Scientific misconduct policy NASA CFR-1275

Please remove me from your mailing list,
and stop sending me this unsolicited spam.

This response was quite a surprise given that neither the email nor information contained in it is spam. Federal regulatory law is never considered spam. Neither the format of the email or the data attached can be considered spam because we have a right to contact other MAPS members by virtue of membership. Suppose we did not have membership and access? It was obvious to us from written statements by Timothy Jull, the editor of MAPS, that no one was informed of the new law by NASA. Someone, especially the Editor has a moral, if not legal obligation to inform the membership of CFR-1275 and its consequences but apparently no one did. Only the parties that thought they needed to know about the action NASA was taking were informed. (They converged on our web site and the CFR was filed very quietly). In addition if Mr. Treiman wished not to be contacted by a member of MAPS he never should have given out his email address. As a matter of fact, even his work address is in the supplement shown below.
We suspect that Mr. Treiman's response has more to do with the present state and defenseless position many individuals are in, and whom we have exposed as having engaged in scientific misconduct and fraud. Misconduct and fraud by misrepresentation was bad enough. Obviously Mr. Treiman did not, or does not realize that the UT Geology Dept. Dean (and his co-workers) took it to an unacceptable level by [corralling other scientists from member institutions] to conspire with them to lie, cheat, steal, and mislead on this project. The evidence is substantial and unchalleneged.

You entirely misunderstand me. I consider YOUR email
to ME as a piece of spam. I consider myself neither
"friend" nor "foe," in your reckoning. I do not give
a care about your BCC meteorites, nor about your
interpretation of the CFR.
Please do not bother me with this SPAM anymore.

Mr. Cutler brought this email to my attention and we looked at each other wondering, what is this man is trying to say? In the email, he wasn't asked to care about our interpretation of CFR-1275 nor asked to care about any BCC meteorite sample. (By the way CFR-1275 does not require interpretation unless you're absolutley inexperienced). The sum total of this portion of his email leads us to surmise and state without equivocation that, "the requirements for working on our project entails approximately 25 percent skill, and 75 percent honesty and integrity in applying those skills". (It's not that difficlut to identify a rock). Therefore, Mr. Treiman along with several of his colleagues would have been disqualified in the first round. The content of his last email response proves this point in a crystal clear fashion. I mean, if the UT Geology Dept. can influence (conspire) with Arch Reid, Paul Warren, John Wasson, Alan Rubin, Everett K. Gibson, UT Arlington's' Nestell, James Underwood, and others to lie and mislead, we are sure you would go right along with them having the same goals to protect UT and their misconduct. Using your influence to preserve their position and status through any means including artificial means if necessary. This requirement of 75% honesty and integrity is crucial because as we have seen time after time, at least in the UT case, you tend to formulate the desired results and then manipulate the data and information or misinformation to fit those results. Your email responses tip the balance, and were you to apply, would be soundly rejected in the first round. Like UT and their group, you're just not qualified. Knowing this in advance about you and your colleagues' conduct, you have not received an invitation from us to be interested in these rare samples and you never will. In addition, here with this incident at UCLA is recorded the behavior minoritites and others should expect from the likes of scientists such as Mr. Treiman.

Obviously Mr. Manuel has encountered some problems with his colleagues and he is very unhappy, but honest about it. Mr. Manuel criticizes NASA and the NAS. In defense of NASA, they did file CFR-1275 and are making a valiant effort to bring scientific misconduct under control. The problem is the recalcitrant scientists, provosts, and administrations at the university level. The provost and university administrations have the task of making a university look good, such as at UT. Therefore they will bend over backwards to keep a scandal from seeing the light of day including assisting professors and department heads in lying or manipulating information and events. Sometimes it may mean great injustices will go unchallenged (except in court) and wounds will never heal.
In our case the UT Geology Department crossed the line into Civil RICO by conspiring with other university scientists to lie and misinform. They really crept into the violation of federal racketeering laws, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. Not to mention plain old racial and other forms of discrimination. And this we cannot tolerate.

