mathematical value.

And yes, I have failed many times at finding a solution to the factoring problem, after claiming success.

I may be wrong here.

But I'm an actual researcher—versus being a politician—in a nightmare situation where I've found out that mathematicians routinely lie about mathematics, so that I've pursued a problem with major financial implications to prove that beyond any doubt.

Previous attempts have failed. I don't think this one does.

But the answer to me is not to put my failed history, or to make a political ad as if this were an American presidential campaign, instead of a question of whether or not a particular method works.

The answer is to objectively go over the mathematics shown.

If you see that and it shows I'm wrong, then fine.

But when you don't see that understand that's because the math community is not what it claims to be, so it can't behave as expected here.

Since they are not really mathematicians, members of that community can't objectively shoot down my mathematical results.

Which is why they rely so much on ridicule, politics, and playing to your naivette.

Think back to that letter I wrote to TIME. Some of you should be a little surprised at how heavily they edited. And why exactly did they throw out the part about Bush being accused of war crimes?

Welcome to the real world people. Your refusal to accept the truth can get you killed here.

That's the math community I know.

These people are frauds. They relied on a system where they could not
be easily checked and came up with a security method that is fatally
flawed.

They are cons so when caught what do they do?

What do ANY cons do?

They just play the same game that much harder.

These people will let other people die to protect their game, like any other cons.

[Another reply.]

And that is math society.

Those of you who bothered to check may be surprised to find how often people you think have been refuted mathematically, like me, were instead simply called names, and their work was simply called false.

They are lazy because people believe them.

Mathematicians don't have to argue. They just pronounce other people to be wrong.

Notice this poster also chose to take out information that shows you I'm not just your ordinary person mouthing off, as I can talk about a version of an email that I sent to TIME magazine before the Iraq war where I sound like I am a better analyst then the entire US intelligence community—using published information.

TIME magazine heavily edited my letter taking out some controversial things, and trashing the analysis where I considered the possibility that having found chemical weapons to be non-decisive against Iran, Saddam Hussein had no reason to hoard them.

And they took out the part where I cautioned against Bush being accused of war crimes.

Why?

Any of you have a clue? Why would a major magazine take out controversial pieces when this country was taking such a major step as to go to war when the consequences for screwing up could be so huge?

They thought that Bush and company wouldn't screw up, that's why.

They figured someway, somehow those powerful people in that important office would figure out a way to make it work out ok, no matter what.

I think they have watched too many TV shows and movies where the "hero" always wins.

And they decided Bush was the hero because he is the American president.

I say, you people do the same thing—maybe having watched too many TV shows—and you think the mathematicians are the heroes and can't lose.

I say they are the cons, and they are losing right now.

These discussions are a sideshow. The real action may be happening on your computer right now while you don't know it.

Who knows who is peering into your world, right now.





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?