Press Releases from the Journal of Cosmology
Feb 14, 2011
Journal of Cosmology To Stop Publishing--Killed by Thieves and Crooks
JOC will publish its last edition in May of 2011.

The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) was founded in the summer of 2009,
published its first edition in October, and immediately became a
success. Within one year it was receiving nearly 1 million hits a
month and dozens of news articles were appearing regularly about its
content--a phenomenal achievement for a scientific journal.

Naturally, JOC's success posed a direct threat to traditional
subscription based science periodicals, such as "science" magazine;
just as online news killed many newspapers. Not surprisingly, JOC was
targeted by science magazine and others who engaged in illegal,
criminal, anti-competitive acts to prevent JOC from distributing news
about its online editions and books.

Because JOC's editorial policy was to publish all peer reviewed
science-based theory, including articles which directly challenged the
"sacred cows" of "conventional wisdom", its success posed a direct
threat to the entire scientific establishment and the "gate-keepers"
who wish to protect easily disproved myths and crush dissenting views.
Suddenly, here was this upstart, highly successful scientific journal,
with a prestigious editorial board, which was directly challenging the
status quo and their control over science.

JOC also threatened the status quo at NASA.

As we all know, the leadership at NASA is a disaster. Just last month
NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel concluded that NASA is "adrift"
and dysfunctional. Its leadership is under attack by Congress and is
good only at leading a retreat and killing programs. They are running
scared with their heads down, fearful of upcoming Congressional
hearings, fearful of more criticism, fearful of losing their jobs.
Fear. Fear. Fear. If these nincompoops and gutless wonders had been in
power during the 1960s we would have never made it to the Moon and
would not have a space program today. No clear goals, no direction, a
space program completely adrift, this is the leadership at NASA.

The Journal of Cosmology stepped into the leadership gap and published
a special edition explaining how a mission to Mars could be
accomplished and paid for--as detailed in a brilliant article by Dr.
Rhawn Joseph (Marketing Mars). Twenty four NASA scientists
contributed, including two astronauts who walked on the Moon, over 120
top scientists in total.

How did NASA's leadership respond? With fear. What if NASA's
leadership were asked to explain this before Congress? So, they
sabotaged, interfered with, and blocked press releases by their own
Senior Scientist, and kept secret, from reporters, a press conference
at NASA to discuss the human mission to Mars book and JOC's special
Mars edition edited by a member of their own science directorate. The
leadership at NASA headquarters is afraid of losing their jobs, they
are being attacked as incompetent failures by Congress, and here was
JOC and top NASA scientists saying: Onward to Mars. Better to kill the
messenger.

As it turned out, certain people at NASA have a business relationship
with JOC's competitors. As the folks at NASA admitted in a letter to
Dr. Joseph (dated 2/13/2011), they knowingly plagiarized his article,
they knew its purpose was to promote JOC and his business plan, and
they stripped his name and all mention of JOC from the article, and
used it instead to promote themselves and their publishing partners in
the private sector. Dr. Joseph summed it up this way: "What a bunch of
crooks."

When people working for NASA decide to steal from you, and when NASA
(the U.S. Government) is in business with your competitors, it is time
to say "Adios."

The April Edition of the Journal of Cosmology will be devoted to:
"Consciousness and the Universe" (edited by Sir Roger Penrose of
Oxford).

The final May edition, will be devoted to astrobiology,
astrochemistry, and the pioneering work of Fred Hoyle (who coined the
term "the big bang") and his colleague (and JOC editor) Chandra
Wickramasinghe who along with Hoyle, coined the term: "Astrobiology."

In this final edition, evidence will be presented, demonstrating that
life on Earth has a genetic pedigree extending backwards in time by
over 10 billion years (billions of years before Earth was formed). We
have the evidence. Its in our genes.

Life on Earth, Came From Other Planets ---and this is something the
Bible-thumpers, the "leadership" at NASA, and the status quo, do not
want the public to know.

With nearly a million hits a month, JOC turns off the lights as a
winner. The loser is the public... but this is the history of science,
and the nature of business. Its just the way it is.
Truly, Lana Tao

PS: Permission is granted to quote from and reprint this article.
March 6 statement:
NASA/Aliens--Why Not Science or Nature?

