Hi EQF:

Your point is understood. But given the history of this subject matter, the burden of proof is high...and the giggle factor is even higher.

See the linked message thread below. Even "professional" teams are striving to get "proof" in spades before risking their careers / status. It is not a light decision.

Many many times things which "appear" correlated and seem to be "cause and effect" turn out not to be when sufficient data is collected (sometimes over decades). Also, highly correlated data may be viewed very skeptically if a plausible theory is not presented along with the data in order to explain what is happening.

Complexities abound and the resources allocated (in recent times ?) maybe relatively few....premature release of "half-baked data and theories" can kill the goose (if you know what I mean...).

BTW, folks have to attach their real names to their work...and this also might slow the pace a bit....

Just my 2cents worth

• March 2000 FFA science team