An examination of events and scientific misconduct by UT Austin Geologists  pertaining to BCC Meteorites.

    When we met again with the UT Geology Department Dean again, they re-examined BCC9601 and many, many more samples. The Dean was given some Pilot Knob material by us and with witnesses present said, "well you're right it's not Pilot Knob material". And then I said "no it's not". And Steve Thompson said to us,
" but look at that topo map on the table, Pilot Knob is south and much lower in elevation than Boggy Creek. BCC9601 is very heavy, you don't think it would have washed uphill do you?" And I said, "It would also have to cross the Colorado River which is very, very wide." 
      The Dean agreed to make some thin sections and examine them under a microscope and report his findings. About a week later he called me and said, "well I have the results and its just plain ordinary plagioclase and pyroxene". I said, "great, wonderful". He said, "why are you so excited?" I said, "because those are the two primary components of stony meteorites confirming our lab data." (These are incompatible phases in an achondrite). He was not very happy to hear this.
    Shortly after this meeting we had agreed to particpate in a human interest story with the local paper, and with reporters wanting the details and at his heels with a printing deadline looming, the Dean  regrouped and said to me over the telephone, "it is Llano Uplift material" (granite) shown below. When we requested a meeting with him to show him the difference between our samples and granite, (reporters also said they wanted to be there), he quickly withdrew that statement and shifted to say it was "West Texas Volcanics" found about seven to eight hundred miles away. Dr. Cloos always waited until no one was present and tried to relay these statements to me over the phone so no one else could hear. It became evident to the reporter, Dick Stanley, and us that Dr. Cloos was sending everyone on a wild goose chase to buy time knowing the newspaper had a deadline to meet to print the newspaper article.  In fact, when I informed Dick Stanley what Dr. Cloos was saying (first Pilot Knob, then Llano Uplift-Granite and then West Texas Volcanics) even he commented, "Ohohohohohhhhh..................... nowwwwww..... I see what's going on."  The reporter realized that the Dean was lying and attempting to send everyone on a wild goose chase to interfere with the newspaper article.
  Without going into so much unnecessary detail about west Texas volcanics, because anyone can tell the differences by examining all the samples mentioned and using common sense. We present the terrestrial sample photos below and a brief explanation to each. Folks, that ancient basaltic material (West Texas volcanics) saturates our railroad tracks in pieces and fragments in crushed form around railroad ties and iron tracks to serve as drainage, and plant growth control. No one, not even first and second year geology students, can mistake meteorite samples with that quarried basalt. You should have heard what was let out at the other end of the phone when I told the Dean we were headed back to the lab to conduct major and minor phase analysis using X-ray diffraction and micro-analysis techniques. This was not a happy person.
    And then along comes UCLA making all sorts of claims, soliciting samples over the internet and  making statements not even worthy of print. If you can tell the difference between terrestrial and non terrestrial phlogopite and it's not difficult, that pretty much takes care of them. Now having said that, Dr. Cloos at UT Austin is a very, very fine person, I'm sure, and Alan Rubin is a very, very fine person; I am sure of that. But when you create a situation where the evidence submitted is contrary to your statements, nip it in the bud quickly and do the right thing. You know you've waited too long when you've gotten rid of the body but the stench remains. 

We mention UCLA here because we used them as a test case to see what level of collusion exists between scientists in attempting to perpetaute a fraud and to see if this was confirmable. Our suspicions about fraud and scientific misconduct to achieve that fraud were already alerted to by the conduct of previous participants. This test case with UCLA required that they recieve the sample without notification or being alerted and shows that the sample receiving scientist will generally network with remote University scientists (in this case UT) to make a decision rather than think, work, and act independently and with integrity on newly arriving samples. As part of his collusion with UT, Alan Rubin decided to say that water bearing mineralogy existed in the sample (BCC9601) refusing to tell us what mineral it is. This is very important because it means he (they) was in contact with UT. He knew from UT that UT painted themselves into a corner with their intentional and constantly shifting claims, and he knew we were working with a private lab so that if he made any claims we would be able to confirm or deny  it. These are the main reasons he, Wasson and Warren avoided giving out a name for this "water bearing mineralogy". But the main point we want to show here is the level of collusion that goes into bigotry, racism and discrimination engaging in scientific misconduct and fraud by "academics".