The Journal of Cosmology has received emails asking why Dr. Hoover's
paper was not published in "Science" or "Nature."
We are aware that individuals who may or may not be associated with
these publications are postingad hominem attacks, which essentially
wish the public to believe that if Dr. Hoover's article was really
important it would have been published by these other journals. These
are tantamount to school-yard taunts by jealous children.
1) First, Dr. Hoover's article was an original contribution and had
not been submitted to these two periodicals.
2) Secondly, both Science and Nature have a nasty history of rejecting
extremely important papers, some of which later earned the author's a
Noble Prize. Use google key words search for a wealth of info. Nature
magazine admits to this, though they put a positive spin on these
rejections.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
3) Editors at Science have been accused of using the Bible to make
editorial decisions by scientists such as Dr. Gil Levin (who devised
the famous NASA Viking Mars Experiments).
4) It is a matter of public record that the organization which
publishes science magazine have engaged in illegal anti-competitive
practices designed to harm the Journal of Cosmology. The continuing
success of JOC poses a competitive threat to their business model. We
should not be surprised their "hand puppets" are complaining that JOC
published this article, and not them.
5) Science and Nature are in the business of making money. The Journal
of Cosmology, is free, open access, and is in the business of
promoting science.
6) Science and Nature protect the status quo, and have a history of
rejecting great papers.
7) In less than 2 years, the Journal of Cosmology has become one of
the top online science journals, with nearly a million hits for
January.
Our mission is to advance science.
8) The ad hominem attacks and complaints by those say Dr. Hoover's
article should have been published in these other periodicals, and not
JOC, are just sour grapes and should not be taken seriously.
9) We have repeatedly offered to publish critical commentary. We are
still waiting.
Truly,
Lana Tao
Permission is granted to quote and reproduce this letter
March 18 statement:
--NASA Threatens NASA Scientist
-Microfossil Evidence Certified as Valid
--Nature & Science Editors Uncooperative - Know Meteor-Microfossil
Results are Valid
-The War Between Science (JOC) vs Religion (NASA)
(PRESS RELEASE REPRODUCED ON JOC WEBSITE)
http://JournalofCosmology.com

The Journal of Cosmology upon reviewing the evidence and the opinions
of experts who have submitted their comments and evaluations, does
hereby certify the paradigm shattering findings of Richard Hoover. We
confirm the validity of his discovery of ancient microfossils similar
to cyanobacteria in meteorites older than Earth.

We have been presented with absolutely no evidence that the results
from the Hoover study are not valid. Further, we believe the public
record
demonstrates that NASA's chief scientist has no credibility as he has
made and issued a number of false statements about the history of the
Hoover paper and the Journal of Cosmology (JOC),
and in so doing has maliciously disputed the legitimacy of the work of
two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates who have published
five peer reviewed articles in JOC, and over 30 NASA scientists and 4
NASA astronauts who have also published their own peer reviewed work
in this same journal.

Equally astonishing, as NASA's chief scientist was proclaiming
"openness" to new ideas and discoveries and inviting the press to
speak with Richard Hoover, NASA officials were threatening and warning
Hoover not to speak with the media and were "screaming and yelling" at
him and demanding that he recant,
even as his wife lay dying and he was sick with cancer.

These terror tactics are reminiscent of totalitarian states and
theocracies, where defenders of the faith, and Grand Inquisitors,
armed with their Bibles, threatened, tortured, and killed those who
challenged prevailing dogma.

We have seen this before, when Galileo an Giordano Bruno were
threatened by the Inquisition, forcing Galileo to recant and torturing
and burning Bruno alive when he refused to deny that planets orbited
other stars. The same mindset is alive and thriving like a cancer at
NASA headquarters, with NASA's chief scientist acting as Grand
Inquisitor.

There has been a struggle, a war, between Science and Religion, for
almost 2,000 years, and this war continues to this day.

We believe the entire controversy over these momentous discoveries can
be characterized as science (life is everywhere, life on Earth came
from other planets) vs religion (Life came from Earth).

On March 11, 2011, and in the interest of advancing science, we
invited our critics and competitors, the editors at Science and Nature
magazines, to join in forming an independent commission to investigate
the Hoover findings. Despite their loud complaints, they ignored our
offer. Why?

Science and Nature have been repeatedly accused of refusing to publish
research which contradicts or challenges prevailing dogma. Dr. Gil
Levin who designed NASA's famous Viking Mars Life experiment, has
accused Science magazine of making editorial decisions based on the
Bible. Although lacking any empirical, scientific support, the
Biblical story of life's origins, minus the word "god" is in fact the
official position of NASA, and Science and Nature magazine; i.e. life
on Earth came from Earth. They have dressed religion in the language
of science.

The critical but uncooperative behavior at the magazines Science and
Nature and the defamatory, unsavory conduct of NASA administrators,
does not promote science but is anti-science, and serves to protect
religious beliefs; i.e. that life on Earth came from earth exactly as
detailed in the Bible and the Five Books of Moses.

