Big Bang Cosmology fraud hoax scam White Paper COBE Satellite fraud

AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF

SCIENCE FRAUD AT

NASA including

The Smoking Gun!

5 April 2007

by

Bibhas De

SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING EXPERTS: In the following I

describe what went on with NASA's COBE Satellite in orbit -

in a popular science vein. This however is just the tip of the

iceberg. What went on during the development of this project

on ground over a long period of time will totally destroy

whatever implicit trust you have in the scientific establishment.

If this is your establishment, you will learn something new

about it. A string of mind-numbing, Inspector Clouseau-style

scientific bunglings on ground was neatly packaged and

launched. The inevitable failure of the experiment that

occurred in the sky was then covered up by diabolic science

fraud. This is how mankind's grandest discovery was made.

Experts please go here.

I have also provided a LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO JOHN MATHER SCIENCE

FRAUD.

PROPOSED COVER OF MY FORTHCOMING BOOK

Barring any objections from those pictured, this will be the cover.

The authoritative story of NASA Big Bang Cosmology fraud

The Penzias & Wilson observation was cleverly usurped into the exclusive service of Big Bang

Cosmology when the observation could have had other, better explanations.

The Big Bang Blackbody of Smoot & Mather was outright fraud. <

And Herbert Gush did not observe the Cosmic Blackbody.

All this is coming!

What will be in the book?

Get a foretaste/advance notice here!

.

Certificate: John Mather, NASA, Nobel Prize discovery is a fraud

Nobel Prize cancelled canceled: After waiting in vain nearly three years since this

allegation was made, for the scientific establishment and the Nobel Foundation to do

something about it, I have unilaterally cancelled the Nobel Prize award to NASA

science fraud John Cromwell Mather on my scientific authority - the overriding

nature of which will be evident in the following. Know this to be true: No scientists or

groups of scientists on the face of this planet will contradict on public record the

certification I have given above. Feting John Mather does not invalidate the fraud.

This is not a Nobel Prize controversy such as we often hear about. Here is no debate.

There is no issue of forming an inquiry committee, nor publishing a critique in a peer-

reviewed scientific journal.

This is a crystal clear issue of Nobel Prize for a fraudulent discovery - unprecedented

in the history of the Prize.

The stark proof of this fraud is contained within the four corners of the very discovery

paper that was anointed. In other words, the discovery paper itself is the "critique

published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

No truth-loving, fraud-abhoring, scam-weary world citizen should acknowledge this

award any longer, from here until the ends of time.

Do not let high intellectuals do to you that which certain natives of Nigeria do.

Read the basis of my cancelling this Nobel Prize.

.

John Mather NASA Big Bang COBE Satellite 2006 Nobel Prize Laureate fraud scam

update, 6 August 2010

Read the full story of Mather demotion in March 2008

John Mather, NASA Nobel Laureate, is kept confined to his exact pre-Nobel job

status. Whereas the slightest - even trivial or cosmetic - adjustment of his job title

would avoid any appearance of a punitive action, NASA Leadership has not done that.

The slightest elevation of Mather's position at any time could have undermined the

credibility of this site in the eyes of the public at large. NASA Leadership has not done

that - as of 21 October 2010, more than four years after the Nobel Prize was

announced.

SPECULATION: How did John Mather come to be stuck in this position?

*****

You can read my continuing commentary and timely updates in the following blog

site. It is nothing less than the story of the corrupting of the civilization by the

intelligentsia, in real time, and my attempt to save her (No exaggeration here - only a

factual statement.) Bookmark this site and read regularly:

THE DREAMHERON CHRONICLES

See also:

The President of the United States is the direct boss of the NASA Administrator

John Mather's friends - within and outside NASA - are keeping him in limelight, one

event after another, the way a juggler keeps balls in the air. The strangest thing is

this: These very powerful pillars of the society are not able to do the one and the only

thing they need to do to help their friend. They cannot extricate Mather from his pre-

Nobel job level at NASA!

This campaign against NASA COBE Satellite fraud committed by a Nobel

prizewinning US Government scientist working for an agency under congressional

oversight started out as a purely scientific critique posted on the Internet. The more

this campaign was ignored, the more it was escalated. The more John Mather was

feted to high heaven, the more the campaign was escalated.

PLEASE NOTE (click):

THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

HAS ACTED

Why have I stopped attacking the prizegivers?

SUMMARY ALLEGATION FOR GENERAL READERSHIP:

The TRUTH the Coalition of the willing (The scientific establishment, NASA, the Physics Nobel

Committee and the world media) did not tell the public:

"When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched in space, it was discovered that the curved

mirror used for imaging was misshapen. Its design was botched. Because the Space Telescope

project involved photographic images that the public could readily understand, this bad news had

to be released. The problem was rectified, and the Telescope has performed beautifully since. In

the present instance a similar botch-up (actually, scientifically speaking, far worse) happened. But

it was not something the public could understand. Therefore, this was never released to public

attention. And it was never rectified. Scientists forged ahead regardless with this cockeyed job."

***

"I can assure you that the military will not accept such botched "optics" for missile tracking or fire

control. Yet it is being accepted in this precision scientific experiment where fantastic numerical

accuracy was the stated requirement."

***

"In sum, the much vaunted properties of the sample collection device, the Winston Cone -- which

properties were the stated central necessity of the discovery -- did not materialize even

approximately in the actual spaceborne experiment. The sample collection was extremely sloppy,

and erratic in ways the discoverers - by their own admission - neither anticipated nor understood

nor had any control over. This caused an additional fatal problem that the layperson can

understand: By their own definition, it made their calibration worthless. So they dwelled in

excruciating detail on the analysis they did subsequently on the botched, uncalibrated samples. The

world heard about the phenomenal 50 ppm accuracy of measurement obtained from the computers

in Greenbelt, MD, and not about the 30% distortion at the front end of the experiment in the cold

dark reaches of space where the lone satellite orbits completely out of the world's view. This

experiment was an unqualified failure. In fact, a worse botch-up from a professional scientific team

is difficult to imagine. This was a first-class scandal."

***

"This is like a crime lab giving days upon days of testimony on how they very carefully analyzed

DNA samples with extreme precision, but neglecting to tell you about the extremely sloppy way in

which they collected the samples. The reason why a court would throw out this elaborate testimony

with prejudice is exactly the reason why you should reject this discovery out of hand. This is the

crystal clear issue of fact in plain evidence. There is no issue of controversy or debate or opinion

here. Do not let any crafty, dishonest blighter put any such face-saving, butt-covering spin on it."

***

"The heart of the issue here is actually no more difficult than this: Your thick eyeglasses fall on

hard concrete and become all cracked. Then you claim that your color perception (through said

glasses) has improved a thousand-fold! Now, not only can you see distinctly all seven colors of

VIBGYOR, but you discover some new, Nobel-worthy, primary colors. It is just that this blatant

hoax has been cloaked in a lot of high-tech space age mumbo jumbo. So cleverly that there is only

one person in the whole wide world who can see through this."

***

"Today it has got so that if they decide, they can present to the world a Rube Goldberg machine,

call it the Time Machine, anoint it in Stockholm as a great achievement of science and

authoritatively maintain that hoax in perpetuity the obvious defect notwithstanding. The world has

no recourse. This is the lesson one should take from the present instance of science fraud."