  

    The material at left is Pilot Knob cretaceous era volcanic, plutonic material. This cooled and solidified beneath the cretaceous sea floor but originated in the upper mantle region as a magma millions of years ago. This material is dated approximately 87 million years and contains a large amount of iron, is very heavy and dense,  is not magnetic and does not contain any noticeable visible nickel particles, fragments, or crystals such as can be found in meteorites. This also contains water which can be seen within the structure chemically. The smooth lighter surfaces which are evident,  were pushed upwards adjacent to the limestone cretaceous sea floor which is why the surface is smooth. This does not chemically match BCC9601 which is a refractory rich high Al anorthosite and is dated for practical purposes, almost a billion years older (cooling and crystallization history) than Pilot Knob material. The samples below leftr are from the Llano Uplift area of Central Texas, and show from left to right, granite gneiss and, in the middle, pink granite with large quartz crystals at the top edge. The third piece is also pink granite but was included because it is a special kind of granite. This sample is from deep beneath the outcrop and has a higher density and smaller crystals than the ordinary granite in the middle. The gneiss on the left was also used by Native Americans as a metate which is a stone tool for grinding seeds etc. That's why it is smooth. Folks, this material is metamorphic material with lots of water, potassium feldspar, biotite, mica fragments, hornblende, all essentials and accessories. How anybody can mistake this metamorphic material for BCC9601 or any meteorite is beyond anything one can conceive, but the Dean tried!  Of course, he never brought samples with him to compare so we did for him.

    There are many lessons to be learned from this whole situation.We have groups of people here and all over the world who mistrust governmentand their confederates very deeply; who think we never landed on the Moon, that government is conspiring against them, and who think that the military is hiding aliens in warehouses somewhere, and all kinds of bizarre notions. And it's the collective Federal Government's fault and university administration's people get these ideas because they make glaring mistakes. While they may give lots of lip service and devote lots of ink and paper to creating solutions they never take any action. The diplomatic immunity-like shield needs to come down. Scientists make  mistakes, intentional or not, but rather than correct them they tend to protect the perpetrating idiot like it is written into their job description to the detriment of the many.  Is this nutty or what?  Numerous scientists got caught in the web created by UT Austin, because they thought they could get away with abuse of position.  Maybe they could have done it with someone else but I think they underestimated the opposition and the veracity of the samples. A few years back, during the much heralded attempt to disturb a "supposed ocean of ice" on the south pole of the Moon by crashing a vehicle, numerous scientists including some at UT who were part of the team, were predicting that water vapor would shoot out above the lunar surface by vaporizing frozen water ice. I thought to myself, if they'll take a piece of paper and a pencil and do some PTV calculations and apply this to the hydrogen oxygen bond in the lunar environment, they are going to be very disappointed. (2) Telescopes all over the world were trained on this event and I think one report came back and said, "not only did we not see any water vapor anywhere, it did not even kick up any lunar dust. " (3). Had it even kicked up a teaspoon of water you can bet this UT group would have been filing down Congress Avenue with cannons showering them with confetti, and then hurrying back to pad their resumes. Luckily for the public, they failed and we were spared such a hideous spectacle. It's not uncommon for the city to turn the white side of town into a celebratory circus if even finding an arrowhead in a creek in their part of town, but if the same arrowhead is found in the minority side it goes unclaimed or unnoticed or dismissed. It's not good to give the minority side a reason to be proud of itself or a reason to participate. This hurts the entire business of science, and the old adage here is, "sometimes one must sever a finger to save a hand."  But when you're dealing with powerful interest groups and associations who have uncontrollable tentacles, not fingers, it can be difficult. Massive housecleaning is in order here to regain the public trust. It's never too late to start.
     Now, it is true that I (we) knew the samples were meteorites prior to leaving them with UT.  I did not, however, know BCC9601 was lunar surface crust. That discovery came later after months and months of more testing and months and months of research. It may have been unfair not to be more explicit about the samples, however, we did not want to contaminate their process of identification nor introduce bias. But the numerous scientists examining the samples were making comments that, taken together, should have been big clues to the Dean that these samples were not terrestrial, and he knew we were standing there quietly listening. In the final analysis it did not matter that they are meteroites or that we already knew what they were because UT had had made up its mind, we are going to lose the samples (keep them) and if he turns us in we are going to intentionally misidentify them.
     I'm sorry to the Meteorite_List group, for shattering your perception that the people you look up to for guidance and advice on meteorites can do no wrong. Read this, I think you'll find some very interesting facts here ( Issue: Volume 13, No. 5 -- 1996 Title: Repairing The Soul After A Cult Author:  Janja Lalich ) .   I'm sorry you took it so personally, the fabric you are wrapped in is so weak, and comes apart by the mere pulling of one thread. You can always patch it up. But clinging to these false notions and misconceptions alongside your cohorts is leaving the entire group with no fabric left to patch. It does not look good from the outside and you don't wear it well.
    And Korotev with his "its outside the ranges", business is having trouble getting out of first gear with this redundant mantra.  He has elevated much of what he writes to the level of a religion and inflexible belief system, as can be seen from refusing to correct his mistakes.  The level of misinformation and it's tenacious application is enough to make "The Shining Path" stand up and take notice.  I used to have a similar line of thinking, but I think it was because I was afraid to mess up my hair or spill my drink if I shifted to second gear.  But we all have to grow up sometime.
         With respect to the lunar sample, it's like my chemistry professor said to us day after day,  "chemistry is chemistry, it is what it is, and it cannot be anything else".  I'd like to be left alone regarding the lunar sample, the data cannot be taken back just built around and upon , please get over it and try to remain calm, because I want to work with much more important material, principally the super nova debris, cometary material, and the sample that looks like it originated from the planet Venus.