Threadgill & Associates
July 27, 2001
To the respected officials named above:
This letter documents discrimination effected against my client, Dr. Robert V. Gentry, by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). We intend to pursue litigation unless it is promptly reversed. On February 28, 2001, Dr. Gentry transmitted ten scientific papers, using his authorized password, to the LANL electronic preprint archive, which is jointly funded by DOE and NSF. His papers were accepted along with all other e-prints received earlier that day and scheduled for release from the archive over the Internet at 10 p.m. However, LANL archivist Simeon Warner deleted the ten papers prior to their scheduled release. My client protested this removal by email, and again submitted them on Monday, March 5, whereupon they were again deleted, and my client's password removed, thus blocking further submissions.
Subsequently my client sent e-mail protests to various LANL administrators, noting that such actions abridged his First Amendment rights, and again requested that his password be restored, but without success.
My client then engaged my services in an attempt to rectify the situation. On March 16, 2001, I brought this matter to the attention of Dr. John Browne, Director of LANL. Over three months passed before Christine Chandler of LANL's legal department responded on June 18 (see attachment), stating my client must fulfill two conditions for his password to be restored, one being that my client must now obtain affiliation with an accredited university or government laboratory. That this is a discriminatory, midstream change of rules is proven by the fact that LANL recognized my client's .org e-mail address as fully sufficient to post papers through March 5, 2001, but since then deems it unacceptable. Further proof of discrimination is seen in LANL permitting others to post papers without requiring such institutional affiliation. For example, on April 9, 2001, independent researcher David Apsel posted arXiv:gr-gc/0104025 on the LANL archive with only a .com e-mail address.
Chandler's letter ignores this discriminatory practice of letting other independent researchers post their papers without institutional affiliation, and proceeds to impugn the integrity of my client's scientific qualifications by stating, "The requirement of a legitimate organizational affiliation is a minimal check on scientific quality." It is doubly inconsistent for such characterization to be made when, at the very outset of her assignment to this case in March, Chandler was fully informed that my client is a decades-long member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, the Sigma Xi Research Society, and the prestigious New York Academy of Sciences. Chandler was also informed that for 13 years my client had been a Guest Scientist in the Chemistry Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, during which time be published four papers in Science, and four papers in the British scientific journal Nature, in addition to other articles in the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Physical Review Letters, and EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.
Especially relevant to the question of his scientific qualifications is his April 16, 1982, report in Science, which describes the scientific basis for his proposed solution of the long-term nuclear waste storage problem. On April 29, 1982, Senator Thad Cochran introduced an amendment to the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and in so doing favorably brought my client's results to the attention of the Senate, whereupon by unanimous consent his entire report was printed in the Congressional Record of that date on page S 4307.
Subsequently my client published an invited paper, Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective, in the Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and more recently in 1997 published a paper titled, A New Redshift Interpretation in Modern Physics Letters A. This paper describes how the major astronomical and astrophysical discoveries of the 20th century can be explained by a new model of the universe, completely independent of the widely accepted big-bang theory of origins. Ms. Chandler further knew that this paper and two others had been posted on the LANL archive in 1998, and that all three remain presently accessible for unrestricted downloading from the LANL archive. These papers are also accessible in the Reports section on my client's web site, www.halos.com.
My client's scientific qualifications, as just enumerated, plus being listed for some time in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in Science and Engineering, prove that Chandler's innuendo about the "scientific quality" of his work is unjustified. We thus seek to identify the underlying reason why such poorly devised straw-man arguments are employed to justify censoring my client's continuing ability to post papers as he did in 1998. Her letter contains two smoking-gun clues that, when taken together, unmistakably point to that reason. First, on page 2 we read, "The archive is also concerned about situations where an author may dominate the daily news listings and e-mail announcements." Reading between the lines it is obvious that the archive staff's concern about the news media's reaction to my client's ten papers is the crucial factor driving their continuing acts of censorship and suppression. This fits with the second condition for posting specified in Chandler's letter — namely, if and when my client could obtain an institutional affiliation, he would still not be allowed to post his ten papers separately; instead the archive staff would demand that all ten papers be posted as one paper, or not at all. This is a blatantly arbitrary requirement. There are in fact no written regulations to this effect in the archive's operating protocol, as proven by Ms. Chandler's failure to cite any. Its very arbitrariness is suspicious and tells a compelling story in itself — namely, there must be a very special facet about the ten papers that seriously challenges conventional scientific dogma, something which the archive staff fear to have brought to public attention.
Before specifying what that facet is we note that until now astronomers, astrophysicists and big-bang cosmologists have had unrestricted use of the archive to promote the big bang theory of origin of the universe via their interpretations of discoveries obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope and other satellites. In effect the LANL archive has become the world's foremost, unrestricted scientific venue for disseminating the belief that the cosmos originated and evolved via some version of the big-bang theory. Until now all this has been accomplished virtually without dissent. And without that dissent the news media have acted as unwitting agents in presenting these ideas to the taxpaying public as scientific truth. Just as significantly, these media reports have served as a powerful, apparently credible basis for urging Congressional legislators to fund a growing list of astrophysical satellite projects and mammoth particle accelerators designed to investigate what they are promised will result in revealing the ultimate secrets of just how or why the universe began with the big bang. In all this Congress and the general public rightfully expect accountability from all scientists who are recipients of government finding, especially those who, at government expense, are engaged in rapid dissemination of the latest scientific results. They rightfully expect that, because of the enormous fiscal outlay requested for these exotically expensive projects, all such government-funded agencies would, if given the opportunity, be foremost in rapidly alerting their colleagues and the Congress to any discoveries that challenge the currently accepted scientific rationale for those projects. But it is exactly these challenges that the LANL archive is covering up by refusing to allow my client's ten papers to be posted. This is evident from their titles.
1. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 1 — Is the Scientific Community in for a Big Surprise about the Big Bang?
2. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 2 — Is the Scientific Community Aware of the Extraordinary Confusion Over Big Bang's Expansion Redshifts?
3. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 3 — Galaxies Point to Flaws in Big Bang's Expanding-Balloon Illustration and to Smoking-Gun Signatures of GENESIS
4. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 4 — How Will the Scientific Community React to Big Bang's Vast Nonconservation-of-Energy Losses?
5. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 5 — Relativistic Operation of the GPS Exposes the Fatal Flaw in Big Bang's Cornerstone Expansion Postulate
6. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 6 — Ultimate Disproof of the Big Bang Comes From Its Bizarre Prediction That Photons Are Permanently Inscribed with H's Value at Time of Origin
7. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 7 — Discovery of a Nearby Universal Center Is the Smoking-Gun Signature of GENESIS That Overturns Big Bang's Cosmological Principle
8. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 8 — GENESIS Is Strongly Affirmed Because Its (m, z), (∆θ, z), and Apparent Brightness Relations Are Consistent with Observations
9. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 9 — Disproof of Big-Bang Cosmology Points to Seven Smoking-Gun Signatures of GENESIS' Astrophysical Framework
10. Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 10 — The Absence of Pop III Stars and Prior Discovery of Short Half-life Extinct Primordial Radioactivity Disprove Big Bang's Nucleosynthesis Scenario and Substantiates GENESIS' Rapid Creation Postulate
These papers need to come to the immediate attention of the worldwide scientific community via the LANL archive so they can be evaluated and my client be given uncensored opportunity to provide a timely response to whatever criticisms may ensue. To continue to stonewall the release of these papers from a taxpayer-funded government facility has serious implications. First, it would prove evolutionists in high scientific circles so fear the potential repercussions of a free and open inquiry into my client's discoveries that they are determined to maintain the status quo of the big-bang theory even if it means using the heavy hand of suppression. Second, such stonewalling would continue to deprive the U.S. Congress and the present Administration of the opportunity to carefully evaluate the serious scientific challenges which these papers present, and thus deprive both the Congress and the Administration of the crucial information needed to make informed funding decisions concerning new projects designed to test the big bang. Third, American taxpayers would continue to be defrauded of the opportunity of deciding the merits of my client's discoveries by observing the pro and con discussions of his papers on the archive. Thus they would be deprived of the opportunity of judging whether my client is correct in maintaining he has discovered unmistakable evidence of fatal flaws in big-bang theory, and of weighing carefully his claim of discovery that the cosmos is imprinted with astronomical and astrophysical phenomena that accord only with the Genesis record of a literal six-day creation. What is at stake here is intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience for all Americans, in all educational venues.
In the 1970s a number of U.S. scientific societies passed resolutions protesting the censorship exercised by various communist regimes against some of their own scientists who protested the lack of freedom to challenge certain scientific beliefs. In response, in 1976 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences passed a resolution titled An Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression, which was specifically designed to indirectly provide moral and political support for all beleaguered scientists who worked under oppressive regimes. Part of that affirmation reads as follows:
...That the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe and of
the living things that inhabit it should be conducted under conditions of
intellectual freedom, without religious, political or ideological restriction.
...That freedom of inquiry and expression is fostered by personal freedom
of those who inquire and challenge, seek and discover.
My client is experiencing retribution and retaliatory actions in consequence of the unpopularity of his discoveries, and the LANL archive, with DOE and NSF support, is the agent preventing the release of those discoveries. We call upon the officials addressed in this letter to now apply this remarkable declaration of intellectual freedom to my client, and forthwith have his password for the LANL archive restored without further delay. If this does not occur, and if Cornell University's Physics Department's planned acquisition of the archive, along with its founder, Paul Ginsparg — who has been a major behind-the-scenes player at LANL in denying my client's password — goes through as reported on page 3 of the July 5, 2001 issue of Nature, then Cornell University can expect to inherit the liability of dealing with this issue along with the DOE, NSF and LANL.
Your very truly,
cc via fax: Vice President Dick Cheney; Office of Presidential Science Advisor; U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman, Sam Brownbeck, Robert Byrd, Thad Cochran, Pete Domenici, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms, Maurice Hinchley, Barbara Mikulski, Rick Santorum, Charles Schumer, Fred Thompson; U.S. Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, Chris Cannon, John Duncan, Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Amo Houghton, Jerry Lewis, Connie Morella, Tom Udall, Zack Wamp, J. C. Watts; Daniel Goldin, Administrator, NASA; Major newspapers, wire services, and TV News Networks; Alliance Defense Fund; Martin Blume, Editor-in-chief, American Physical Society; Alan Chodos, Editor, American Physical Society Newsletter; Stephen Banks, Editor-in-Chief, Physics Today; Sam Adams and David Applegate, Editor-in-Chief and Editor, Geotimes; Richard Nicholson and David Kennedy, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Science; A.F. Spilhaus, Jr., Editor-in-Chief, EOS, Trans. American Geophysical Union; Philip Campbell and Laura Garwin, Editor and North American Editor, NATURE; Donald Harless, Publisher, Science News; Presidents/Heads, Major religious organizations; Christianity Today and other religious entities; James Dobson, Focus on the Family; Billy Graham; Jerry Faiwell; Pat Robertson
*Certified Civil Trial Specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization