THE BICEP2-PLANCK COLLABORATION: More than meets the eye?

“One thing that would distress me bitterly is if a major mistake in the measurement or of the analysis would come to light.”

– John Kovac, New York Times, 22 September 2014

UPDATE 09/25/2014:

“Whatever the level of dust, the experiment was wildly successful in achieving breakthrough sensitivity.”
– John Kovac, The Harvard Crimson, 25 September 2014

“I can only admire their dedication to science out in the middle of nowhere.”
– Stephen Hawking,, 25 September 2014

“Whatever happened one should not forget that, at the instrumental level, BICEP was a huge success.”
– Adam Falkowski,, 24 September 2014

“Whatever the truth about the BICEP2 measurements there’s no question that it’s a brilliant experiment, with exquisite sensitivity.”
– Peter Coles,, 23 August 2014

[Reader please note: Above are just a few examples of endorsements that are rampant. Now consider – BICEP2 was an engineering development. Neither Kovac has, nor his teammates have, any engineering background. No engineering experts were involved. Sure, a botched telescope design can produce sky maps with “breakthrough sensitivity”! And also phenomenally strong gravitational wave signals beyond all expectation! And only a botch up job will give you a “99.9997% certainty of being correct.” It all makes perfect sense folks. Hawking, Falkowski and Coles are theoreticians who would not know a telescope from a hole in the ground. There is not a single statement from radioastronomy instrumentation types who are the ones qualified and entitled to issue opinions. Planck Satellite has an unstated mission to cover up American botch ups. They did this in the past. They are doing it now. So I hope you begin to understand the gigantic deception playing out at a global level all around you. You all are drowning in it.]


BICEP2 Telescope, BICEP2 discovery, Planck Satellite, CMB dust

BICEP2 Telescope, BICEP2 discovery, Planck Satellite, CMB dust


Tags: , , ,

One Response to “THE BICEP2-PLANCK COLLABORATION: More than meets the eye?”

  1. bernard lavenda Says:

    I have found your site very interesting. However, even more than a botched experimental set-up, the whole idea of a B-mode is controversial to say the least: If the Stokes parameters are what are observable, and they provide a complete description of the state of polarization of any light beam, then any linear combination of them, or any Fourier transform of this linear combination will not be observable. It is the B-mode itself which is under scrutiny. I cannot see how gravity waves and dust particles can give the same pattern as that observed by BICEP2. There are more fundamental flaws than a botched telescope.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s