“You can’t calculate probabilities with just algebra. The geometry must be taken into account.”

Comte George Buffon, Essay on Moral Arithmetic



The French Revolution had multiple causes with innumerable contributing factors and personalities but there was clear direction towards democracy. It was modeled generally on the success of the American Revolution and Constitution. Although not entirely non violent, it was generally so.

Then came the Terror. It was intended to look like chaos from a handful of serious but confused and ignorant men. Close examination reveals an otherwise narrow purpose by one man with a high level of malice.

From a superficial historical perspective, the Terror does not make political sense. There was no apparent reason for it. Democratic institutions were in place and working. In trying to understand the reasons for the Terror, the frustrated French government has initiated over five thousand commissions to examine the circumstances. Most of the investigations were in the 19th Century when there were still living witnesses. The best conclusion they could come up with is that the Paris Academy of Sciences was somehow involved.


The commissions simply didn’t go back far enough in time and analysis. The explanation needs only a closer look to put the missing tiles in place.

1) In the middle of the 18th Century, the Academy was the world’s center for the study of physics.

2) Action at a distance was a conceptual methodology long suppressed by the Vatican. France was a Catholic country by royal decree and the Academy was the King’s Academy. In the Academy, “action at a distance” was recognized as critical to the study of physics. The original Buffon Needle Problem provides the matrix of geometric probability that makes mathematical sense of “action at a distance.” However, it was impossible to openly study Buffon’s original Needle without also opening the door to “action at a distance.” Doing so at that time would create significant political and religious problems.

3) In 1770, George Buffon was Permanent Treasurer of the Academy. The evidence now appears that he organized a conspiracy of Academy leaders to get around the Vatican’s suppression. The plan was to quietly mentor an atheist into the Academy. His name was Simon Laplace. He was taught some calculus and secretly provided with some of the conspirator’s scientific work. He was taught how to rewrite those papers as his own. He was told to promote himself as “the greatest mathematician in France.” When his credibility was established, he would announce the values of “action at a distance.” That would also free up the full dynamics of Buffon’s Needle and its random proof of pi while opening the door to “action at a distance.”

4) In 1776, the conspirators had to reverse their course 180 degrees. For significant political and economic reasons they used Laplace to attack the values of “action at a distance.” He was to publicly embarrass Rudjer Boskovic by rudely accusing him of using the methodology. In doing so, Laplace also embarrassed himself and the Academy.

5) The Laplace/Boskovic “debate” lasted almost a year and a half. It generated considerable publicity, especially considering the outrageous conduct of Laplace. Following the debate, Laplace was no longer useful to the conspiracy. Everyone involved would look ridiculous if “action at a distance” was subsequently “discovered” and promoted. Nevertheless, all involved were committed to secrecy.

6) During and following the Laplace/Boskovic debate, Dr. Jean Paul Marat conducted a series of scientific experiments. One of his experiments –with light– appears to touch upon the issues of pi and “action at a distance.” Apparently, for these political reasons, his work was publicly rejected by the Academy. It was done so in a manner that embarrassed Marat. Lavoisier led the attack. Marat asked Jacques Brissot to intervene with the Academy and determine the seemingly inexplicable reasons for their rejection of his carefully detailed experiment. Brissot approached Condorcet who referred him to Laplace. In the resulting interview, Laplace again responded rudely. Brissot subsequently wrote a book (De la Verite) that openly discussed Laplace’s inexcusable ignorance. Laplace had again seriously embarrassed both himself and the Academy! When Marat applied for a leadership position with the Spain’s newly forming Academy of Sciences, Bailley wrote the King of Spain and denounced Marat as a charlatan. From Marat’s perspective, it was no longer an academic disagreement. It was all out war!

7) When the Academy conspirators became involved with the French Revolution by providing political leadership, Marat saw his opportunity for revenge. He became a journalist and attacked them in his press. So as to not appear with sour grapes, Marat confined his attacks to their political activities rather than academic connections. As Marat focused on Jean Condorcet, he disingenuously included Condorcet’s name in a list of over twenty others. Marat called for their execution. Other than the list, he also called for the execution of hundreds of thousand others. His call for mass murders may well have been a disingenuous attempt to deflect attention from his focus on Condorcet and the other conspirators.

8) After Marat was assassinated by Charlotte Corday, Laplace quietly picked up Marat’s baton and used Robespierre, Josephe Fouche and Francois Hanriot to effectively implement Marat’s madness. Laplace had the motive, the opportunity and the means.