- excerpts from the report below

SUMMARY ALLEGATION FOR SCIENTIFIC READERSHIP:

In simplest terms, what went on up there with the COBE Satellite in orbit had no

connection to what went down in Mather's office in NASA Goddard Space Flight

Center, Greenbelt, MD. I am not exactly an artist, but let me draw a picture for you:

PICTORIAL VIEW OF JOHN MATHER FRAUD

John Mather had stringently and laboriously (and correctly) specified the beam pattern

(green) that had to be achieved by his satellite-mounted Winston Cone antenna. He

even dwelled on how the lip of his horn-shaped antenna had to be flared ever so

delicately to achieve that all important flat-top beam. But something went haywire

and the actual beam pattern COBE Satellite achieved in orbit (red) was distorted by as

much as 30%. By criteria Mather had himself set out, the experiment was an

unqualified and unsalvageable failure. (This figure was based on written description

only. No figures or numerical data were provided for this crucial effect. However, on

8 October 2010 - twenty years after the discovery was announced and four years after

the Nobel Prize was announced - a few data points for this figure were posted on

NASA's LAMBDA Archive! These points confirm that the beam was all shot to

pieces. The red curve actually looks like a three-pronged pitchfork.)

Faced with this, Mather suddenly pulls a classic Roseanne Roseannadanna. He

goes: Never mind! This kind of effect averages out.

Then he extracts from the NASA computer in Greenbelt, MD a picture-perfect

verification of Big Bang Cosmology, with an accuracy of 50 parts per million - over

decades of bandwidth. Then the scientific community gives him a thunderous round

of applause and a now-famous standing ovation.

All this is reported in peer-reviewed scientific journal, thank you.

Humor aside, my single-handed exposing of this diabolic collective science fraud

proves that my scientific authority over this community - the physics establishment -

is overriding and supreme. To put a face on this community, two of the major players

in promoting this fraud have been Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg. The

leaders of NASA have demonstrated extraordinary executive prowess if they have

followed my lead, and rejected the almighty scientific establishment's authority and

the august Nobel Foundation's imprimatur.

Humor again: Enjoy this modest bit of glorying from archived NASA official history:

As the data from the FIRAS instrument (Mather's instrument) began to come in, the

project scientists were rendered almost speechless. The data points and the predicted

curve were not just close ... they were identical. The results were so astounding that

when they were presented to the American Astronomical Society in January 1990,

they drew a standing ovation from the normally reserved society scientists. There

could be no doubt about it. COBE's data pointed clearly to a universe whose energy

had been generated in one initial explosion and had been radiated out in a uniform

manner at all points ever since.

WHAT DID GO WRONG WITH THE COBE SATELLITE?

(The perfect Big Bang Blackbody may have been just a template of the blackbody

exemplar carried on board the satellite. See how I try to piece together - sitting at my

computer terminal with no other resources than a cup of coffee - what happened in

deep space with the $400 million NASA Show twenty years ago.)

THE GENESIS COVENANT: Big Bang Cosmology fraud scam swindle

Copyright 2007-2010 by Bibhas R. De

The Genesis Covenant is thought to have come into being in the early sixties with

the exclusive purpose of promoting and defending the Big Bang Cosmology -

against all enemies domestic and foreign. In the early part of this century, the

Covenant formed a cross-border alliance with the sister secret society of the

Priory of the Dungeon. To promote their joint agenda, they formed the Inter-

cooperative Council. Nothing is known about the Council, except that their

emblem is that of the Genesis Deity - a most fearsome character portrayed by a

mask.

But if no one knows about the Council, most people are aware of their

handiwork. Or haven't you noticed how the Quantum Theorists and the Big

Bang Cosmologists are always giving each other plugs lately?! And haven't you

heard about the quantum fluctuations of the early universe?!

The 2006 Physics Nobel Prize -- which I discuss below -- is considered to be the

handiwork of the Council.

They are the fearsome neo-cons: The new controllers of the civilization.

Absolutely nothing stands in their way. Their motto is to establish their chosen

scientific frontiers by the brute force of authority. For this purpose, they have

formed the five-member Coalition of the willing: The Council, Physics

establishment, NASA, the Royal Swedish Academy and the Media. Do not stand

in their way -- and indeed nobody dares do so.

Be afraid! Very afraid!

THE UNIVERSE-SHATTERING DISCOVERY

OR

AN ISSUE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY?

Two people working in the Bell Laboratories in the sixties serendipitously detected

the birth pangs of the Universe: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation predicted

long ago by the Big Bang Cosmology. This is a level of microwave energy peaking

near 160 GHz that is ever present - always and everywhere. Even so, the diehard

critics of Big Bang Cosmology and the proponents of rival cosmologies tried to

explain this away as being due to other reasons. Some researchers later sent up a

sophisticated satellite, and observed the same thing - only much more accurately and

in far greater detail. This is what has come to be known as the 2.7 degrees Kelvin

microwave background radiation. This is nothing less than a Universe-shattering

discovery - the mother of all discoveries! This radiation has been observed now as a

full, picture perfect blackbody spectrum. It is so impressive that the error bars of the

data in some plots are smaller than the thickness of the line drawn through the data!

This shut up the critics real good. They just curled up and died. There can be no

further doubt there was a Big Bang, and what we are seeing is the remnant heat

energy from that Bang. Both the sixties observation of the background radiation and

the recent observation of the full blackbody spectrum Nobeled in due course. That

means, among other things, that this result is now beyond all controversies and all

questioning. It is not considered open to debate. Not by any sane persons.

There were other independent measurements of the said blackbody spectrum, with

much less accuracy. The present experiment was considered by the scientific

establishment to be the clincher, and was anointed and feted as such. In other words,

these other experiments were not considered definitive. My examination of the present

experiment suggests to me that those other experiments remain to be competently

evaluated. Considering that people who performed the previous experiments judged

the present experiment to be an unqualified success, one has to question if these

people knew what they were doing. The same comment applies to those who today

are preparing to repeat the blackbody measurement, at enormous expense to the

taxpayer. Here is one example.

In my view, which I justify in the following, there is at least as much scientific

evidence here to trigger an all-out investigation, similar to the

bogus discovery

investigation in the case of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann; and the

science fraud

investigation in the cases of Jan Hendrik Schoen; and Victor Ninov. When the physics

establishment vigorously excommunicated these four people, it became incumbent

upon the establishment to undertake similar investigation in all future similar

instances. There is no room here for issuing "indulgences". However, for myself, I do

not need such an investigation. There is enough information available for me to have

already come to a conclusion. Based on clear facts in plain evidence, and applying

criteria similar to those discussed in the cases of Schoen and Ninov, it is my opinion

that we are looking at

science fraud

So enormous is this fraud in terms of its significance for science and for humankind,

so diabolic is this fraud in its conception, so hightech is this fraud in its deployment,

so expansive is this fraud in terms of its patronage, so impenetrable is this fraud in

terms of the powerbase engaged in its cover-up and so lofty and bombastic is the

language used to fete this discovery in the world media that ordinary language is

woefully inadequate to convey its place in the civilization. Therefore I propose this

new term:

The UniverseFraud

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite which

observed the blackbody spectrum is called COBE (Cosmic Microwave Background

Explorer). The particular experiment on the satellite that we are discussing here is

called FIRAS (Far-Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer). Scientists and engineers

primarily at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center were responsible for this work. As

my readers know, the scientific establishment does not acknowledge my papers even

in their own 'accredited publications', and completely ignores my 'unaccredited' online

essays. Many times they have booted my out of their private message boards for

discussing scientific issues. They will not even acknowledge that there is any issue

here. Therefore, the customary method of scientific debate within the establishment as

the natural method of resolving scientific controversies does not apply here. Methods

of accountability must be brought to bear that operate from outside of the

establishment, and that are not controllable by them. For example, whoever funded

this work could require the scientists to respond in writing in the open scientific forum

to the following criticisms. There can be no honest and honorable reason why they

cannot do so. (See APPENDIX for referrals of this site.)

