White House Petition: Protect James Webb Telescope

[orrery]

I am putting together one of those White House petitions that require 25,000 signatures to make the case for removing John C. Mather as the Project Director for the James Webb Space Telescope. John C. Mather's record is that of a biased advocate of Big Bang Creationism and scientific fraud.

I am requesting community support in drafting the text of the petition and advocating its signature in all possible forums and mediums.

[nick c]

Accusations of fraud are serious. This is more than just being wrong about a scientific theory.
Two of the elements of fraud involve (1) knowingly making false statements with (2) an intent to deceive. I do not think that any of the leading BB proponents meet either of those criteria. They really think that they are on the right track and pretty much have it figured out, and their intent is to educate and enlighten.
As things stand right now, your movement is not of much significance and will probably be ignored, but consider the implications if your efforts meet with unprecendented success and attract the notice of the scientific powers that be.
I am not an attorney but it seems obvious that it would be prudent to not make such allegations unless one is prepared to back them up in a potential civil action.
And consider that a court is going to put a great amount of weight upon expert testimony - Phd's in astrophysics and such. What do you think that those experts are going to testify to?
I would not use of the word "fraud" to describe someone with whom I disagree over a science issue, unless there is substantial evidence of an intent to deceive.
But that is just my opinion.

[orrery]

nick, do you feel that bibhas de is in error?
Here is the reference to what GaryN was discussing in the other thread:

http://www.bibhasde.com/bigbangfraudbook.html

I have several ebooks on antenna waveguide designs and other such instruments if you are interested in reading them.

[orrery]

Also, here is further evidence of Mather's COBE fraud by Dr. Pierre Robitaille:

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-02.PDF

[nick c]

nick, do you feel that bibhas de is in error?

Yes, with the accusation of fraud. I do not think that there is necessarily any intent to deceive. It is simply a matter of a scientist with a vested interest in a particular theory, which he believes is valid. If there is any fudging of the numbers or misinterpretation of the numbers then that is fair game and should be exposed. But the word 'fraud' should not be used until malice and 'intent to deceive' can be proven.
Being wrong is one thing and being fraudulent is a different matter all together.

[orrery]

nick, do you feel that bibhas de is in error?

My concern is with the accusation of fraud. I do not think that there is necessarily any intent to deceive. It is simply a matter of a scientist with a vested interest in a particular theory, which he believes is valid. If there is any fudging of the numbers or misinterpretation of the numbers then that is fair game and should be exposed. But the word 'fraud' should not be used until malice and 'intent to deceive' can be proven.
Being wrong is one thing and being fraudulent is a different matter all together.

That would be understandable in most cases, but John C. Mather was politically appointed to satisfy the Christian lobby and made many appearances on the 700 Club expounding his Creationist credentials. He wasn't just a scientist interpreting the data, he was the Project Director who helped design and put the instruments together. He designed the tests, he designed the science and the methodology to be conducted.

All with the intent to deceive. If he was just a guy in the room interpreting the data and trusting in the equipment then he no doubt could be forgiven. But in this case, he intentionally sabotaged the instrumentation. I agree with Bibhas De that that is what he purposely did and I can see no other logical conclusion after reviewing all of the evidence.

[orrery]

Here is paper by our good friend Stephen Crother's who further elaborates on the Robitaille paper.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... wmap-3.pdf

[nick c]

I like Crothers approach. He deals with the science issues without making any accusation about the intent of BB proponents.

But in this case, he intentionally sabotaged the instrumentation.

Proof of intent?
This forum and the Electric Universe makes no accusation of fraud nor does it speculate concerning motivations, hidden conspiracies, and intent to deceive the public; only that the presently accepted paradigm is wrong.
This about sums up the Electric Universe position on the Big Bang:
http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest.

The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified.

and:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... -big-bang/

[orrery]

nick, good points. I prefer the work by Robitaille & Crothers.

However, we should not forget that Bibhas De is no slouch. Despite the mangled appearance of his website, he does have a Ph. D from the University of California in Applied Physics and worked for NASA's Johnson Space Center, was a Satellite Communications Engineer for Scientific Atlanta, and performed Electromagnetic Industrial R&D for Exxon & Chevron.

As per his CV:

http://www.bibhasde.com/cv.html

The guy should not be dismissed so lightly.

However, not to divert from the topic. This thread isn't about the validity of the Big Bang, its about rescuing the James Webb Telescope from a proven charlatan, John C. Mather.

Robitaille's work, referenced by Crothers, is the most damning of all. I have compiled a listing of Robitaille's papers here for easy access:

COBE: A Radiological Analysis:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-03.PDF

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-01.PDF

On the Nature of the Microwave Background at the Lagrange 2 Point. Part I:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -11-11.PDF

The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -22-02.PDF

Calibration of Microwave Reference Blackbodies and Targets for Use in Satellite Observations: An Analysis of Errors in Theoretical Outlooks and Testing Procedure:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -22-01.PDF

On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 Satellites:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -08-02.PDF

On the Earth Microwave Background: Absorption and Scattering by the Atmosphere:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -10-01.PDF

Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-01.PDF

[orrery]

Even if Mather can be exonerated of intentional fraud, the papers by Robitaille would show that he's too incompetent to be the Project Director for a mission as important as James Webb.

[orrery]

Also, in order to assist this effort, I ask the Thunderbolts community to "upvote" the following posts on reddit to assist in visibility if you are so inclined:

http://www.reddit.com/user/orrery/submitted/

Those titled "Politics of NASA - COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?" and "COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?"