BCC Meteorites: Scientific Misconduct Section 

by S. Ray DeRusse
Under Construction
October 2007

Numerous individuals have expressed a profound interest in finding out through Internet resources, whether or not Americans actually landed on the Moon. These searches go back to " the beginning of the Internet and stretch back to "the original lunar landing(s)"

BCC Meteorites,  using hard copy printed materials and analysis of meteorites in the lab as a launching pad can make the following assumptions and conclusions based on years of studying both the purported landings and NASA, the agency making the claim(s).  Based on all of the information available and personal knowledge of a plethora of scientific misconduct by falsification and fabrication by NASA funded scientists we make the following conclusion(s);

A) BCC Meteorites has found substantial valid evidence to show that NASA landed humans on the Moon in July of 1969. 

B) BCC Meteorites has not found the necessary evidence to confirm any lunar landings after July of 1969, or the evidence is scant, flimsy, or non-existent.

C) Conclusion B is bolstered by evidence of scientific misconduct in such things as mis-identification of the Takysie Lake lunar sample, which was the result of a combination of motive and opportunity on the part of agency scientists, and set in motion for the purpose of not disturbing the Apollo program.  Dr. Ninninger according to Steve Shoner insisted to his last breath that he had found a lunar meteorite strewn field. In 2002 BCC Meteorites examined his samples and discovered Dr. Ninninger was correct.

D) In 2000 an agency scientist, Dr. Everett K. Gibson operating out of the Johnson Space Center,  intentionally mis-identified BCC9601 a new lunar meteorite,  as part of a program seeded by UT Austin scientist Dr. Mark Cloos and others, to advance an agenda of scientific misconduct, having non-scientific financial and political-social underpinnings.

E) As a result of C and D above, one can safely assume the Agency is an active participant in routine intentional,  extraterrestrial geologic sample
misappropriation and/or misidentifcation to achieve a vast array of specific political, non-scientific goals. This finding alone shows that the Agency is capable of misconduct exceeding these parameters and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
In  2003, when the Agency became aware that BCC Meteorites was about to expose massive scientific misconduct by their funded academics and in July of 2003, they issued CFR-1275 (Investigation of Research Misconduct) for discussion and comment. BCC Meteorites commented to the Agency and The House Science Committee none of whom responded. Several months later
in October of 2003, the Agency filed CFR-1275 into the Federal Register without comment. In actuality,  CFR-1275 was smoke screen constructed for the sole purpose of clearing NASA of any wrongdoing should the DoJ decide to prosecute the scientists whom they were covertly encouraging to commit scientific miscondnuct by falsifiaction and fabrication. As a result of C and D above, substantial evidence exists to show that the Agency is an active participant in routine intentional,  extraterrestrial geologic sample misappropriation and/or misidentifcation to achieve a vast array of specific political, non-scientific goals.  S. Ray DeRusse

In 1982, James A. Michener published through Random House a book titled, SPACE. The reader is encouraged to read this book with particular emphasis on pages 419 and 429 for possible answers regarding the purported lunar landings.

"In the Spring of 1979 I was appointed to the NASA Advisory Council, which advises NASA, and there I met repeatedly with men who conducted our space effort, and visited several times the great NASA bases at which the work was done. I was allowed to particpate in the full life of the agency. I did this uninterruptedly for four years. My acquaintance with NASA engineers and scientists was extensive, and to them I owe a great debt, especially those at Langley, Wallops, Ames, Houston, Huntsville, Goddard and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory".  James A. Michener.


Who is AMIA:
AMIA Laboratories is the contract service division for Rigaku, a major manufacturer for analytical x-ray instruments. As such, AMIA Laboratories is most likely the best equipped and staffed independent X-ray contract services laboratory in the country.
This statement and letter from AMIA in support of BCC Meteorites directly reinforces our claims of scientific misconduct and fraud against numerous scientists at our Universities,  bolsters our claims of meteorite authenticity, supports independent research by minorities and the disadvantaged, and provides a viable venue for scientific research detached from the sources of  government funded scientific misconduct.
This body of work on this web site combined with this statement from AMIA wipes away the misrepresentations from government funded university scientists. S. Ray DeRusse

  The following pages contain a detail of scientific misconduct and other forms of abuse by certain scientists here in the United States. The record and revelations have not been challenged by the provisions of either ordinary nor hard evidence. Obviously this behavior is much more common than has been admitted and revealed. Much of the misconduct flows from a need to maintain control and ownership by whites who occupy much of the top tiers in and decision making in planetary science research and its funding. Consequently minorities, the disabled, the disadvantaged and outsiders, are systematically denied either direct or indirect participation, or that participation is grossly limited to the fringes. This discrimination is historical, well orchestrated and perpetrated from many southern university scientists and  administrations intimately connected to NASA and other funding agencies. Others routinely join the original perpetrators and have a vested interest in providing support.
    In addition to the exposes and papers below, we will provide a future update on the Takysie Lake meteorite as an example of how science is not "self correcting".  In our own personal dealings with these scientists, beginning at UT Austin with Dr. Mark Cloos and his assistant, Bill Woods, we experienced multiple tiers of discrimination and this manifested itself in several ways which take on the various forms of scientific misconduct and intellectual dishonest reasoning. Intellectual dishonest reasoning is defined as follows.