THE SELLING OF THE DISCOVERY

Hardly any discovery to date has been sold as aggressively as this one. It is the

pinnacle of what modern space technology can achieve; it is the growing tip of the

new scientific revolution; it is the discovery that has brought humankind the closest to

God; it is where science and spirituality finally meet. The world was plastered with

iconic pictures depicting the discovery, and continues to be plastered. One of these

pictures has been described by its discoverer as the Face of God. Believe it - or not!

In a carefully crafted campaign, the world has been saturated with the sense that this

discovery is synonymous with the latest and the best of satellite and space technology.

And indeed, this fact is in plain evidence. Who can even remotely think of questioning

what is so patently obvious, even to the layman in Timbuktu reading his local

newspaper over the morning cup of coffee? You really have to be a first class,

goddamn fool to raise any issues with this. So, nobody - I mean NOBODY - has said

one peep in criticism.

How to enshrine a bogus discovery:

Take the great lineup of genuine discoveries, and sneak in your candidate

And thus, a gigantic hoax continues to be perpetrated on the hapless world by the

physics establishment. The opponents of Big Bang Cosmology have been playing in

the wrong ballpark. They have accepted the existence of the blackbody radiation, and

are trying to explain it in a non-Big Bang context. They have become so entenched

in thatgame that they are no longer interested to hear that there may be no evidence of

such a blackbody. So in fact these people have been made fools twice over. They are

not helping anything. They are no match for their diabolically clever and powerful

opposition. They could not even see through the blatant science fraud, let alone stop

it.

I know many will ask how a picture-perfect discovery could be questioned. To them I

would say: A picture-perfect blackbody is precisely what invites questioning,

especially by those who understand all aspects of the measurement. Many will ask

how a Nobeled discovery could be wrong. To them I would say: Read about

the Priory of the Dungeon. A vast majority of the readers will stop reading at this

point out of disbelief - and it is well that they should. For my writing is not meant for

them.

For the remaining few of you, stick with me here. I will explain to you - step by

simple step - that great deception.

The readers should start out by noting that there is nothing that I have to prove or

disprove. There is no calculation I need to make. There is no experiment I need to do.

There are no references I need to cite. There are no authorities I need to quote. There

rests no burden of proof on me whatsoever. There are no credentials I have to present.

Something bad went down that is in evidence and that was hidden from you, and I

only need to expose it. That is all. Your attention should be directed to the science

fraud, and not to the person who is exposing the fraud. But I will take the time to

explain what went down, based on facts in plain evidence. So this is nothing to do

with me. Do not let any dishonest blighters turn this into a thing about me, and

distract you from the issue at hand.

Also, if you hear some academics expansively dismiss what is being said here or

derisively ignore it, remember that these blighters should not even open their mouths

now. They have accepted and feted this fraud for some fifteen years as a great

discovery. They are not in any position to pass judgment on me. They are the

investigatees now. I will do the passing of judgment on them.

Here is no general attack on the Big Bang Cosmology of the type may have read,

raising 'circumstantial evidence' to cast doubt on it. I am not a Big Bang basher.

In fact, here is no criticism of the Big Bang Cosmology at all. Here is only a laser-

focus examination of the experiment that claimed to have discovered the

blackbody spectrum from the Big Bang.

FIRST - SEPARATE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

There are two essential components to this discovery: science and engineering. This is

the first thing to get clear in one's mind. The following are the essential stages of this

discovery:

POSITIONING OF THE INSTRUMENT

COLLECTION OF RADIATION

MEASUREMENT OF RADIATION

The positioning of the instrument in the sky is done by rocket and satellite engineers

following known procedures they have developed. This is NOT the discovery.

The measurement of the radiation is done by electronics engineers by procedures they

have developed. This is NOT the discovery. Give these engineers all the credit for

their fine work. You will not get any arguments for me. But do not hold them

responsible for the scientific part of the project. And reject any implied suggestions by

self-serving individuals that these competent engineers somehow vouch for the

science.

The appropriate collection of radiation from the sky, and the appropriate delivering of

it to the measuring components are done following procedures designed by the

discoverers. This is the discovery.

Thus, modern space technology really has no bearing on what the actual discovery is.

And what the actual discovery is has never been identified for the world. Instead, the

discovery has ridden on the coattail of the excellence of space and satellite

technology.

Suppose we wish to do an experiment on how a monkey behaves in space. We sent

him up on a satellite along with a few bananas, with a video camera trained on him.

When the film comes back, we show it to the world, saying: This video is the result of

the finest modern space technology has achieved. You get my point?!

THE REAL CRUX OF THE DISCOVERY

The crux of the discovery is the collection of radiation from space, and the delivering

of this radiation to the measuring component. If you have never heard things put that

way for you, it is the result of a clever orchestration: Keep people's eyes off of the real

science of the discovery. For that science, as you will see presently, is most sloppy

and is in no way comparable to the excellence of space technology. Nor is it

conducive to producing a picture-perfect blackbody radiation with fantastic accuracy.

The most authoritative discovery paper consists of six densely printed pages, giving

you in great detail the numbers and the accuracies and great defenses of those

numbers and those accuracies. But what does it say about the actual science of the

discovery? There is only one sentence:

That is the total extent of the description of the very crux of the discovery. I am not

joking - I wish I were. But to be fair, we should make an effort to go to the

background literature and track down the scientific information. Therefore, we go to

the next level authoritative paper, and find - out of a paper full of similarly elaborate

numbers and details - only this snippet on the crux of the discover:

The radiation accepted from the sky comes from a circle 7 in diameter that is defined

by a Winston cone (Welford & Winston 1978; Mather 1981; Miller, Eichhorn, &

Mather 1982), also designated the sky horn. The sky horn concentrates the beam into

a circular aperture - 0.78 cm in diameter. The sky horn is a nonimaging device that

scrambles the radiation paths.

That is all there is about how they have collected the blackbody radiation from 7

degrees of the sky and delivered it to the measurement aperture. I emphasize again:

This is the entire scientific contribution behind the discovery, and everything else is

engineering contribution needed to reduce the scientific contribution to numbers.

It is important for the reader to bear something in mind: Spectral measurements in

astronomy is a well-established field - for many regions of the electromagnetic

spectrum. But in almost all such cases, the spectral feature being measured or sought

is 'narrow band' in the sense that the frequency-dependent properties of the measuring

antenna (or equivalent) do not change over this band. Therefore, the only frequency

dependence recorded over this band is what is in the source of the radiation. The

present problem is new in that respect, and offers new challenges. In fact, this is

the main new challenge, and the discoverers have chosen the Winston Cone as their

'antenna'. Hence this is what should have been front-and-center of the reporting of the

discovery. So why is this being hidden?

So, again and again, the actual scientific crux of the discovery is being very

quickly glossed over, and the discoverers are dwelling at great length on 'chores'

- necessary chores though they may be - that were incidental to their discovery.

With these they have created such a formidable literature that it would cause the

most self-confident of critics to turn his tail and retreat in awe.

This is like a crime lab giving days upon days of testimony on how they very

carefully analyzed DNA samples with extreme precision, but neglecting to tell you

about the extremely sloppy way in which they collected the samples. The reason why

a court would throw out this elaborate testimony with prejudice is exactly the reason

why you should reject this discovery out of hand. This is the crystal clear issue of fact

in plain evidence. There is no issue of controversy or debate or opinion here. Do not

let any crafty, dishonest blighter put any such face-saving, butt-covering spin on it.

As we shall see presently, there is very good reason for this glossing-over stratagem.

