AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Krubozumo Nyankoye

form_srcid: Krubozumo Nyankoye

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.92.243

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Krubozumo Nyankoye

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Krubozumo Nyankoye%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2008/06/19 00:44:07, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
In the category, homemade libations:

Ingredients

(1)  55 gal. drum with lid.
(2)  60-80 3 ft. lengths of ripe sugar cane
(3)  ~20 gallons of reasonably pure water (rain water preferred).

Combine all ingredients in the drum, it is adviseable to wash the drum thoroughly if it has been used to transport lubricants or fuels.  Boil over an iron wood fire for ~ 3 hrs adding additional water as necessary. Add culture. Cap and seal as tightly as possible, allow to ferment for 6 to 10 days, draw off upper 1/3 of liquid. Recap. Ferment another 6 -10 days, draw off remaining liquid, discard spent cane. Distill liquid twice being careful to maintain correct boiling point to evaporate only ethanol.  Bottle (in used containers for commercial liquors with screw on caps) as soon as volume is available. Allow to age a minimum of 24 hours.  Enjoy at your personal discretion.

In various cultures this is known by different names with more or less equivalent meanings. In Brasil it is refered to as Caixaxia, in various parts of Africa, cane juice.

Falvor, better than gasoline. Mixes, overly ripe grapefruit or
pineapple juice represses the gag reflex but you still have the aftertaste for a week or two.

Comments:  Do not store in nalgene or lexan bottles, they will
retain the flavor forever. Do not smoke while drinking or drink
near open flame. Do not consume if ambient temperature is
less than 25 degrees C or 75 degrees F. In humid tropical areas allow 3-4 days for rehydration.

Date: 2008/06/29 21:10:51, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Re: K.E. up thread.

Cane juice is worse than "steam". I've had both, just the fermented palm wine and the distillate, they both have a flavor.

Someone else up thread mentioned curry - great stuff that. I
have a formula handed down to me from a venerable establishment in Earl's court called the Sri Lanka. Killer, the best I have had anywhere by far. Made from fresh ingredients and kept tightly stoppered it will keep for a year or two and still pack a real whallop. If I can find it, I will post it for posterity.

Curry is ideal for bush camps. It is guaranteed to sterilize any conceivable combination of local food stuffs and make them moderately palatable no matter how bad they taste in their native state.  Fond memories of all that.

As to the cognac, I have never seen that one, I will have to try to find some and try it. While on the subject of spirits, who among us and the lurkers has experienced Mao Tai? I only recently came across it. ERV posted about it on her old blog some time ago and I think gave it a positive review.  Strange stuff but not bad at all after the first glass....

Date: 2008/07/06 20:01:05, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50)
One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for some good laughs, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, Telic Thoughts. It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.

I think its time to revise the fundamental premise of this thread and downgrade "Telic Thoughts" to clown car status.

Date: 2008/07/06 23:49:32, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Quick replay if I may as an innocent bystander.

Frostman posts a series of revealing email exchanges here that
show that Nelson (AKA Guts) backed up  the deletion of an accusation of quotemining on the TT blog.  

Guts shows up and starts off with the very obvious intention of trying to provoke mistreatment by moderators here by being as obnoxious as possible, no success. Makes wild claims about being able to debate science stuff. Bobs and weaves for some dozens of posts, heckles, insults, etc. etc. No success, doesn't get moderated or banned.

Pinned by repeated requests finally cites a post-diction of general relativity that accurately calculated the precession of the perahelion of mercury as a prediction. Duh. Never mentions the fact that general relativity predicted gravitational abberation of light. A true prediction. Verified, real science.

Pinned again much later finally cites a postdiction relevant to biology that would not even have been possible without all of the biological science that has been done in the past 5 decades and claims this is somehow predicted by ID.

Apparently reads the boards rules and decides to take a tack that can lead to banning by making false accusations. Epic fail.
Troll behavior already acknowledged.

So the actual question here is something like this, Frostman made an accusation on TT that someone quotemined. His accusation was dissapeared and all subsequent comments by him were likewise edited. By Guts. Guts comes here to try to show that this forum is sleazy, therefore his is not.

Epic fail.

All he has shown is that he is a petulant prig.

I would laugh if I did not cry, a mind is a terrible thing to waste on superstition and lies.

Date: 2008/07/06 23:49:32, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Quick replay if I may as an innocent bystander.

Frostman posts a series of revealing email exchanges here that
show that Nelson (AKA Guts) backed up  the deletion of an accusation of quotemining on the TT blog.  

Guts shows up and starts off with the very obvious intention of trying to provoke mistreatment by moderators here by being as obnoxious as possible, no success. Makes wild claims about being able to debate science stuff. Bobs and weaves for some dozens of posts, heckles, insults, etc. etc. No success, doesn't get moderated or banned.