9) Laplace’s criminal intent was to kill the conspirators who knew the truth of his fraudulent status as the “greatest mathematician in France.” As well, to gain possession of their personal and professional papers. His motive was obvious. If the truth of “action at a distance” ever saw the light of day and open examination, the “greatest mathematician in France” would be a laughing stock. Marat’s list provided the opportunity. Robespierre and Fouche provided the means. It didn’t hurt his efforts that Laplace also brought to the table the support and artillery of Napoleon.

10) Throughout the Terror, Laplace wisely kept in the background without political publicity. Barely managing to keep his undeserved reputation, he used it to give “mathematical certainties” to Robespierre that the implementation of certain laws and the execution of certain people would protect France and the Revolution. Robespierre ate it up. The mathematics apparently gave him sufficient inner strength to claim he was “incorruptible.”


The French Revolution was a demand for democracy that peacefully got its foot in the door with the Tennis Court oath. Unlike many other Revolution’s, there was not a great deal of violence until the tocsin rang to attack the Bastille.

It was reportedly Marat who rang it.

Fifteen years earlier, Marat’s relationship with the Academy started well on the surface. In 1777, Marat’s living quarters/laboratory were, like the library meeting rooms of the Academy, on Royal grounds. Marat started a series of half a dozen scientific experiments. He was meticulous in his work. Each experiment was well recorded and took approximately a year or more to conclude. He began with fire/heat.

Marat entered the scene months before the Laplace/Boskovic “debate” ended. He also became friends with Ben Franklin. In some back room maneuvers, Marat contrived to have Franklin lead an Academy blue ribbon commission to review Marat’s initial experiments with heat. Franklin loved it when Marat bounced shadows off Franklin’s bald head. The Academy gave Marat a good review.

Marat’s subsequent experiment with light appears coherent with the original Needle …and therefore naturally sympathetic to Boskovic’s side of the recent debate! These were basic matters of mechanics and gravity. Unfortunately, they were also matters of politics. On this, he did not get a good review.

Marat’s work came from light through a prism. He claimed light was a perception that occurs at a tangent relative to the object it touches. As described herein, this, like the original Needle, sets up “action at a distance.” He apparently correctly understood the seriousness of the mathematical consequences of his work and wrote to a friend his belief that the Academy was rejecting his work since otherwise they would have to “recalculate every calculation ever made!”

* The proof of relativity in the original Needle sets up the random tangent average as relative 1/4 pi and the relative cross radius as 1/2 pi. Since it is an average, it is just a mathematical perception. It occurs at a tangent (relative 1/4 pi) relative (through 1/2 pi) to the Center of Rotation or Center of Mass of the pi-angle of the object it touches. This sets up “action at a distance” since it values the randomness of gravity as: “1.” and that to which it is relative as: pi. Since two random measurements give a mathematical average at a right angle tangent …the door is opened: “what do three random measurements give?” The door is opened since the second random measurement can be statistically ignored as just a mathematical perception. This sets up “action at a distance” as the finesse through the tangent second measurement allows the third random measurement to deliver the flat bet advantage along gravity’s pi-angle. This refutes traditional random theory! The consequences of anyone admitting the values of “action at a distance” include the very real option of recalculating every random calculation ever made!

* Let it be noted that the members who panned Marat’s work were the remaining Academy conspirators. They could not afford to have “action at a distance” aired for examination. Lavoisier wrote the public pan job on Marat. Condorcet sicced Laplace onto Brissot which resulted in the outrageous Laplace/Brissot interview. Bailley made it all out war when he denounced Marat as a charlatan.

* Let it also be noted that the very foundation of Cracking pi and the flat bet advantage is also found with a quantum random number generator in which the data is is provided by light photons through, and tangentially off, a semi transparent mirror (see: WHAT’S CRACKING) and then processed with “action at a distance” to deliver a flat bet advantage of .16666…. !

* Let it finally be noted again that Laplace had effective control and ability to destroy –and exercised it– over virtually every document in France and most of Europe, especially the Vatican archives, that touched on the subjects of the original Needle and “action at a distance!”

When the Revolution came, Marat saw his opportunity for revenge and became a popular journalist as he published his radical paper “Friend of the People.” In it, he never lost sight of targeting the Academy members who had embarrassed him. Like Brissot, he surely did not understand their purpose involving Laplace and “action at a distance”, but he never lost target sight of the conspirators personalities in their political activities. From Marat’s perspective, they could do nothing right.