What surprises me to no end is that no member of the scientific community has noted

this repeated odd pattern. Very odd indeed!

And do not forget to note another thing. While extremely precision technical language

is used in describing the engineering, when it comes to the scientific discovery itself,

there is sloppy, non-scientific language - in the little language that there is. I can

understand what "scramble" means in breakfast lingo. I can understand what

"scramble" means in Air Force lingo. But what the Dickens does scrambling radiation

mean in scientific lingo?!.

This type of obfuscating language is used in science when the writer wishes to gloss

over a point or has no idea whereof he speaks. We will come back to this important

point.

The heart of the issue here is actually no more difficult than this: Your thick

eyeglasses fall on hard concrete and become all cracked. Then you claim that your

color perception (through said glasses) has improved a thousand-fold! Now, not only

can you see distinctly all seven colors of VIBGYOR, but you discover some new,

Nobel-worthy, primary colors. It is just that this blatant hoax has been cloaked in a lot

of high-tech space age mumbo jumbo. So cleverly that there is only one person in the

whole wide world who can see through this.

THE WINSTON CONE IS WHERE IT'S AT

It should be clear now that the Winston Cone, or the Sky Horn, is at the root of the

discovery. Its properties are the core issues of the discovery.

The FIRAS Winston Cone

There is quite a bit of obscure literature on the Winston Cone. Physically, it is shaped

like a horn. It "collects" radiation at the large end, and "concentrates" and delivers it at

the small end. Here is another description I have found of the Winston Cone in the

literature:

A Winston cone is an off-axis parabola of revolution designed to maximize collection

of incoming rays within some field of view (Winston 1970, Hildebrand and Winston

1982, Hildebrand 1985, Welford and Winston 1989). Winston cones are nonimaging

light concentrators intended to funnel all wavelengths passing through the entrance

aperture out through the exit aperture. They maximize the collection of incoming rays

by allowing off-axis rays to make multiple bounces before passing out the exit

aperture.

You can probably find more descriptions of this type. But the point is clear: The

Winston Cone is not a conventional electromagnetic horn antenna which we

understand well. Yet, one speaks of "beam widths" and "radiation patterns" of

Winston Cones. In the same breath, they also speak of the "Field of View". So, this is

not a precise scientific concept like a horn antenna or a parabolic reflector or a

collecting mirror. Nor is it like a 'scoop' which simply collects whatever you scoop.

The Winston Cone is neither here nor there.

BRIGHTNESS

For further discussion, we need to hold clear in our minds what quantity is being

measured, and what quantity is being reported in the discovery papers.

What the satellite measures and reports is the power incident on the detector at the

exit aperture of the Winston Cone, having the dimension of energy per unit time. This

quantity is extensively processed to produce something called the Brightness of the

radiation field, expressed in units of:

Energy

per unit time

per unit area

per unit frequency band

per unit solid angle

One must get all the "pers" accurately to later claim great exactitude. Let us examine

these "pers" piece by piece.

Energy per unit time: This quantity, as I said before, is reported by the satellite as

numbers. The engineers are responsible for this. We will not question this.

Per unit area: The scientists must ensure that they know the actual collecting area

corresponding to the detector area. Then the energy per unit area is calculated.

Per unit frequency band: Scientists must ensure that the detector surface is

uniformly illuminated at all frequencies. Then the energy per unit frequency band can

be calculated from the properties of the spectrometer.

Per unit solid angle: Scientists must ensure that the energy is collected over the same

solid angle at all frequencies. Then the energy per unit solid angle can be calculated

from the properties of the collection device.

Since in the end the scientists claim fantastic accuracies of measurement, all of the

above requirements are stringent and razor sharp - without any slop in them. There

should be made no room whatsoever for the scientists to talk or hand-wave their way

out of this.

THE FIRST ARTIFACTUAL FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE

In order to best examine the problem further, let us assume - for the sake of this

discussion only - that the space is filled with flat-spectrum radiation (resulted from all

contributions), i.e. the infrared and the microwave power being measured is

independent of the frequency. Then, the instrument should ideally record the power as

such.

The accuracy claimed in the experiment requires that the energy be collected over the

10:1 frequency band over exactly the same solid angle. Some earlier-reported data on

the Winston Cone is cited to support this crucial assumption of unchanging beam

width with frequency. Further, some earlier ground-based radiation pattern

measurements by the discoverers on their own Winston Cone are cited.

This is not enough support - not by a long shot. What was needed to support this

assumption? The discoverers needed to present - over the entire frequency band - the

360 degree radiation patterns of the instrument-mounted Winston Cone in at least two

orthogonal planes (the so-called E- and H-planes.) These patterns could be

measured on reception.If all these patterns overlapped exactly, then the assumption

would be considered justified. In absence of this, the assumption should be considered

unjustified.

Why do we need the exact patterns? Because concepts such as beam width, field of

view, apertue and etendue are loose talk. There is no exactitude to these definitions.

They suffice for most all purposes, but not for this particular purpose here. Saying that

the beam width is the same for all frequencies does not in any way guarantee that the

same power would be collected. So, citing a hundred previous papers on the Winston

Cone or Salem Cone or Whatever Cone will not help anything in this regard. Only the

full patterns of this particular instrument-mounted cone of this experiment would tell

us if radiation is collected over the same solid angle at all frequencies.

Actually, even my own language is inexact. "Radiation is collected over the same

solid angle" has some slop in the wording. What we should say is this: In a flat

spectrum radiation field, the instrument must collect exactly the same power at all

frequencies.

So to summarize this point: The very quantitative design attributes at the core of

this experiment from which numerical accuracy is to arise and flow through the

rest of the experiment are hazy, ill-defined or undefined. When you start from

such a numerical haze, you cannot later end up with the fantastic numerical

accuracy that constitutes this 'discovery'. This work is thus flawed from the

beginning to the end. There is nothing salvageable here.

Now, if those sets of patterns exist, they need to be examined closely. My guess is that

when this is done, the jig will be up. If these patterns do not exist, the most natural

assumption one can and must make is that the power recorded from the flat spectrum

field will appear to be frequency-dependent to what extent we do not know.

Thus the authors' inherent assumption that the patterns do not change with frequency

will introduce an artifactual frequency dependence to an actual flat-spectrum data.

What is the direction of this dependence? My guess is that less radiation will enter the

cone at longer wavelengths. The experimenters will thus report that the radiation falls

off towards longer wavelengths.

THE SECOND ARTIFACTUAL FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE

I have found a paper showing that corrugating a Winston Cone improves its

performance. Most readers will probably not know what this means. So I will explain

in simple terms.

Corrugating the inside surface of an electromagnetic horn antenna has the effect of

suppressing conduction currents on this surface. Such conduction currents have the

undesirable effect that they cause the radiation - especially at the shorter wavelengths

- to creep along the surface rather the fill the entire cross-section of the horn.

Corrugation prevents this effect, and causes the radiation to travel over the entire

cross-section, and thuis produce desirable pattern and bandwidth characteristics.

What is absolutely clear from the reported improvement is that, before the

improvement, higher frequency energy was creeping along the wall of the Winston

Cone. This means that the detector surface at the throat of the Cone was being

illuminated non-uniformly - with strong power at the edges and minimum power at

the center. Generally speaking, the net effect is that the detector records less power.

Thus, this artifact results in the experimenters reporting less power towards shorter

wavelengths.