Pinned by repeated requests finally cites a post-diction of general relativity that accurately calculated the precession of the perahelion of mercury as a prediction. Duh. Never mentions the fact that general relativity predicted gravitational abberation of light. A true prediction. Verified, real science.

Pinned again much later finally cites a postdiction relevant to biology that would not even have been possible without all of the biological science that has been done in the past 5 decades and claims this is somehow predicted by ID.

Apparently reads the boards rules and decides to take a tack that can lead to banning by making false accusations. Epic fail.
Troll behavior already acknowledged.

So the actual question here is something like this, Frostman made an accusation on TT that someone quotemined. His accusation was dissapeared and all subsequent comments by him were likewise edited. By Guts. Guts comes here to try to show that this forum is sleazy, therefore his is not.

Epic fail.

All he has shown is that he is a petulant prig.

I would laugh if I did not cry, a mind is a terrible thing to waste on superstition and lies.

Date: 2008/07/07 00:36:00, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
To Dr. GH

I too noticed that bit of character asassination by gutless  early on in this day's thread . It is a classic example of blaming the victim though one could argue whether we are victims or not.  After all, do we not have "free will"? Are we not entitled to poison ourselves if we see fit to do so because it suits our attitude towards the absurdity of life? I have a strong fondness for burboun whiskey. But I can drink scotch whiskey in a pinch.

My mentor in school was a serious drinker and he had problems with it, but he was one of the most brilliant petrologists I have ever known.

Ad hominem at its best.

One is reminded of the sage observations of G.B Shaw -  "Martyrdom, sir, is what these people like: it is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability."

Gutless came here to make himself out as a martyr. Instead he has built for himself a monument of incredible stupidity. He's a buffoon. He probably thinks that there is no toxic dose of di-hydrogen monoxide.. He'll have to google that before he responds.

Cheers mate,

Date: 2008/07/07 00:36:00, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
To Dr. GH

I too noticed that bit of character asassination by gutless  early on in this day's thread . It is a classic example of blaming the victim though one could argue whether we are victims or not.  After all, do we not have "free will"? Are we not entitled to poison ourselves if we see fit to do so because it suits our attitude towards the absurdity of life? I have a strong fondness for burboun whiskey. But I can drink scotch whiskey in a pinch.

My mentor in school was a serious drinker and he had problems with it, but he was one of the most brilliant petrologists I have ever known.

Ad hominem at its best.

One is reminded of the sage observations of G.B Shaw -  "Martyrdom, sir, is what these people like: it is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability."

Gutless came here to make himself out as a martyr. Instead he has built for himself a monument of incredible stupidity. He's a buffoon. He probably thinks that there is no toxic dose of di-hydrogen monoxide.. He'll have to google that before he responds.

Cheers mate,

Date: 2008/07/07 00:47:33, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Bob 'oh

No science, just bleating.

Dr. G.H.

Something I did not address, bunnies.

There was a time when bunnies were contrived to be very scantilly clad young women acting as servers in "playboy clubs" scattered across the hinterlands of the U.S. of A. So a fixation on same is not necessarily a bad thing assuming that connection.

Just trying to help out.... :-)

Date: 2008/07/07 00:47:33, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Bob 'oh

No science, just bleating.

Dr. G.H.

Something I did not address, bunnies.

There was a time when bunnies were contrived to be very scantilly clad young women acting as servers in "playboy clubs" scattered across the hinterlands of the U.S. of A. So a fixation on same is not necessarily a bad thing assuming that connection.

Just trying to help out.... :-)

Date: 2008/07/18 21:59:04, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
My my what a complex issue and extended web of ramifications.

Let me briefly restate some of the key points, I will try to be concise and inclusive.

Myer's hears of this incident and blogs on it.
Donohue sees Myer's blog and issues a fatwa.
Myer's counter attacks issuing a solicitation for hosts to desecrate.
All hell breaks loose and Myer's web traffic goes through the roof.
A hand full of people commit felonies via death threat.
One of them is actually pinned by their utter stupidity and fired by their employer.
The insanity persists in terms of new threats still being issued today to the effect, this will not be over until we get you fired.

There may be more but I am not a fast reader and I do not have a particularly fast connection, the only reason I can even keep up with some of this is that my real work is on hold for the moment waiting for a drill chuck.

From my remote perspective one has to wonder has the world gone completely bonkers?

Myers in my opinion has done a good thing, he has exposed the utter inanity of the premise that religion should be above critiscism.  Religion is nothing but elaborately codified superstition and as such should not have a voice, let alone an influence on public discourse, let alone global resource management. Yet it still does.

All accusations of bigotry are false in that Myers does not decry catholocism alone but all religions collectively, he is after all just an atheist. No god, no gods. Its all bunkum and fraud. And that is the real issue, the godbots are incensed because their "belief" is being exposed as a cheap fraud.

Religion is the perfect scam of course, look at the history of scientology, they managed to coerce the IRS into submission and no more patently deliberate con game could be imagined.