Marat became more and more popular and eventually became president of the radical Jacobins group. If Marat had lived, he would almost surely have sooner or later reasserted his work with light …and just as surely focused his power and wrath upon Laplace.

Then Marat was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

No historical connection appears between Laplace and Corday …except they both came from the Calvados. They also had some common interests. Laplace and Marat both wanted to see Condorcet dead and Marat was quite vocal about it. Laplace also wanted to see Marat dead because of the Brissot interview that was set up by Condorcet. Corday’s motive in killing Marat was precisely to save Condorcet! A possible connection between Laplace and Corday certainly appears ripe for investigation.

Shortly after Marat’s death, Napoleon was in Paris defending himself on charges of firing on civilians. A decade after his graduation from the Ecole Militaire and the mentorship of Laplace, he was still only a lieutenant. At the time he knew virtually no one in Paris other than Laplace. At a certain point he was sitting outside a cafe with someone. It was almost surely Laplace. It was across the square from a prison. While there, they witnessed Princess Lamballe dragged outside from her cell by street thugs led by Francoise Hanriot.

One of Robespierre’s major biographers describe Francoise Hanriot as a close personal friend of Robespierre. Let Hanriot and his name go down in history as an obscenity. After dragging her out of the jail and into a public courtyard, this brute is credited with first stabbing the Princess in the stomach to quiet her as she spoke a word on behalf of her jailer, then ripping off her clothes, leading a gang rape upon her, carving out her genitals, cutting off her breasts, and finally decapitating her. This close friend of Robespierre then paraded her head on a pike in front of Marie Antoinette.

Napoleon and his companion personally witnessed Hanriot’s conduct. Napoleon remarked to his companion that was the kind of man needed to lead others in the revolution: “That is the man to give your artillery to.”

Hanriot was given control of the National Guard’s artillery. It is inconceivable that occurred without the blessing of Laplace, the Chief Examiner of Artillery. Hanriot had served in the Navy. It should be noted that during the Revolution, Laplace removed himself as Chief Examiner of the Army but kept his position as Chief Examiner of the Navy.

Three days later, Hanriot pointed the artillery at the legislature and, with Marat’s list in hand, demanded those on the list be expelled from government (where they were protected by law). Hanriot got his way.

This was the beginning of the Terror. In the horror that followed, Condorcet went on the run. After three days in the woods, he made his way to an inn and ordered an omelet. When asked how many eggs he wanted, Condorcet answered, “twelve.” The innkeeper became suspicious and sent for the police. Condorcet was arrested and found dead in his cell the next day.

Laplace offered Bailly refuge in Laplace’s house. Bailly was arrested as he approached the house. He was taken to the Champs d’ Elysee and guillotined on a dung hill.

Lavoisier had a chance to run, but didn’t. As he stood before the blade, he told a friend he would start blinking as the blade fell and continue as long as he could. His friend was not to look away but in the interests of science, to count the blinks after his head was severed and then raised for all to see. He reportedly blinked over a dozen times.

As each of these men were executed, their personal and professional papers were immediately seized by Fouche and his police and delivered to Laplace.

Above all, at the top of Laplace’s kill list, was Buffon’s son, Buffonet. Buffon died a year before the Revolution and Buffonet held his father’s papers in estate. Buffonet was a captain of the guard of the king’s cousin, Duc d’Orleans. The Duc, who was reportedly cuckolding Buffonet. was also his protector. Buffonet was arrested three times and released twice, apparently from the influence of the Duc. The Duc was then ostensibly executed for loose living, but it was almost surely for no other reason than to end his protection of Buffonet.


The last words of Buffonet were to proclaim his name just before the guillotine took his life. Fouche and his police were given awards and public recognition for their excellent work in killing Buffonet and immediately seizing his father’s papers and delivering them to Laplace. That ended the Terror since there was no one else on Laplace’s kill list.


The Revolution opened the Ecole Normal, a university level institution. Laplace was the featured lecturer but he inspired no one. It closed after three months when students stopped coming.

When that institution was replaced, Laplace took an administrative position in which he controlled the hiring of teachers, as well as controlling the curriculum and the exams. To ensure “action at a distance” had minimal chance of arising, every entering student had to demonstrate competence in quadrature. As discussed throughout this site, when quadrature is used, geometric probability is mathematically impossible.

When Napoleon seized power, it is reported the first person he turned to talk with was Laplace.