Unlike our critics and competitors, the Journal of Cosmology does not
make editorial and scientific decisions based on the Bible and the
"Laws of Moses", but on the laws of science. The Hoover findings are
valid.

In sifting through the many false, deceptive, slanderous, and
dishonest statements issued by NASA's chief scientist, it is
noteworthy that NASA has not declared the Hoover results invalid. In
fact, NASA approved these results for publication in 2007, but only if
no mention was made of their extraterrestrial cometary origin. Nor has
NASA provided any evidence the data is false. Instead, they have
resorted to slander and defamation, and behind the scenes terror
tactics designed to intimidate, frighten, and force Hoover to recant.

Hoover's results have been peer reviewed by only one scientific
periodical, The Journal of Cosmology which has been edited in the past
by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate. We have taken the
unprecedented step of inviting over 5000 members of the scientific
community to review and comment on the Hoover paper, which was made
available before it was published. We are so confident of the results,
we invited our critics and competitors to cooperate in the creation of
a scientific commission to investigate the validity of these findings.
Because they also know the results are valid, the editors at the
magazines Science and Nature have been uncooperative.

No one has proved the results are false. Slander and histrionic
tirades do not constitute legitimate scientific doubt.

The choice is simple: Science as advocated by the Journal of
Cosmology, or religion masquerading as science as advocated by our
critics.

The implications of the Hoover discovery published by the Journal of
Cosmology are profound.

The media has a responsibility to tell the truth and to retract the
many slanders and lies. The truth is:

1) NASA approved these results for publication in 2007.
2) The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed scientific journal
which has been edited by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate,
Dr. Joel Levine, and which has published five peer reviewed papers by
two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates, and the peer reviewed
work of over 30 NASA scientists, four NASA astronauts, and top
scientists from around the world.
3) Hoover's data was peer reviewed and published after 4 months of
scientific scrutiny.
4) Crackpots, fake experts, and various media outlets slandered and
defamed the Journal of Cosmology and Richard Hoover.
5) Richard Hoover has been threatened and ordered to recant by NASA
officials
6) NASA's chief scientist has repeatedly made false statements to the
press and is not credible.
7) The preponderance of evidence is that the microfossils discovered
in the three meteorites, in the article published by the peer reviewed
Journal of Cosmology, are evidence of ancient extraterrestrial life.

How can science advance if lunatics are unleashed to throw filth upon
the reputations of legitimate scientists and the journals which dare
to publish their findings? The media has a responsibility to tell the
truth and to hold the media, the crackpots and NASA's chief scientist
accountable.

Did NASA pay reporters to slander Richard Hoover and the Journal of
Cosmology? Before the Hoover paper was published, JOC had repeatedly
complained that NASA was providing funding to our competitors, and had
paid a reporter to write an article for space.com and MSNBC which they
published and which they plagiarized word-for-word from JOC.
It is these same two media outlets which led the slander campaign
against JOC and Richard Hoover, featuring the ravings of charlatans
and a NASA administrator. How many reporters and media outlets are on
NASA payrolls?

We should also ask: Why would NASA administrators go to such extra-
ordinary lengths to destroy the reputations of legitimate scientists
and a scientific journal edited by one of its own Senior Scientists
Science Directorates, for the single purpose of covering up one of the
greatest discoveries in the history of humanity?
What else are they covering up? The media has a responsibility to
investigate and to tell the truth.

In conclusion: The Journal of Cosmology has reviewed the evidence, has
solicited commentary, we have invited scientific criticism, we have
reached out to our competitors who have refused to cooperate because
they know the data is real, and therefore, the only logical conclusion
is that the Journal of Cosmology and Hoover study are beyond
reproach.
As reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology, evidence of
extraterrestrial microfossils of bacteria in meteorites older than
Earth has been discovered and no legitimate scientist has been able to
disprove the findings. The findings are valid.

The implications are staggering and the public deserves to know the
truth, that life may be everywhere, throughout the cosmos. The Journal
of Cosmology has compiled this wealth of data, along with the Hoover
paper and commentaries, and the peer reviewed discoveries of numerous
independent scientists, in a single inexpensive book, titled:
"The Discovery of Alien ExtraTerrestrial life" which features the
landmark discovery of Richard Hoover.

Based on the evidence compiled in "The Discovery of Alien
ExtraTerrestrial life" and the Hoover discovery, the conclusions are
threefold:

We are not alone. Life is everywhere.
Life on Earth, came from other planets.

Wretch Fossil said: Life did not come from other planets
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2010/09/human-origin.html