The Boggy Creek Collection of Meteorite Finds
by S. Ray DeRusseThe UT Arlington System Saga. Scientific Misconduct at UT Arlington. Hopefully the final chapter. Originally published November 2003. (In April of 2005, the below conduct and misrepresentations by UT Arlington and Mr. Sipiera was wiped away by the brilliant scientists at AMIA-Rigaku with their statement found here).
We made arrangements with the Geology Department Dean at UT Arlington to have some meteorite samples sliced on an appointed day. Our purpose there was to slice samples, not have someone come in and disrupt the work, nor was anyone ever invited to come in and "attempt" to tell us what the samples are or are not. That was not our purpose there. We've been doing this for several years without NASA-NSF funded scientist help. Why would we suddenly shift and ask a wacko with hidden motives and agendas to come in and ply his misconduct trade? That would make no sense.
Mr. Nestell at UT Arlington, and the Dean, read our web page prior to our arrival and were not happy with the scientific misconduct issues covered on our page. Of course, they have the right to be upset and were only trying to protect their colleagues at UT Austin on certain issues. He was intent on doing something about it, so he came in three different times, and with witnesses present, began picking up samples and tossing them about out of order and saying, "this is not a meteorite, this is a meteorite, this could be a meteorite", and on and on. He came in not for any other purpose but just to disrupt the work in progress. The preponderance of the evidence indicates there was some outside interference in the form of UT Austin because the meeting had been delayed on two occasions. This was a buying of time if you will on their part to figure out what kind of harassment was going to be implemented. The Dean never showed up because he knew better.
Mr. Nestell obviously felt he had to protect his UT System colleagues, but he went about it the wrong way. The window of opportunity for clearing UT Austin (and others) closed when the UT Austin Geology Department Dean lied to the public, reporters, me, the President of UT, the Provost, the Chancellors Office, and everyone in between. We cannot now go back and undo all of the negligent misrepresentations and scientific misconduct employed by UT Austin by acting the same as Mr. Nestell did at UT Arlington. It's never going to happen. Even his co-worker, Mr. Johnston (or Johnson), was embarrassed and expressed it so when Mr. Nestell left the lab. Mr. Johnston is an expert on thin sections and said, "Ray, he (Mr. Nestell), knows nothing about meteorites, he's just a math teacher working to become a Geologist." In addition, another scientist who expressed an interest in working on the project with us was put in the position of having to lie to protect UT Austin and it was clearly obvious he was uncomfortable being placed in such a position. I will not name this person because he does not deserve what UT put him through.
My view is that Mr. Nestell may or may not know anything about meteorites; it doesn't really matter. However, his motives and intentions were obvious from the very beginning; I could tell from his demeanor. No one can say whether a stone is a meteorite or not, having seen it for only a few seconds and without conducting the minimal required chemical analysis, and that includes our "best" scientists. In fact, this analysis is a small step in sample identification. One has to go through hundreds of pages of research and other materials as well as more testing to confirm a sample. (Because so much data exists for the Moon, BCC9601 was probably our easiest sample to confirm, but still it took a long time. We had to decide which papers were correct on certain issues and which were not, because of inconsistent qualitative data from one researcher to another or one institution to another. But the chemical analysis, once any bias is removed, is the final arbiter of whether a sample is authentic or not. Anomalous inclusions, and CRE ages are not accounted for here because those are only incidental to the sample and are what they are irrespective of bulk composition. Nevertheless, Mr. Nestell never conducted chemical analysis on our samples; therefore, he is not qualified to comment on their provenance one way or the other. We did give him an opportunity after this incident, to identify one sample by email and regular mail and he did not respond. This is odd isn't it? He forces his participation uninvited in an intellectual switch and bait shell game, and ponzi scheme, but when he is invited while the public and reporters are watching him he refuses the offers. This is very common in this science, at least in Texas. A person wants to participate invoking dishonesty as a rule where it’s convenient but if you turn the tables on those rules requiring honesty he no longer want to participate.
There may be a steady stream of individuals such as Mr. Nestell, employing smoke and mirror tactics with no real substance to dispute our discoveries and work. There is no doubt about it. But an individual endowed with power and position is not enough without evidence to support his position. One's word can take him only so far in any disagreement. It's amazing how many upper level "scientists” we’ve run across primarily in Texas in geology who can make the switch from hard science to evangelism and sidewalk magic. Why don't we adopt this as a ground rule? Let's leave the simple task of preaching without showing evidence to priests, preachers, and the clergy, and shell games and ponzi schemes to bottom feeding parasites plying their trade on tourists. That's their domain, OK? Legitimate scientists should not have to resort to this conduct to get ahead in their field. I was labeled a troublemaker in the press. But there are many historical figures wearing that same label, and we are proud to be among their company. Our past critics either remain silent in defeat and embarrassment such as Nestell did, and/or employ non-scientists as tools of harassment to provide meaningless mind bending diatribe disguised as authoritative evidence and even stalk us around the web looking for an opportunity to jump back on a stage knowing full well the act is over.
