THE OPPENHEIMER CASE
625
Eltenton-he reported that an unnamed contact, operating for Elten–
ton and with access to microfilm and the Soviet consulate, had ap–
proached three persons on the project. That is, Dr. Oppenheimer
suppressed Chevalier's part in the approach and
his
own, multiplied
himself into three people, and mentioned only Eltenton. It was not
until General Groves said he would order him to divulge the name
of the contact that Dr. Oppenheimer identified Chevalier and even
then he failed to correct his original story that the approach had
been made to three people.
(2) It is charged against him that although he now testifies
that had he known in October 1943 that Lomanitz was a Commu–
nist he would not have supported his desire to return to the atomic
project, official transcripts of earlier interviews show that in August
1943 he told Colonel Pash that Lomanitz had given information
about the project and in September 1943 he told Colonel Lansdale
he knew Lomanitz was a Communist.
(3)
It
is charged against him that although he now testifies
that he had met Rudy Lambert perhaps a half-dozen times prior
to 1943, including one or two luncheon meetings in which he dis–
cussed with Lambert and another Communist functionary his con–
tributions to the Communist cause, in 1943 he told Colonel Lansdale
that he did not know Lambert or what he looked like.
(4) It is charged against him that in 1949 Dr. Oppenheimer
testified in a closed session of Congressional Committee about the
Communist activities of Dr. Peters but that when a summary of
this testimony appeared in a Rochester newspaper, Dr. Oppenheimer
wrote a letter to that newspaper in effect contradicting
his
previous
testimony.
(5)
It
is charged against him that although before the meeting
of the General Advisory Committee in October 1949 at which the
Committee recommended against the H-bomb Dr. Oppenheimer had
had a letter from Dr. Seaborg, the one absent member, voicing
agreement with the thermonuclear program, he did not mention Dr.
Seaborg's position in his report of this meeting to the Commission
and now testifies that the Committee was "surprisingly unanimous"
and that he had no way of knowing the opinion of Dr. Seaborg.
(6 ) It is charged against him that although he told an FBI
agent in 1950 that he had not known that Joseph Weinberg was a