THE NET ARTIFACTUAL FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE

Put it all together, and you can see how a flat-spectrum microwave power in space

could be reported by the sloppy experimenters as a curve of the type:

How I got my blackbody spectrum

From here to a blackbody is not a far cry. In experiments of this type, there are usually

many numbers associated with parameters and models that you can tweak perfectly

justifiably and within perfectly reasonable limits. A suitable combination of such

tweaking could bring you to a blackbody like diagram. And when you write up your

paper, you do this in reverse. First you justify those tweaked numbers quite

independently. Then you present your picture perfect result. Like wow!

And how does one get the 2.7 K? Well, don't forget that the experiment was designed

around this number.

It is completely nonsensical to report a litany of sources of error and claim smaller-

than-the-line-width error bars, when the main failures of the experiment have been

swept under the rug.

THE SMOKING GUN

In a large scientific project, it is impossible to hide bad data. It must be recorded and

reported. But you are able to spin the bad news and deal with it that way. You can also

relegate it to an obscure background paper, and never raise the issues again. With this

knowledge in mind, I did a little more digging. And presto, spot on! I found that the

kinds of things I suspected went on went on! A background paper very cursorily

touches on the above issues (A NOTE ADDED ON 4 June 2010: It appears that this

internal NASA report, previously archived and available online

at lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/cobe/firas/doc/FES4_APP_B.PS, can no longer be

found. Fortunaltely for me, I have kept a printout! The report is entitled "Design for

the COBE Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS)" and is authored by J.

C. Mather, D. J. Fixsen and R. A. Shafer.). Here is the relevant portion:

I will translate for you what is being really said here:

FATAL FLAW NO. 1. BASIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INSTRUMENT

BEFORE LAUNCH WAS NEVER DONE: No ground-based pattern measurements

on the satellite-mounted antenna were made. The most crucial data to support this

discovery were never gathered. This alone is necessary and sufficient ground to reject

the discovery out of hand.

The reader should clearly understand this: Once mounted on the satellite, the pattern

of the Winston Cone alone is of no further relevance. It is only the pattern of the

Winston Cone mounted on the satellite that matters. If this latter pattern does not

preserve the exact flattop beam of the Winston Cone alone, then it is curtains.

Orbital measurement is the best way to measure this latter pattern. But such

measurements are usually come too late in the game. It was essential to measure this

pattern on ground, before launch, with the Winston Cone mounted on the actual

satellite, or - more practically - an electromagnetic mock-up thereof.

FATAL FLAW NO. 2. INSTRUMENT SPRINGS "LEAKS": When the instrument

package is at the measurement location, by observing the moon they find that the

radiation pattern is not as they had anticipated. (Big surprise!) They try to weasel out

of this by saying that the unexpected "sidelobes" are low. But these "sidelobes" offer a

large collecting solid angle. In an isotropic radiation field therefore, low sidelobes

may pick up significant amounts of power. This is not figured in the experiment. The

burden of proof here rested with the discoveres. Furthermore, this has to be a

frequency-dependent effect. You cannot dismiss this clear and present effect, and then

proceed to report fantastic numerical spectral accuracies somewhere down the line.

FATAL FLAW NO. 3. OPTICS GOES APE: Their well-designed, well-behaved

dream beam that was to make or break the experiment is all shot to pieces when the

instrument is at its measurement station. But they throw a couple of luminous red

herrings to divert your attention from this fatal finding: This is not important for it

will integrate out. And this is not important unless you are sweeping a small object.

Both these statements are non-central issues. What is pertinent is that main beam has

been distorted beyond recognition and therefore the whole experiment is shot to

pieces. This distortion has to be frequency-dependent. And how can artifactual

frequency dependence integrate out, leaving in place the frequency dependence that is

being sought for? This should have been the time and the juncture to shelve this whole

experiment.

Let me make a general observation here: No self-respecting experimenter would ever

make anything of numbers gathered with an instrument which has gone unexpectedly

strange on him, and which he can no longer characterize. That is precisely the case

here, by the discoverer's own account. No self-respecting scientific community would

ever accept these numbers as meaning anything. Yet we have the numbers gathered

with the uncharacterized instrument, accepted as great discovery by this scientific

community.

If COBE were a communication satellite and the Winston Cone its antenna, a large

portion of the populace smack in the middle of the satellite footprint would not

receive the expected strength of signal. This is how bad a botch-up this is. This is how

miserably the experiment has failed. And it is a result of incompetence.

All that is necessary here is to start by asking: Why did the beam distortion happen?

Then the whole experiment will unravel. Just think: Why would they go through all

this elaborate scientific justification about the flattop beam of the Winston Cone being

the correct thing for this experiment (on this point there exists a substantial

background literature), and then, when out there in space the actual beam turns out to

be badly distorted, say: "Nah! Flattop is not necessary. A busted beam will do just

fine."

Since the distortion was arbitrary in that it did not follow any kind of scientific

prescription or understanding, the entire experiment has in fact been based on the

radiation reaching the detector any which way it would. So they might just as well

have bought a $1.59 section of copper pipe from Home Depot and stuck it in in place

of the million-dollar (or whatever it was) Winston Cone. Or perhaps a Claxon Horn

from a mail-order autoparts store. Not to put too fine a point on this, it has also been

discussed how the lip of the Winston Cone was carefully flared in a certain way to

perfect that all-important flattop beam!

I have seen authoritative comments (on the above point) to the effect that "angular

dependence" does not matter because we are measuring isotropic radiation. Such

comments are indicative of a total lack of understanding of the experiment, and do not

surprise me at all. The angular dependence is only the symptom. Yet, this is the kind

of people who have been making authoritative pronouncements, causing "discoveries"

to be anointed.

So, if someone tells you that "Still and all, everything is fine for this experiment", you

know what to make of that. Such a statement is either incompetent or dishonest or

both.

[Uncannily, that is exactly what has happened. In a forum post on 25 June 2007, an

academic theoretical physicist stated that he understood this experiment better than I

did. The first reaction of the academics is invariably "You do not understand!" The

professor then argued that the experiment is fine, the busted beam notwithstanding.

Keep in mind that this person is highly representative of the Crme de la Crme of the

scientific establishment - Harvard Man and all. When I offered to publish his

comments on this site as defense of the experiment, he back-pedaled.]

FATA FLAW NO. 4. REFERENCE SIGNAL BECOMES USELESS: The

distortion of the beam is due to the efftct of structures outside the Cone. The calibrator

is an "ideal" blackbody in the form of a disc-shaped pad. It periodically moves in

mechanically, and fits on to the mouth of the Winston Cone like a lid. The Cone

alternately looks at the calibrator and the sky, and compares the two readings. Thus,

the calibrator provides the known reference signal against which to standardize the

unknown sky measurement. The underlying, unstated assumption here is that the

Winston Cone looks at the sky and the calibrator in exactly the same way, i.e., with

the exact same beam. In the present experiment, the Cone was looking at the

calibrator with its characteristic "flattop" beam, and it was looking at the sky with the

grossly distorted beam. Therefore, the calibration is completely worthless, and the

experiment is thus completely worthless on just this count alone.

On the other hand if it is held that the sky and the calibrator are both being viewed

with the distorted beam because the distortion is internal to the cone, then the

experiment has gone completely haywire in another way.

FATAL FLAW NO. 5. CRUCIAL RELABILITY DATA IS NONEXISTENT: Nothing that is reported by the authors in any way, shape or form

assures us that in a flat spectrum radiation field, the instrument would receive exactly

the same power at all frequencies. The litany of problems they themselves cite

guarantee the contrary.

CHINESE MENU

With 2 fatal flaws, you get egg rolls

With 3 fatal flaws, you get moo shoo pork

With 4 fatal flaws, you get candied apples

With 5 fatal flaws, you get the Nobel

.