None of our critics have met the simple evidence test whose first step is filling out our application. The application is a legally binding instrument that seeks to weed out scientific misconduct, ill intentioned motives and agendas, from presumably responsible individuals, such as geologists in the UT System. It raises the stakes by compelling professional behavior with integrity where UT Austin set the negative tone, and where proper administrative oversight is sadly lacking. Is it surprising that no one will fill out the application? The conduct displayed by Mr. Nestell behind closed doors is much safer for him and can be expected by a person trying to derail real science by invoking a predetermined ulterior motive having negative results for him. He did not accomplish what he set out to do. That's not to say that through his stupidity he has not incurred some legal liability, but that is into the future.
Early this year a member of the Meteorite_List called us
frauds because
our membership to PSF was not up to date or had lapsed. In an email,
Mr. Sipiera informs Mr. Newton that we are not members of PSF.
This was misleading because our membership had expired and or
renewed late. (It's not entirely clear, as there seems to be some sort
of data base problem over at PSF as the letter below shows). First of
all, how someone can tie our membership, non-membership, or lapsing of
membership or a problem with their data base to verifiable lab work and
meteorite authenticity is quite a big leap to take.
Here is an
example of how this looks in meteorite identification. Suppose a
scientist writes, "If the sample does not contain a fusion crust on the
surface and has no regmaglypts, no meteorite dealer nor scientist will
look at it or consider it." But then they present a sample to you that
has no black fusion crusted surface and no regmaglypts and want you to
believe it is a lunar meteorite such as this one. Are you to
believe this
person? It looks like we've regressed from chemical analysis to
authenticate a meteorite by judging its authenticity from its
appearance. That's pretty nutty! If the explanation comes
in, "well it’s obviously weathered and terrestrial zed, Ray." My
question is, do you mean just this one, or terrestrial zed meteorites
generally? Probably what ever is convenient, right?
Our Memberships
While it is true we have been members in the past and renewed those memberships to various organizations, it is mainly to obtain research data from the European researchers who seem to have a better grasp of reality and a natural gravitation for honesty and integrity. The Europenas are not interested in bigotry and discrimiantion such as we have been exposed to by scientists here. At least, that has been our experience. When we discovered that these groups (The Meteoritical Society and others), nurture member individuals who engage in routine scientific misconduct and actually post it on the internet we decided it was best to maintain a safe distance and, quite frankly, would not be exactly thrilled to have them work on our samples. Why?, because in a no accountability culture, they want to do it behind closed doors and out of reach of the long arm of the law. Why do you think we have not been approached openly? Before we discovered so much scientific misconduct, we were naive just like everyone else and blindly believed everything that was told to us. But, upon discovery of how massive NASA and NSF funded scientific misconduct is in planetary science and meteorite research, we decided to employ private labs and direct the work on our samples ourselves. The entire psychodrama below can be summarized by reading Bill Beauty's 23 point, " Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism", a phrase that he coined. Applicable here is point number 9 and is described as using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence. But the entire 23-point paper is very, very good and applicable to the UT clan and those in the periphery and others in many Institutions.In another email (printed below), Mr. Sipiera indicates that quote, "those findings are not supported" by the groups mentioned in his email, as though we asked for their support, needed their support, or even their permission to identify the samples ourselves. This deserves some in depth analysis and commentary. Since lab work, mineral identification, terrestrial or not, is routine legal economic and scientific activity, one does not need to pass through a specific gate created by self appointed 501 C groups and organizations, nor scientists who think they hover above everyone else by milking the system. Therefore, the commentary offered by Mr. Sipiera is repeated here to help disentangle their unique role in science from wishful thinking.EMAIL Subject: Re: Meteorite Question
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:06:03 -0600
From: Paul Sipiera<psipiera@planets.org>
To: Ken Newton<magellon@earthlink.net>
Ken,
I did look at that BCC web site and I have to note that those findings are not supported by the Meteoritical Society or by us (PSF)...I have never heard of these specimens before and they are not recognized as authentic lunar materials.