Intellectual dishonesty in abundant use by University Scientists:

Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result. Scientists and scholars generally consider plagiarism a serious form of intellectual dishonesty. Other examples include the incorrect attribution of a quotation or quotation out of context, use of obfuscated or irrelevant citations, deceptive omission of contextual text through ellipsis, and the unsupported amplification of a relationship. Intellectual dishonesty may occur consciously or unconsciously. An individual may unintentionally plagiarize a work from memory (cryptomnesia), fail to examine supporting evidence with sufficient rigor, or fall prey to cognitive bias. An ulterior motive does not automatically imply intellectual dishonesty; however, an author with such motivation is often dishonest in his work. Thus, any sign of an external agenda is cause for close inspection of a work's supporting arguments and evidence.  In his "Conduct and Misconduct in Science",  Dr. David Goodstein writes in part;

Conduct and Misconduct in Science

by David Goodstein

    " Whatever the situation is now and has been in the past, it seems likely to change for the worse in the future. Throughout most of its recent history, science was constrained only by the limits of imagination and creativity of its participants. In the past couple of decades that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now constrained primarily by the number of research posts, and the amount of research funds available. What had always previously been a purely intellectual competition has now become an intense competition for scarce resources. This change, which is permanent and irreversible, is likely to have an undesirable effect in the long run on ethical behavior among scientists. Instances of scientific fraud are almost sure to become more common, but so are other forms of scientific misbehavior. For example, the institution of peer review is now in critical danger." 

NASA POLICY ON SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT CFR-1275 ADAPTED - JULY OF 2003 . We adopt this policy as a sensible and fair approach to even and fair minded research and results reporting.  We thank NASA for providing this broad and sweeping policy and regulatory law since it has been obvious that college and university provosts and administrations are remiss in getting with a program of honesty and integrity within their ranks. We also want to thank the NIH and other federal agencies for your input you have provided. You (the public) can help NASA with this new policy  by working only with scientists who have made a firm commitment to adopt this new policy through voluntary compliance.  The law cannot work unless you make it work for you.  
 This is the original policy issued under the NIH and adopted by many colleges and universities as a minimum standard. It has proven  unworkable because the spirit of the regulations lack enforcement powers and university administrations are unwilling to enforce its provisions against their faculty researchers to avoid scandal and government private industry scrutiny.

College or University
Conduct, including but not limited to,  fraud, scientific misconduct, discrimination,  employing the tools of anti-comepetitive practices.
Texas Christian University Reserved
University of
Fraud and scientific misconduct coming to us in  detail from UCLA.
UT Arlington More Scientific Misconduct in Texas - UT Arlington.
Washington University
St. Loius
The Moon Landing Controversy Examined  (Scientific misconduct)
Meteorite List
Response to CFR-1275 by list members / representative.
Audit of responses to CFR-1275 reveal scientific community remains divided and problematic for NASA and taxpayers.
Pages below contain information of scientific practices gone awry,  and some bordering on the bizarre with respect to claims. And new findings on a misidentified sample, and an examination of professional conduct by the DoE.
Michael Pyshnov
As soon as I left, my supervisor, Professor Ellen Larsen, began writing papers attributing my research, discoveries and ideas to herself. She secretly published two papers under her authorship.
Takysie Lake
New Findings on the previously misidentified Takysie Lake Sample (originally processed at Enrico-Fermi, Uof AZ)
M. Chinaletto
Answer to reader's question about BCC weathered  meteorite appearance .

Unusual error discrepancy found on NASA web site documentation of lunar catalog.
S. Shoner
An experienced meteorite collector tries to identify meteorite from photograph?

Bill Beaty examines the criticism of science in modern society, and his pathological skepticism by scientists paper, very concise, and  rules of research.

A commentary about NASA, scientific research, and the big bang from  The Millennium Groups , Earl L. Crockett


 A very brief description of  Texas and Federal Antitrust Law.

A good paper by Dr. Michael Mann, " The ethics of collecting and processing data.
Chapter 16, Scientific Ethics

  Tina Gunsalus

Home page for the SCIFRAUD moderator. A nationally recognized expert on matters of research integrity, whistleblowing, ethics, and professionalism in academia. 
Alan R. Price Ph.D.
Dr. Alan R. Price is the world's expert in reviewing allegations and reports of inquiries and investigations of scientific misconduct and research misconduct. 

DMOZ Suppression, Censorship and Dogmatism in Science

front page