How I might have discovered Bell's theorem in 1961 before Bell.;-)

"The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is
because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the
scenes something is going faster than light. Now, if all Lorentz frames are
equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time."  John Bell

This is precisely what I argued with Stan Deser, Sylvan Schweber ... at Brandeis
in 1961 after I read the David Inglis paper on the tau-theta puzzle in Rev Mod Phys
They discouraged me into looking into it as a possible dissertation basically saying
don't worry about the big philosophical problems, learn to calculate.
Ironically, they were trying to get David Bohm to come to Brandeis, but could not get a visa for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0waNRaz6wU

John Stewart Bell’s comments on a Preferred Reference Frame
Interview Excerpt (pp. 48-50):
The Ghost in the Atom, edited by P.C.W. Davies & J.R.Brown
(Cambridge U. Press, 1986)
Bell’s inequality is, as I understand it, is rooted in two assumptions: the first
is what we might call objective reality – the reality of the external world,
independent of observation; the second is locality, or non-separability, or no
faster-than-light signaling. Now, Aspect’s experiment appears to indicate
that one of these two has to go. Which of the two would you like to hang on
to? - Paul Davies

It introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality and so on. And so it’s
precisely to avoid these that I want to day there is a real causal sequence
which is defined by the aether. Now the mystery is, as with Lorentz and
Poincare, that this aether does not show up at the observational level. It is as
if there some kind of conspiracy that something is going on behind the
scenes which is not allowed to appear on the scenes. And I agree that that’s
extremely uncomfortable. - John S. Bell