Paul
As his email states, Mr. Sipiera and his colleagues cannot be expected to support our work because whistle blowers like us are never supported in their educational advancements by the out of control entrenched culture. But where they crossed the line is where they worked tirelessly and surreptitiously to interfere with, hinder, and attempt to dismanle our work. And by the way why would I want a horde of scientists who have been exposed committing scientific misconduct and fraud to support our work? That's why at a certain point we did not ask UT Arlington or anyone else to work with us, because we knew beforehand they would try to sabotage and drag this project to the ground. Their emails and their timing provided clues that they were upto something. That's right, Mr Nestel and the Dean had made a decision that they were going to harrass me in the lab but it backfired. (I took a witness with me to record their behavior).
The only way these comments above, and similar comments can have any meaning, weight, or significance, is to outlaw independent scientific research by the general public. But no court is going to allow that nor is any legislature going to pass laws forbidding independent scientific research. These notions go against the grain of innovative research and education. Conveying such policing powers to 501 C organizations and NASA-NSF funded scientists creates a situation where, as we have already shown in great detail, scientific misconduct and abuse can flourish with fertilizer supplied by scientists who think they can do no wrong by using the narrowest of comments sent in these emails. Boys, you're going to have to do better than that.
Mr. Sipiera, and others, is going to have to convince an authoritative body, such as a judicial body, or a legislative body, that our activities are causing him or MAPS or PSF injury somehow for the right reasons. Or that there is some compelling state interest in obtaining a preliminary injunction seeking relief. For instance, a showing that meteorite identification by the public is a threat to national security. I can already see the judge laughing anyone out of the courtroom on that one. And of course, I have already seen a state judge tell a litigator, " You're going to have to come up with a better defense than that for your actions". It's not a pretty sight! They can bring down their Wizard of Oz curtain and convert to private meteorite consulting businesses, purchase liability insurance, charge for their "meteorite identification, authoritative recognition drama" and pay out hefty monetary judgments for scientific misconduct-malpractice just like any professional, attorney, doctor, or CPA does in their profession. I mean, if you want to be taken seriously and you want your comments to mean anything this is what I would do.
The most serious consideration is that the court would have to revisit and immunize them against anti-trust law violations (Sherman Act), and, Civil and Criminal RICO laws. It is obvious they could be and probably are in violation by attempting to corner the market in meteorite identification and research and interfering with legal economic activity from private labs and independent researchers, while at the same time misleading the public with shoddy work and intentional misidentification designed to shut down innovators such as us. Conspiracy and Racketeering Laws already apply to Government employees (State and Federal) as well as the general public, including private business entities and 501 C's. Therefore, they cannot be immunized and the clock cannot be turned back.
One of the biggest dilemmas in ever seeking such a broad umbrella of authority is that corruption and scientific misconduct has been exposed in what used to appear like a model science. It is unthinkable that a judicial or legislative body will grant powers to an entity as sole arbiter of meteorite identification to a body of individuals who make mistakes both by design and oversight. Every time you send out an email containing some innocent sounding but intentionally misleading question, and patent innocent sounding but misleading answer, it exposes more the creative covert activities jointly with the Meteorite_List group and IMCA in attempting to shut us down. This is not going unnoticed by the public and law enforcement authorities. It amazes us how much effort and energy Ph.D. level scientists have put into this endeavor of attempting to shut us down. Surely this multi-billion dollar publicly funded enterprise is not threatened by one under funded person, is it? Unless of course we are doing something right, is that it?
At this juncture, the public is not easily convinced a meteorite is a meteorite the minute a few of you life timers say it is because they feel like it, or is more convenient than not. Similarly, our educated public is not convinced a sample is not a meteorite because a few nuts (such as at UT) that happen to have a cronyism created and propped up prestigious track record wish not to recognize it, without providing appropriate evidence. Mr. Sipiera and Korotev's emailed comments to members of the Meteorite_List have no weight or significance as related to our samples. Their comments are only going to have support from those who have a lot to lose from our discoveries, such as Mr. Newton, Mr. Sachs, the Meteorite_List and IMCA, (the collective freak show according to your own member) and those whose samples they have handled, results manipulated and are now in question.
While it may seem reasonable for these groups to police their willing members, it is unreasonable for you to take it upon yourselves to police the entire world of private labs and researchers who wish to work with meteorites. This law enforcement authority is not vested in these groups under any circumstances and we are working with law enforcement on these anti competitive practices, as well as related matters.
Your statements may have played an important role in the past, but the trend is shifting as an educated public begins to realize that the scientific record created by many scientists in this field is poorly maintained. For instance there is a paper that goes into graphic detail about "Hawaiian style lava fountaining" on the Moon, (this has never happened and there is little prospect that it ever will), and another scientist from the IOM advancing the notion that meteorites do not exist beyond a million years. In fact they have been found in sediments 400 times older. It would be interesting to know where these two women learned these non-facts. The luster from the NASA-NSF funded apparatus is growing very dull and the public is growing weary of polishing the apparatus.