The Controversy of the Hoover Meteorite Study
Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,
Have the Terrorists Won?
The Journal of Cosmology is free, online, open access. Free means = No money.
Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks.
The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.
Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.
Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!
As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.
Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.
The Journal of Cosmology is Not For Sale & Will Continue Publishing The Journal of Cosmology has no income, a small staff, and is overwhelmed with submissions from scientists around the world.
We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation. It took tremendous courage to publish this paper, and despite its lack of funds, the Journal will continue publishing great ideas and great research.
Have the Terrorist Won? Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. His latest official statement is littered with falsehoods. This is the same man who approved the bogus "Arsenic-life" story which was published in Science magazine and immediately shown to be bogus. Science magazine with its 180 editors was accused by numerous scientists of failing to have the "arsenic" paper properly reviewed. NASA has no credibility on these issues. Further, our understanding is NASA has ordered its scientists not to make statements supporting the Hoover results. NASA scientists who had promised commentaries have been silenced.
Tremendous efforts have been made to shout down the truth, and the same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate?
Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid.
In 1584, Giordano Bruno published "Of Infinity, the Universe, and the World" and wrote: "There are innumerable suns and an infinite number of planets which circle around their suns as our seven planets circle around our Sun." However, according to Bruno, we are unable to see these planets and suns "because of their great distance or small mass." On February 19, 1600 Bruno was burned at the stake by the Inquisition for publishing these claims.
Would NASA administrators have sided with the Inquisition? Would they have also called for Bruno to suffer the most horrific of deaths for challenging the established order?
Following the publication of Richard Hoover's paper, what ensued could be likened to a rein of terror, a witch hunt, an inquisition designed to crush all discussion of his findings. There were even calls to "hang" Richard Hoover. Three hundred years ago, they would have burned us all at the stake.
The silence is deafening. What prominent scientist would dare to publicly support Hoover's findings, when they know that raving lunatics will be unleashed to destroy their reputation?
How can science advance in this country if NASA and the media promotes frothing-at the-mouth-attacks on legitimate scientists and scientific periodicals who dare to publish new discoveries or new ideas?
The Journal of Cosmology sought to promote science and scientific debate, but the scientific community is too frightened and terrorized to speak up.
It took courage to publish the Hoover discoveries. The Journal of Cosmology will continue to publish great theories and new discoveries.
The terrorists have not won.