Napoleon made Laplace Minister of the Interior but fired him after six weeks (kicking him upstairs to the Senate) claiming he “brought the spirit of the infinitesimal to his administration.” Nevertheless, it was sufficient time for Laplace to set up a system of public education with himself in the power seat. From there, Laplace administered the western world’s first state run system of public education. Laplace made certain that the original Buffon Needle Problem and “action at a distance” were not part of the curriculum.

Additionally, Laplace took control of the state’s observatory and telescope. He reserved all viewing time for himself …but never used it. Obviously, he did not want anyone to attempt Newton and Boskovic’s use of “action at a distance” to determine the orbit of comets with three random measurements. That would, of course, eliminate quadrature from the equation and set up “action at a distance.”

In 1812, Laplace published the Needle under his own name without mention of Buffon. Disastrously, knowingly and maliciously, Laplace changed the original Needle’s lengthdisingenuously alleging there were “fewer errors” with a longer length. What he was referring to were the number of cuts or crosses or touches of the Needle to a line.

If any other length of Needle than relative 1/4 pi is used as the random unit of measure, it is not random relative to the geometric probability of gravity. A different length of Needle (including traditional random theory) is arbitrarily relative to the randomness of perception only. This is so since the only possible random length of Needle relative to serial random measurements ofgravity is necessarily an arc of relative 1/4 pi relative to the pi-angle (or “diameter”) of the field or object or game being randomly measured. Otherwise, the measurement or “game” cannot be geometrically fair.

A randomly dropped Needle that is of any length different than relative 1/4 pi is not random relative to the randomness it purports to deliver under traditional random theory. The difference is the result of using quadrature to mathematically establish a field of 4 poles (diameter and crossdiameter) …which changes the underlying random geometric nature of probability that is gravitationally aligned with gravity’s pull on a single dimension.

The methodology of quadrature changes the statistical results of gravity’s pull on the geometric nature of a single dimension. Any other length of Needle automatically changes the measurements into a “game” of two dimensions of algebraic possibilities on a circle (or “game”). Random quadrature is demonstrated by the algebra of calculus. This incestuously delivers the random algebra of the field or game we perceive. Only the methodology of “action at a distance” allows us to statistically see what gravity is actually, randomly and geometrically delivering.

In short, random quadrature, upon which traditional random theory is algebraically based, does not mathematically reflect the randomness that gravity is geometrically delivering.

Geometric probability is delivered by “action at a distance.” This statistically delivers the random flat bet advantage. This is what Laplace had to keep away from public view or study. As soon as “action at a distance” was determined to be valid, Laplace would look outstandingly stupid for attacking Boskovic’s use of the methodology.

There is nothing wrong with random quadrature …but to understand the underlying nature of randomness, it is necessary to understand its deeper geometric roots in relative 1/4 pi. It is these random roots that Laplace concealed. He concealed it in many ways, but the most critical was his fundamental change of the original Needle.

The trail of geometric probability through the original Needle automatically leads to “action at a distance.” This is only randomly found and proven by starting with a correct geometric assignment of the value: “1.” By the proof of the original Needle, that assignment is to the field or game’s pi-angle or diameter. This deductively values a game or field’s radius as: .50 .

The value of a radius as .50 is the value deduced from the original Needle. It is the academic side of what Laplace needed to conceal. If used, a radius of .50 dissolves quadrature and sets up the original Needle and “action at a distance.” If a radius is valued as anything else –or a Needle or unit of measure of any other length than relative 1/4 pi is used– quadrature is possible and “action at a distance” is impossible (or at least makes no mathematical sense). Laplace always valued a field or game’s radius as: “1.”. This conceals the truth of geometric probability. It does so by matching random results to life’s perceptions of a circle… rather than to the resulting geometric probability that gravity randomly delivers on the straight line of a pi-angle.

In France, in the 1820’s, there was popular movement towards freedom of the press. Not unexpectedly, Laplace opposed it. Not unexpectedly, he was castigated by virtually all in the academic world.

On his death bed he at least confessed some of his perfidy, “It was all smoke.”

There were other indicators of Laplace’s true nature.

In De La Verite, Brissot reported his interview with Laplace. When he initially published the interview, Brissot referred to himself as “Skeptic” and Laplace as “Geometer.” He later identified Laplace by name.

Skeptic: “You say you have not listened to him or read him but you call him an imbecile.”

Geometer: I do not have to read or listen to him. His conclusions go against Newton’s and the Academy’s and my own. Good God, do we have to examine every little thing?”

Back To Top