These are not issues one talks one's way out of. You cannot say this will integrate out

and that will wash off and the other thing will take care of itself ... yadda yadda, and

then go on to report numerical accuracy to three decimal places. The accuracy

flows from the mouth of the Winston Cone, and follows the radiation along its path.

You cannot botch up the source point of this sequence and then proceed to talk about

numerical accuracy, let alone calculate it. What kind of A/D Converter does one use

to digitize loose talk?

Given what is wrong with the instrument, you can integrate till the cows come home.

It does not help anything, except perhaps fool some fools.

Also, once the equipment in space is suspect in the above manner, it is suspect the

whole time. So watch out for weasel words such as we made the measurement during

a miraculous 10-minute period when everything was working like a charm ... and that

kind of ruse. Such statements would be additional proof of what went down. They

should be placed in the same class as the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon tapes. There

is no salvageable data from this experiment.

In sum, the much vaunted properties of the sample collection device, the Winston

Cone -- which properties were the stated central necessity of the discovery -- did not

materialize even approximately in the actual spaceborne experiment. The sample

collection was extremely sloppy, and erratic in ways the discoverers - by their own

admission - neither anticipated nor understood nor had any control over. This

caused an additional fatal problem that the layperson can understand: By their own

definition, it made their calibration worthless. So they dwelled in excruciating detail

on the analysis they did subsequently on the botched, uncalibrated samples. The

world heard about the phenomenal 50 ppm accuracy of measurement obtained from

the computers in Greenbelt, MD, and not about the 30% distortion at the front end

of the experiment in the cold dark reaches of the space where the lone satellite

orbits completely out of the world's view. This experiment was an unqualified

failure. In fact, a worse botch-up from a professional scientific team is difficult to

imagine. This was a first-class scandal. There is no way this experiment could have

faithfully reproduced the actual radiation spectrum existing in space -- whatever

that is. Anything that was subsequently done to the data collected thus -- no matter

how precision and how elaborate and how verbosely reported -- is of no relevance

whatsoever.

The beam pattern of the spaceborne Winston Cone is distorted because of mounting it

in the instrument package. In other words, the Cone and the support structure now

form an integral sample collector - a single unit. The underlying properties of the

Winston Cone are no longer relevant. This is why it was of vital importance to study

this integral unit thoroughly before launching the satellite. There was nothing anyone

could do about this after launching the satellite. And since that study was not done,

there is absolutely no basis in fact now to say anything about the spaceborne

instrument that would excuse the "discoverers". No amount of language is going to

undo what has gone on. Clever butt-covering with jiggery-pokery is something I can

very easily see through.

This is the first ever competent scientific evaluation, and the only correct evaluation

of the experiment. Any views that differ from this are not scientific views. It is

necessary for me to say this because of rampant hucksterism in the physics

establishment today, and their authoritative suppression/ignoring of views from

outside. This discovery never happened.

The fact that, over a period of many years, the physics establishment, NASA and the

Royal Swedish Academy have enshrined this discovery says to me that this work has

received many glowing reports from powerful authority figures who were not

competent to evaluate this work. In fact, everyone who has passed upon this work

positively did not know whereof he spoke. Or perhaps worse.

Basically, what we see here is that the experiment itself is cluing the experimenters in

to all-too-obvious and predictable problems. But there is here a well-crafted plan to

hide these most serious and the most central issues with one single solitary sentence,

and then draw very detailed attention to excruciatingly detailed secondary issues

which are entirely worthless under the circumstances.

And the Nobel Committee write-ups did exactly the same thing.

How did a failed experiment metamophose into the grandest discovery?

How did loose talk morph into phenomenal numerical accuracy?

What kind of a scientific community is this that hides these glaringly obvious

questions, and blatantly deceives mankind as to the nature of their cosmic home?

WHAT WENT DOWN AT NASA?

As you recall, there was much to-do in the Media about the Big Bang COBE satellite

before, during and after its launch. Probably hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars

were spent. Hope was built up to a crescendo for Big Bang Cosmology. The scientists

walked daintily and struck poses on well-lit catwalks before the world.

And then came the time to pay the piper: The time to report the results.

How easy or difficult do you think it is for a scientist now to stand before the world

and say: Sorry folks! The experiment was a complete bust. It was a bust because the

planning and the design were done incompetently, and because we did not think to

study our sample collector on ground before launching the satellite.

But that was never said, was it? Instead, a spectacular discovery -- that discovery

which the world was promised -- emerged in full glory.

There had to be a conscious and deliberate process in place by which a badly planned

and badly designed experiment that failed miserably re-emerged as a grand discovery.

You do not get from a botched experiment a complete mathematical curve over a

decade bandwidth - that exact curve one ideally wished for - by accident,

happenstance or coincidence.

MEASURING THE BODY TEMPERATURE OF GOD

On what basis was this discovery sold as science's finest hour? The best place to seek

an answer to this is to go the web site for the 2006 Physics Nobel Prize. There the

Nobel Committee have argued for different audiences (The Media, the masses, and

the expert scientists) why this discovery was deemed prize-worthy. The views

expressed there are generally the consensus views of the greatest authorities on the

subject worldwide.

I have looked at the write-ups in that site. Even in the write-up for the experts, which

does include a mention of the antenna, absolutely nothing is said about the central

point of the discovery: How the instrument couples appropriately to the radiation field

it measures. Instead, the description of the instrument is followed by this euphoric

statement:

This leaves me a little numb. The discovery is the measurement of the blackbody

radiation field. Yet, everything is being said except if you had collected that radiation

properly! Let me illustrate my puzzlement with the following allegory involving our

old friend Erki whom the reader has met in connection with the 2004 Physics Nobel

Prize caper. Please remember that God's person was brought into the context by one

of the COBE discoverers who saw Him.

In the year of our Lord 2010, the Nobel Prize for Physics is given to Professor

Rumpelstiltskin Pumpernickel for measuring the resting body temperature of God

with extreme precision. The announcement of the discovery is met with great

entusiasm worldwide. The Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, Erki,

answers questions at a Press Conference.

Q: That is a most phenomenal discovery. But how'd he do it?

Erki: Well, he used the most modern techniques in temperature measurement, coupled

with computer software that helped refine that measurement.

Q: OK, but how'd he measure the temperature?

Erki: He used a tiny thermocouple probe that he developed himself. It has a very

novel and innovative construction.

Q: I mean, how did he measure the temperature of God?

Erki: I believe the readings of the instrument were telemetered to the Earth in real

time, and the data were analyzed at the lab. The TDRSS network was used.

Q: Excuse me, Sir, but you are avoiding my question. You are giving us all kinds of

information except the one that is the crux of this discovery. Thermocouple, telemetry

... we know all this. There is nothing new here. What I am asking you, again, is: How

did he apply the temperature probe to God's ... er ... body?

Erki: Well ... that's not relevant.

Q: Did he apply it rectally or orally?

Erki: Well ... that is a private matter between the Lord and Professor Pumpernickel.

REMARKS John C. Mather's Bill of Goods"

John C. Mather's BILL OF GOODS

THE TELLTALE WARNING SIGNS WERE THERE:

FLASHING RED LIGHTS, RINGING BELLS, WAILING SIRENS

Any seasoned experimenter with hands-on knowledge of receiving and measuring

electromagnetic radiation from free space should have, even at a first glance, seen

this diagram as straining credulity, and asked questions. No one did.

This diagram would be unbelievable to a seasoned experimenter even if every aspect

and every component in the experiment worked like a charm.

The actual error bars are (proudly) said to be smaller than the thickness of the theory

line in the diagram across this entire range (A reported accuracy of 0.005%). The

experimental data even negotiated the curved peak perfectly. What do you think the

reaction of the expert scientific community was? You laugh and say: Obviously, it

would be utter disbelief. Wrong! It was admiring and unquestioning awe.

