uclafraud

    This expose is about how scientific research and results reporting is abused in order to achieve a self serving result in contravention of scientific truth. A glaring example of how out of control our scientists are in perpetuating frauds and, in fact, how racial and other forms of discrimination and greed creep into this arena commingling with "science" to limit and hinder minority participation. We do not fault nor do we complain about the Europeans because they have a different mindset than the greedy racists at American universities.
    In this case, and in a nutshell, the fraudulent results were reported by Alan Rubin, an employee of UCLA. Mr. Rubin was assisted in carrying out his scheme by Paul Warren and John Wasson. Mr. Rubin concocted a scheme with our samples and lab work to perpetuate a fraud seeking to protect UT Austin from the revelations of their ongoing misconduct and fraud. The preponderance of the evidence shows Mr. Wasson and Mr. Warren were willing participants and contributed to this misconduct by Mr. Rubin The stack of emails show, and are well documented on our desk, and reveal the following. Can it be proven that this misconduct occurred and was intentional? Well, it turns out it is very easy to prove.
    Many Universities claim a need for extra terrestrial samples for the purposes of conducting research and UCLA is no different. It is not a big secret that            Mr. Rubin, is an expert in geochemistry (when it serves him and his agenda personally). He has stellar abilities and from all angles, has in science, the equivalent of marksmanship capabilities of knocking out a hummingbird at a thousand yards with respect to crystal chemistry and mineral identification. Several years ago they received from us some lab data, photomicrographs, and a part slice of BCC9601, which everyone knows by now is lunar surface crust. Mr. Rubin informed us that he saw "water bearing mineralogy" in the photomicrographs, making the sample non lunar. Unfortunately, he painted himself and his co-conspirators (Wasson and Warren and UT) into a corner from which they cannot extricate themselves. Now, when a credible scientist receives all of what they received they are charged with reporting the results from testing the actual sample, because that is the most accurate and reliable measure of what is being tested, right? We thought it was odd that such a skilled person as Mr. Rubin would be reporting his results from the photomicrographs (pictures), rather than the sample. We have been to many labs and never have we seen someone report results from anything except the sample when it is there in front of you. Mr. Rubin did not want to report his results from the sample itself for obvious reasons: because water bearing mineralogy does not exist in the sample, and he did not want to take the lie too far. We eventually used this part slice in both SEM analysis and in a powdered XRD analysis to find this "water bearing mineralogy" Mr. Rubin was referring to. None was found.

The bulk composition and complete solid solution of anorthosite for BCC9601 leaves no mechanism by which water can be present. Even though the temperature was sufficiently high to remove traces of water the additional mechanism lack of an appreciable oxygen atmosphere and of pressure played a big role in the final crystallization history of the lunar magma ocean.
Water did not play any role in the formation of the sample in Mr. Rubin's possession. Water bearing minerals, chain and sheet silicates - amphibole structures from terrestrial sources are generally visible without the need of a hand lens or compensating instrument. Because Mr. Rubin did not see these minerals in the sample, he did not want to cross the line and go too far by assigning a name to this "water bearing mineralogy". By closely examining the ground mass of our sample, noticing the high temperature of formation, and relating back to the XRD patterns we saw that the sample was 100% crystalline, with a high Tc Ab-An complete solid solution. This told us that either the water content is less than one percent or non-existent. Further examination by SEM confirmed halogens were present where water would normally be found in terrestrial samples. There is no water there, consequently the sample did not form in the presence of water. On the other hand, it does contain solar wind sputtering and implantation and of course, abundant stellar grains impacted and buried in the sample when it was a high Tc magma ocean.

