And a simple way to see how *wildly* wrong that guy is, just see the three verifiable measures - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpml/conversations/messages/32032 …
The occultation data IS interesting and worth following up on. But one data point doesn’t refute everything by itself.
-
-
Nathan could be entirely wrong. But that’s not what people told me when I talked to them.
-
No one mentioned the occultation comparison. Not Amy. Not Lindley Johnson. Not the other scientists.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.