03-03-2010, 02:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2010, 02:14 PM by Questioner.)
Peregrinus, I have a very different opinion about NASA. I believe that the vast majority of their engineers and scientists are sincere, hard-working people. People devoted to expanding human knowledge of our astronomical neighborhood, or other facets of science and innovation. I believe that most of them are truly happy to explain what they know at any opportunity, and don't add any secrecy or intentional distortion.
This is not to say that there might not be some skeletons in the closet from hidden "blacks ops" type work, or some real jerks or manipulators on the technical staff.
But I deeply believe that by far, most of the people at NASA have an idealistic sense of discovery. And I believe that this opinion comes from my having done reasonably comprehensive research, letting me have a responsibly informed opinion. I might discuss this more as I tell more of my own background. But for now, I'll just say that it's one of the handful of opinions about which I'm most certain, based on what I really believe is valid evidence and reasoning spanning decades.
In this case, I haven't seen any tiny shred of a hint of a whisper of a glimmer of the edge of any reason to start to question or doubt... the sincerity and professionalism of the NASA workers cited in the article. They might have misunderstood their measurements. They might need to update their computer model as more data become available. But why the rush to such a negative conclusion?
Also, Biu Tze, NASA is not the mainstream news media, so I'm at a loss as to why you lump them together.
This is not to say that there might not be some skeletons in the closet from hidden "blacks ops" type work, or some real jerks or manipulators on the technical staff.
But I deeply believe that by far, most of the people at NASA have an idealistic sense of discovery. And I believe that this opinion comes from my having done reasonably comprehensive research, letting me have a responsibly informed opinion. I might discuss this more as I tell more of my own background. But for now, I'll just say that it's one of the handful of opinions about which I'm most certain, based on what I really believe is valid evidence and reasoning spanning decades.
In this case, I haven't seen any tiny shred of a hint of a whisper of a glimmer of the edge of any reason to start to question or doubt... the sincerity and professionalism of the NASA workers cited in the article. They might have misunderstood their measurements. They might need to update their computer model as more data become available. But why the rush to such a negative conclusion?
Also, Biu Tze, NASA is not the mainstream news media, so I'm at a loss as to why you lump them together.