These photomicrographs above in both dark field and polarized light represent a stellar grain captured from the very first thin section (slide) taken from the Lunar sample, BCC9601. The crystalline stellar grain is surrounded by a micro crystalline mass of plagioclase, pyroxene, mixed with SiO₂, ilmenite, and other phases (see final phase separation XRD). The grain is about the size of a particle of dust and contains a nucleus with an iron phase surrounded by a magnesium end member enstatite shell. Radiating from the right of the nucleus is a high Na plagioclase twinned crystal and in the upper left a high CaAl crystal. Grains with these unique geophysical and geochemical characteristics cannot be formed in terrestrial rocks. In addition, as far as we can determine, this is the very first photomicrograph of a complete stellar grain from an achondrite (lunaite) with this much detail found, on the internet. _{courtesy,
Molecular Expressions}

We have many samples of volcanic lava, magma, and ash material originating on Earth having formed in a hydrated environment. These samples show signs of explosive events (Hawaiian style lava fountaining) saturated with vesicles, gas bubbles in the matrix and phenocrystic debris of plutonic material and many of the final products are very brittle, as it should be.
There are many clues as to the lunar sample for magma ocean genesis. The various phases can be unlocked by XRD in Lunar magma ocean material and can be seen with the use of a microscope. The lunar sample micro crystals are intricately interwoven showing no separation (except under the microscope) and in fact completely homogenous indicating water did not play a role in any state, and no appreciable atmosphere was present. All of the above can be verified by looking at the thin section while simultaneously examining the sample main mass. The main mass shows impact fractures when sliced open. The sample impactor launching it to earth struck BCC9601 at an oblique angle based on the impact location and branching direction of the fractures sort of like scraping the lunar surface. It may have been launched by pieces of peripheral debris breaking off from the main impactor mass, or the main impactor simply struck the Moon at an angle much less than 45 degrees. There are many, many other chemical reasons pointing to lunar origin and we are satisfied with what we have learned as well as other lab work currently not posted on our site.

Just for a minute, lets throw out all the wrongdoing and fraud by these scientists and consider the following very compelling questions. Over the recent past, the taxpayers have spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars looking for water and life in any form on-in the moon. Every once in a while some scientist or group of scientists issues a press release saying, and I quote, "we think we see a spectral signature" or "we found a minute crystalline component that is evidence of water requiring further investigation.", or "we think the south pole may contain an ocean of ice" ..............................and on and on. When they were concocting their scheme with our samples, Mr. Rubin sent us an email telling us there is no water on the Moon. So why doesn't he bother to pick up the phone and call his colleagues issuing all these press releases based on hypothesis, theory, and speculation and tell them there is no water there? It's already been proven there is no water on the Moon now or any hope for it in the future. Why is he telling us this? We're not the ones claiming to see a spectral signature or making some other ludicrous assertion not supported by hard science. Did you know that Shoemaker, back in 1970, said upon seeing the Apollo samples that the Moon is even drier than previously thought? This means that pretty much of the water dowsing work on lunar samples in the last 25 years or so was wasted effort. Folks, these press releases and sudden discoveries of an ocean of ice on the lunar south pole and spectral signature here or there are code words. These press releases and press conferences are designed to dazzle and whip the public and the narrow minded press into a frenzy of excitement with a shallow demonstration. As the public is spellbound by what turns out to be nothing, the scientists and their co-conspirators are snaking around, turning the collective public pockets inside out seeking funding for this "new revelation". This is oftentimes the first step of what is called research funding. It turns out that when nefarious goals and motives are necessary to achieve a predetermined end, suddenly there is water or ice on the Moon. And similar goals and motives will lead these nuts to suddenly email us and say there is no water on the Moon. So they move back and forth according to the situation based on a need to control people, the scientific record, and dollars to fill their pockets, or some other gain such as to continue scientific misconduct as "the silent company policy in protecting wrongdoers". In other words, the demarcation line of whether there is or is not water on the Moon is moved around back and forth so that if you want to misidentify a lunar sample you say, "your sample contains water bearing mineralogy" but refuse to tell you what mineral it is, or if they need money they, then, resort to a shallow, "we think we see a spectral signature...". These scientists have let themselves be guided by sociology and politics, (discrimination and marginalizing of minorities and the disadvantaged), rather than science in their work and tampered with the scientific record to their detriment and the detriment of UCLA.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rubin would not be rewarded by his co-workers if he came out and said "this or that is a waste of money on a particular project", or sorry UT, we can't lie cheat, and steal, for you anymore. Whistle blowers are never properly rewarded. In addition, it would be the end of his career if he interfered with other scientists' projects no matter how untruthful, out of reach, or unrealistic the proposal or claim. He may not disclose misconduct by simply telling the truth. Did the reader think the peer review system was supposed to work? It should be painfully obvious by now that peer review is more a protectionist mechanism analogous to a name badge at a company picnic. Peer review, conference, and workshop is a method of identifying the group and intellectualizing the whole affair by attaching a meaningful, polite, and palatable label. These are the meetings where they get together and try to reinvent the wheel, one excruciating pixel at a time, only to find that you are working on the same thing in your garage with gadgets and gizmos sure to tantalize. If they are not successful at stealing your project, they surely get together in a group, organized mafioso style, and try to shut you down.

I think these scientists have breached their fiduciary duty in tampering with the scientific record by attempting to perpetuate a fraud. What do you think Ms. Boyle? About white collar criminals she says, "these people don't change their ways until you introduce them to a pair of handcuffs". These scientists with their misconduct and fraud have clearly left the USDOJ, NASA and the FTC with a plate full of work to do. Perhaps NASA and the NSF should begin to shift research dollars to where it is sorely needed where it will make a real dent in science. These dollars should be shifted to the Justice Department organized crime unit, SEC and the FTC antitrust sector.

     One final note on water bearing mineralogy. There are only two methods by which water bearing mineralogy can be present in sample. It either has to be present during formation or it has to be a catalyst for chemical alteration or through hydromechanical weathering action. Professor Dutch of The University of Wisconsin writes about the lunar landing controversy on his web site and compares photomicrographs from a terrestrial and lunar source.
      He writes;   of a photo of a terrestrial rock called olivine gabbro. "The bland, mostly featureless areas are made mostly of plagioclase feldspar, a calcium aluminum silicate. The fractured grains that appear to stand out in relief are olivine, a magnesium iron silicate. The greenish material along the cracks and the brownish material on the edges of the olivine are water bearing minerals derived from the alteration of the olivine. The feldspar looks slightly dusty, peppered with tiny inclusions, also the result of alteration." "A very similar lunar rock - at least that's what NASA claimed it was. I personally took both of these pictures. The clear areas are plagioclase feldspar and the very light yellow areas are olivine. The dark brown material is a titanium silicate mineral called titanite." Here is his page.
     When examining our photomicrographs, a trained scientist will see none of the alteration products which occur when water is present in the sample either during formation nor from terrestrial weathering. In fact, as mentioned by Professor Dutch in his visual, the edges are extremely sharp around each and every grain with no amorphous alteration rims around the grains. Now, the more mafic the sample compositionally, the more subject to alteration products in key areas around the rims, (caused by terrestrial weathering not water in the moon because there is none there). But for lunar samples this is evident when conducting X-ray diffraction. Because one can separate the degree of crystallinity from the portion altered by terrestrial weathering.
     What professor Dutch mentions about the length of time at 1100 degrees C for perhaps a thousand years or so is very interesting because when we saw the photomicrographs for our Lunar sample and discerned the chemical makeup, we surmised that in fact, BCC9601 and the lunar highlands surface crust was a melted high Tc magma ocean for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. We believe this is correct and not difficult to prove. In fact, we have the evidence and evidence coincidentally from the Apollo samples based primarily on the misidentified Takysie Lake sample. Finally, you will not see the extent of opaque mineralogy in our sample that you see in the Apollo samples because ours is a VLT sample containing less than 1% Ti and less iron. The Apollo samples are more mafic in composition because the rocklets from those breccias are excavated and rewelded from deeper beneath the lunar surface. Takysie Lake provided ground truth evidence of the foregoing when comparing their abundance peaks and compositional phase separations.

If the Reader is interested in Meteorite Identification, The Dutch Meteor Society has an excellent resource on their web site and here is our stony meteorite ID page. We also have recently examined a sample purported to be from Mars. Here are the results of our examination.

Home

Scientific Misconduct, Fraud, and Misrepresentations from UCLA Scientists.