Stigmata: Intellectual Fear Syndrome

Many Dredd Blog posts focus on the damage which the institutionalization of propaganda has done to the people and institutions of the USA.

Usually such posts will elaborate on a stigmata, a layer of the onion, or a facet of the "jewel', because the subject is too vast to deal with even in a large book, much less one blog post.

Before we connect some more dots, let's grasp a bit of the definition of stigmata:

stigma ... stig´mata [Gr.], any mental or physical mark or peculiarity that aids in identification or diagnosis of a condition ... Visible evidence of a disease ... a moral or physical blemish ... A sign, mark, feature, indicator of something, which generally has a negative connotation

(Medical Dictionary). This post will target the impact which fear induced propaganda has upon intellectuals, more specifically, the scientific community.

That focus will be directed toward the mild form of the condition, since we have dealt extensively with the ugly form of the condition (which is generally denied across the board).

The story begins with a scientific study conducted by a NASA scientist, a researcher who took a look into the entrails of meteorites that have impacted the earth from space, meteorites which were examined with very powerful analytical tools:

Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

(Journal of Cosmology). For some reason this study scared the propaganda right out the wazoo of the dogmatic halls of scientific officialdom.

That led to a phase-two meltdown, which always leaks deadly slander contaminants into the scholarly atmosphere, then it was followed with the inevitable demonization of a scientific journal they were slobbering out praise about just last issue:

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 statements issued by NASA are especially disappointing as they are not true.

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. Over 90% of all papers are sent back for revision following peer review. 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.

(Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology). The reaction to free publication of research results is typical of some intellectually sloven bureaucrats who slander when they have no competent rebuttal.

The toxins of power which produce propaganda within the organs of demented government officialdom can be traced and studied through stigmata.

Connect the duhs.