I wish NASA's new policy might correct the problem.
Science rests on one of the oldest spiritual truths, e.g. from the
Upanishads, "Truth is victorious, never untruth."
It appears NASA officials mistakenly believed for decades that good
PR (public relations) is more important than truth.
NASA held the purse strings and misconduct from NASA spread into
peripheral organizations.

For example, how much NASA money, how many pages of MAPS and GCA, and
how many hours of Lunar Science Conference time has been devoted to
questionable but flashy discoveries like AN ALPHABET OF NEONS (Ne-A,
Ne-B, Ne-C, Ne-D, Ne-E, etc.), SUPER-HEAVY ELEMENTS, INTERSTELLAR
DIAMONDS, STAR DUST, etc. while more mundane explanations (MASS
FRACTIONATION, LOCAL ELEMENT SYNTHESIS, etc.) were ignored and/or
excluded from publication?

1. NASA - the world's premier space agency - failed to appreciate
that samples from the Apollo mission clearly revealed severe mass
separation in the Sun. There is little doubt about this conclusion.
See "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope
Ratios"

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

2. NASA - the world's premier space agency - failed to appreciate
that the Galileo probe into the atmosphere of Jupiter confirmed that
material there is unlike that in the Sun. See Ken Windler's report
on "strange" xenon isotopes in Jupiter.

In 1983 we noted that the Galileo mission to Jupiter would find
"strange" xenon there, if we were correct in concluding that the Sun
is iron-rich from the Apollo mission to the Moon ["Solar abundance of
the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222].

NASA's engineering has been great, but its science has been a dismal
failure. Unfortunately, scientific journals share some of the blame.

It's been long known that Mr. Treiman was interested in receiving a Takysie Lake sample based on his posting on the list. What we said earlier about 25% skill and 75% integrity and honesty applies here. Even though, Mr. Treiman has more skill than we do, why would Mr. Shoner send us the sample and not Mr. Treiman? Mr. Shoner's emails tell us why. Don't forget the 75% honesty and integrity necessary to conduct the work. See the attached chapter 16 Scientifc Ethics by the DoE, Patricia A. Bolton.
Mr. Shoner knew he was going to get pure results from us, no run around, and no misinformation. It's chemistry, it is what it is. Now to their credit the first sample we tested is a lunar micro breccia. The second sample sent is consistent with the data contained in the original article written back in the 1960's. Not only is that sample not lunar, it is not even a meteorite. (So we have two different samples related to the same find, one terrestrial and one lunar).

Let us summarize this editorial with a small example of how science is intentionally misused by saying this. Dr. Cloos at UT Austin misled and misinformed the reporters and the public by writing in his letter "protoenstatite is only stable at high pressures and temperatures." It is unquenchable and therefore never found in any sample, earthbound or meteoritic."

As you recall our analysis showed a Mg end member crystal of enstatite. Complete stellar grains were found in our lunar sample, and one was chemically identified. This statement by Dr. Cloos is an attempt to lead us and the public to believe, "well it's not stable therefore it does not exist". If this logic is used successfully, then we should see our hospitals full of people with injured hands and necks blown to bits from unstable diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and other high temperature and pressure gems which are not normally found on the surface of the earth. You have to dig deep to get them.
It's apparent he knows nothing about meteorites or chooses a convenient time to not know and mislead the unwary. We wonder what logic he would use to justify the non-existence of crystalline LaSrCoO in one of our meteorite samples? Does he even know what that is? You can rest assured that as metastable gems, diamonds and other precious gems will not lose their value nor disintegrate in your hands in your lifetime. Perhaps what is not stable is a handful of scientists and administrations, beginning at the UT system. Now that has been proven beyond a doubt.

Response from Meteroite List representatives has moved to a separate page.

The reception of CFR-1275 and responses by recent email to-from MAPS members show a divided scientific community. Houston we have a problem.