The diagram also implies that certain other cosmic contributions (other than the

'blackbody') that were removed from the measured power levels to arrive at the

numbers reported above were known at the time to this exact level of spectral

precision, or better. If that were the case, why was this measurement touted as the

first precision cosmic measurement? Think about that one!

The diagram implies in addition that throughout the measurement and calculations,

there were no instrumental errors and flow of such errors, experimental and theory

approximations, modeling assumptions, assorted input data, computational errors etc

that were not each substantially better than 0.005% across the decade bandwidth.

True? Well, read them there papers that were published in no less sacred a place than

"peer-reviewed journals."

When Mather first revealed his patently bogus diagram at a high level scientific

conference, what was the reaction of his august peer community? You may find this

hard to believe, but this is God's honest truth: They gave him a long, standing ovation

-- the kind you might see at La Scala!

One can get a general perspective on the situation be recalling another similar but

widely known bungling. When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched in space, it

was discovered that the curved mirror used for imaging was misshapen. Its design was

botched. Because the Space Telescope project involved photographic images that the

public could readily understand, this bad news had to be released. The problem was

rectified, and the Telescope has performed beautifully since. In the present instance a

similar botch-up (actually, scientifically speaking, far worse) happened. But it was not

something the public could understand. Therefore, this was never released to public

attention. And it was never rectified. Scientists forged ahead regardless with this

cockeyed job.

Remember the Nobel Prize declaration "COBE was a success"? It was as much

success as the Hubble Telescope was, before it was fixed. Actually, far worse - when

you consider that the COBE experiment required extreme numerical precision.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE:

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin (Top)

Physics Nobel Prize Committee Chairman Per Carlson, and the 2006 "COBE"

Laureates George Smoot and John Mather(Second row))

John Mather with the King of Sweden in a historical photograph (Third row)

George Smoot and John Mather with Vice President Dick Cheney and other deserving

2006 Nobel Laureates at the White House (Bottom)

Acta est fabula!

[Image source:Michael Griffin - msnbcmedia4.msn.com; Carlson, Smoot & Mather - nobelprize.org; SMather with King of Sweden - nobelprize.org; Smoot, Mather and others at White House - whitehouse.gov]

So, what about the picture-perfect blackbody spectrum reported from the experiment?

I will leave you to ponder the matter. First, allow that there is a perfect blackbody

radiation field in space. Then ask: How can one measure this as a perfect blackbody

with extreme precision, given all the manifest problems in sampling the radiation? If

you wish, disregard everything I said. Just consider the problems the authors

themselves fessed up to. Is it possible, for example, that the onboard calibrator -

which is a picture-perfect blackbody - is serving as a "template" for the discovery -- if

you know what I mean?

It is not a silly thing to say that by any reasonable engineering criteria, the equipment

in space is badly out-of-spec. And the "specifications" are what the authors

themselves formulated. So why do they "accept" the equipment? I can assure you that

the military will not accept such botched "optics" for missile tracking or fire control.

Yet it is being accepted in this precision scientific experiment where fantastic

numerical accuracy was the stated requirement. Given the artifactual frequency

dependences - whether predicted from straightforward science or indicated by the

experimental data - and given that the authors show not even an awareness of these in

their exposition, how is one to believe a complete, picture-perfect blackbody curve?

How does one measure an unknown spectrum with an equipment which has its

own unknown spectrum (filter)?

Indeed, how does Erki start with coarse whole wheat flour and molasses and peanuts,

and make fine mazarins? I would like to get that recipe.

There are reasons why a good scientist would not have gone the Winston Cone-route

at all. And there are reasons why a good scientist would not have included an ideal

blackbody right where such a thing is being searched for. Contrary to the lofty

laudation of the design of the experiment by the Nobel Committee, the whole design

reeks of gross incompetence. So, who is lauding whom?

THE SMOKING CHILAM

[Source:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/69369394_b0a2da74a7.jpg?v=0]

Satellite-borne experiments are a very special category: Very few people are privy to

any specific aspect of an experiment, and the experiment can hardly ever be double-

checked. Once the scientific analysis has been completed and some time has passed, it

becomes extremely difficult to go back and check the veracity of things. I can speak

with some knowledge, as I had hands-on experience, as a student-grunt, looking at

Solar Radio Burst data from the Orbiting Geophysical Observatory - V. As I look

back on this, there was enormous opportunity for any one individual to practice deceit

without others knowing. There was an enormous quantity of data, with generally one

person on top of it. You could have reported a "discovery" without anyone being any

wiser. You could confirm a previously existing theory without even your close

colleagues knowing what exactly went on with spools upon spools (in those days) of

data.

Let us get even more specific. Suppose that your technician is sitting at a console and

reading the satellite data off a tape or some similar medium, feeding the data string to

a computer program that you have written that "processes" the raw data. The

technician does not know anything about your equations, parameters and other

manipulations in the program. Only you know this line by line. The technician is then

displaying a theory curve vs. the processed data on a screen. There may even be

multiple technicians, and even scientists, working with you on this. You look at the

screen, and ask the technician to change the parameter x to something, and y to

something and z to something. He does, and after sometime - days or months or years

- this process results in perfect agreement between theory and the processed data. You

get your discovery, and people do not even dream of doubting you - because other

people were involved in the process. But can the technicians, your "team", vouch for

the integrity of what exactly went on - line by line, day by day, process by process?

No way! The "team" in this case is just a fig leaf.

Of the "technique" I have outlined above, there happens to be a very specific

example. Investigation of the famous science fraud Victor Ninov zeroed in on what

actually happened:

An internal committee at the lab concluded that Ninov was the only person in the

large project to translate the raw computer results into human-readable results and

had used this opportunity to inject false data.

The "lab" here refers to the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

In the end, this is nothing more and nothing less than an issue of the scientific

community believing in one person's integrity. Hard to believe, but this is what

such grandest of experiments are reduced to. I bet you never thought of it that

way until now. Because you were never meant to. They do not want you

to think. They want you to accept what they say as the God-given truth, even if it

is a God-forsaken lie. For, you see, they are the new gods. The Mind of God has

already been reassigned to one of their number.

Today it has got so that if they decide, they can present to the world a Rube Goldberg

machine, call it the Time Machine, anoint it in Stockholm as a great achievement of

science and authoritatively maintain that hoax in perpetuity the obvious defect

notwithstanding. The world has no recourse. This is the lesson one should take from

the present instance of science fraud.

What do I expect will happen after this exposing of the science fraud? Absolutely

nothing. There are far too many vested and powerful interests at stake here for

anything to happen. There will be complete silence.

Faces will be saved, and science will be sacrificed. This is the sad nature of our age,

The Age of Fakery: The faces of the high and the mighty are saved at any cost.. The

world pays the price. The Coalition will forge ahead, even surge, no matter what. This

is nothing at all to do with scientific truth. It is happening because bad hombres have

chosen, unfortunately, physics as the field in which to do their stuff. Some choose

Wall Street; some choose politics; these hombres -- being the clever intellectuals they

are -- have chosen physics. If they had come to Wall Street, Ken Lay would not be fit

to hold a candle to them. So, thank God for small mercies.

Even able scientists and engineers who have to know what is going on will keep mum.

You do not want to defile the very house in which you live. If you are an engineer in

an aerospace company that receives contract jobs from NASA, you do not want to

upset NASA. Confucius say: No lockie the boatie! Measured against such powerful

considerations, what is scientific truth after all? Does anybody really care?

Well, I can think of at least four who might care: Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann,

Jan Hendrik Schoen and Victor Ninov. Their lives were destroyed by the selfsame

establishment.

It may be difficult to see this point today, but what we are witnessing is nothing less

than a liquidation of physics. A great edifice that man built with so much love and so

much care and over such a long period is being rapidly liquidated in a way that it will

yield tangible benefits to chosen individuals in short order: Fame and fortune. These

individuals do not give a whit about scientific truth. As long as a good, sellable

storyline can be strung out, everything is OK. As long as the deception lasts longer

than the lifetime of these individuals, everything is OK. And they are raising a

generation that never questions. The power is absolutely in their hands, and so the

enterprise is absolutely safe. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - that is the adage at

work here.

After the discovery of the blackbody spectrum was reported in 1992, the world was

plastered with a comment from Stephen Hawking:

"the greatest discovery of the last century, if not of all

times."

And the world was wowed! Now, be sensible for a moment. What does Stephen

Hawking understand about the engineering of the spaceborne experiment? I would say

what he understands would probably fit in a rodent's hindquarters. So why is making

such a grandiloquent remark? Because his celebrity handlers have fed him a line. And

why is the world believing it? Because we live in the Age of Fakery.

Hawking may be a perfect example of what has gone so terribly wrong. People in

places of authority who have no capacity at all to analyze and evaluate the actual

experiment have touted it to high heaven. This is also a form of scientific dishonesty.

Hawking's statement would be true if you replace the word "discovery" with the

words "science fraud."

What about other independent experiments that reportedly measured the same

blackbody spectrum? Chances are they were never evaluated competently. And what

about the related experiments on the same satellite that lend strong support to the Big

Bang Cosmology? Well, I have not looked at them. My chilam has just gone out. It

must be clear that since the blackbody idea is bogus, everything else supporting it is

bogus. But to be sure, I sought out higher counsel. I have asked the very wise Latin-

speaking Meerkat (whom my readers have met). His response:

Falsus in unum; falsus in omnibus.

So, is there a 2.7 K blackbody in the universe? The present science fraud, and its

condoning by the previous and current experimenters indicate beyond the shadow of a

doubt that such a blackbody has not been confirmed by able experimenters. It should

be considered only a theoretical idea an idea that is not the product of great scientific

intuition, but of affected scientific imagination.

Posted 5 April 2007

More.....

APPENDIX:

REFERRALS OF THIS SITE TO THE ORGANIZATIONS

NAMED

Do not let anyone mount the "I didn't know!" defense!

On 23 Aptil 2007, this essay was brought to the attention of the Office of the Inspector

General, NASA. I have an electronic record of this submittal. Thus, NASA is officially

informed on and aware of this site as of that date. Any response received will be

posted on this site. The OIG was informed because of the following NASA Policy:

'Any NASA employee who observes crime, fraud or receives an allegation of crime,

fraud from any other source shall report such observation or allegation to the OIG.'

I figured that you did not have to be a NASA employee to report fraud.

NASA-OIG is informed on the research misconduct allegation against NASA Chief

Scientist John C. Mather, through their official web link

But don't hold your breath. Here is what NASA Ispector General Robert Cobb is up

to:

'A report by the Integrity Committee, a government board that investigates inspectors

general, found that Cobb "created an appearance of a lack of independence," and it

questioned whether NASA would do enough to reprimand him they stated Thursday

April 5, 2007. NASA's top watchdog routinely tipped off department officials to

internal investigations and quashed a report related to the Columbia shuttle explosion

to avoid embarrassing the agency, investigators say.'

NASA is informed on the research misconduct allegation against NASA Chief Scientist

John C. Mather, through their official web link

Because of non-response from the NASA OIG, on 8 May 2007, a link to this site was

sent to the NASA Headquarters through their ASK NASA link, with the following

quiestion:

"What do you have to say about the detailed allegation of science fraud at NASA at

the following public site?

http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/blackbody.html

If I receive any response, I will post it here.

I sent both of the above inquiries under my own name.

Upon returning from an absence, on 14 June 2007, I referred this site to the Nobel

Foundation (comments@nobelprize.org).

If I receive any response, I will post it here.

Upon non-response from the Nobel Foundation, the following email (misspelling

noted) was sent to the individual members of the Physics Nobel Committee, and

individual leaders of the Nobel Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy, on 21

June 2007:

The Physics Nobel Prize Committee is informed on the research misconduct

allegation against NASA Chief Scientist John C. Mather

If I receive any response, I will post it here.

On 18 August 2007, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the

ultimate watchdog on research misconduct involving Government employees or

Government funds, was informed on the matter by email (their preferred means of

communication):

The OSTP is informed on the research misconduct allegation against NASA Chief

Scientist John C. Mather

This does not call for a response to me, but if I do receive any response, I will post it

here.

I certainly hope not to see a response that says "Publish your criticism in a refereed

journal. Then we will look at it." I've been sent down that path before. When you try

to publish thusly, they have moved you to an out-of-view private arena where they

can work you over real good. They can offer a plethora of excuses written

anonymously - why they cannot publish. All this I have hashed out elsewhere. But this

ploy is the mother's skirt they all hide behind. Such is the collective and organized

dishonesty in this community. Just think about this: If there is a serious issue, how

does it matter how or where it was raised?

Inceasingly today, many good thinkers are choosing not to even fight this sham battle.

They simply publish their ideas in fringe journals that are held in scorn and disdain by

the establishment which does not even make a reference to article published this way.

And you thought science was about knowledge and wisdom and wonderment and

fascination!

At any rate, with the present issue we are far beyond the scientific debate phase. The

award of the Nobel Prize has closed that phase. We are now dealing with straight

science fraud.

MY SIGNED MESSAGE TO CHANGE.GOV

(12 NOVEMBER 2008)

"A little heads up:

A gigantic American fraud has not been handled by the Bush Administration, and will

be inherited by President Obama. He may have to stand before the World and

apologize for the greatest fraud in history perpetrated by an American Government

organization. It concerns America's crowining glory in science (the only Nobel Prize

for a NASA Scientist), the discovery by NASA Scientist John Mather about the Big

Bang Cosmology. This discovery is a complete fraud. NASA Administrator Michael

Griffin should be aware of this. For more information, please visit the web page:

http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/blackbody.html

Why should President Obama - who is entitled to have his full time devoted to

constructive things - be distracted by this grotesque baggage? Why not ask Michael

Griffin? Easy enough to do."

REFERRAL TO SENATE OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON NASA

On 6 February 2009, the following web mail was sent to Sen. Bill Nelson, Chairman

of Senate Oversight Subcommittee on NASA:

CATEGORY: Space

SUBJECT: NASA Oversight/Science Fraud

There is a huge problem with NASA which their leadership is aware of and which

they are covering up. It is that their most famous scientist, their homegrown Nobel

Laureate is a science fraud. It concerns a fraudulent discovery involving a NASA

Satellite, and a fraudulent Nobel Prize.

This is NOT a crackpot allegation.

You can read the now two years old allegation here:

http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde/blackbody.html

SUMMARY OF REFERRALS MADE THROUGH PRESCRIBED OFFICIAL

CHANNELS:

What did they know and when did they know it?

NASA - Office of the Inspector General (23 April 2007)

US House Committee on Science, Rep. Bart Gordon (26 April 2007)

NASA Headquarters (8 May 2007)

The Nobel Prize Committee for Physics (14 June 2007)

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (21 June 2007)

Office of Science and Technology Policy - White House (18 August 2007)

Change.gov (12 November 2008)

US Senate Oversight Subcommittee on NASA, Sen. Bill Nelson (6 February 2007)