Of course Myers would by now be served with several lawsuits, subject to a character assassination campaign and dealing with other kinds of intimidation if he had been so audacious as to desecrate an E-meter. The scientologists are not as stupid or crude as the catholic police, they never make direct death threats, but they will kill you if they can find a way.

It is all about believing in higher laws than the laws of man. So it is also easy to flaunt the laws of man. Murder, terrorism, anything is justified because you have been informed from the spirit world that your action is righteous.

Who can deny it? You heard the voice of god in your head and he said - invade Iraq.

Frankly I am seriously dissapointed with the response of the people here and on other blogs and in general that they make such contorted and bizarre excuses for the patently ridiculous claims of the zealots and con men.  

I just lurk for the most part and observe what transpires. But in this instance I see a serious weakness and flaw in the overall conception of empiricism.  

Louis - you have contributed a degree of reasonableness to all of this that is admirable. I travel back and forth to West Africa through London, perhaps we could meet up on one of my layovers?  I do igneous petrology. And actually, smelling like a dead badger after four months in the bush would be a good thing.

To the rest, please get a grip. Its just a cracker!

Date: 2008/07/19 21:38:57, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 19 2008,13:20)
 
Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ July 18 2008,19:59)
And actually, smelling like a dead badger after four months in the bush would be a good thing.

I found that Baby Wipes (eg brand-name "Huggies") took good care of most wash-up needs in extended dry camps. They had the advantage of not wasting water, and burning quite nicely when they had dried out- making a good fire tinder and cutting down on site waste. I would take 500 sheets /10 crew members /2 weeks. Stinking clothes were still a problem. In a dry camp, I had my crew use a basin of clean water to rinse soap from dishes. (Two crew / 10 stayed in camp each day on a cleaning detail and also to get some rest). After the dishes were done, they would use the rinse water for washing out socks, etc...

<quote>I suspect you are better funded than we were.

Well, on paper that may be true (better funded) but by the time the money reaches us it has been thinned considerably.

Personal hygene and camp protocols are pretty well established, I have worked with the same groups of men for the most part for the past 4 years, consistency is good. Clothing is just expendable, it rots no matter what you do. One priority is to take care of your feet.  I was kind of jesting about the dead badger image, but you wouldn't doubt it at all if you met me when I have just come from the bush. Maybe I should have said I smell like dead curried badger?  

I am not in Africa at the moment else I would not be able to access the net at all. I will probably go back at the end of the year and stay until April or May. Right now I am in Brazil doing the same kind of thing but under much better conditions, it is dry season but it is not dry. We have an office in a small town where I have a sort of lab, I spend two out of ten days there when possible, it depends on whether there is anything in the cores to look at. Its still the bush but you can have hot water if the generator works. Hopefully I will get out of here by the end of September.

What I do is not "research" in any strict sense though I try to keep things honest across the board. In industry it is referred to as "exploration". As one of my clients famously said, " we don't want research, we want facts!".  I wish it were that easy.

Cheers,

Date: 2008/07/19 22:16:01, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Quote (Louis @ July 19 2008,01:10)
Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ July 19 2008,03:59)
[SNIP]

Louis - you have contributed a degree of reasonableness to all of this that is admirable. I travel back and forth to West Africa through London, perhaps we could meet up on one of my layovers?  I do igneous petrology. And actually, smelling like a dead badger after four months in the bush would be a good thing.

[/SNIP]

Well that's the first time THAT'S ever been said! ;-)

When I can pry myself away from work, I am always up for a beer. And practising the obscure West Fante (sp?) swear words and benedictions I learned from a Ghanaian ex-colleague of course.

At the moment I'm trying to get out of going to France on business so I can go to Edinburgh and meet Albatrossity at the end of this month. A general, all comers, London AtBC meet up is not at all a bad idea. No idea WHEN I'll be able to do it (bit of a workaholic tbh) but it should be possible. There's a dedicated thread for this malarky somewhere.

Igneous Petrology? Weren't they a 70s prog rock band ;-)

Louis

Well I have not spent much time in Ghana, just touch and go flights on dubious airlines to get to other places.

I know a little Loma, and less Krau.  I know a little Creole ala Sierra Leone and I know a bit of the patois of Guinea. Likewise I have some exposure to the patoise of Zaire, a vague familiarity with afrikanes,  and a passing familiarity with a bit of ethnic portuguese. But I am a pathetically inadequate linguist. I have enough trouble just with english.

Regarding a meet up, most likely case is that I would be heading for Africa near the end of the year, hard to give any exact dates but let's say late Dec. or early Jan.  I would put in for leeway to layover for two days in London. I might get it, I might not. I have three locations I tend to frequent. Earl's court,
if I have the big budget, the King's Head is a good pub with
expats from everywhere. There are plenty of good places to eat.  If I am on a severe budget, I stay in Bromley, close to Down House. At a little B & B run by a Potuguese couple.  I have some friends there too, who are from Peru. In between I might go out and stay at Hove. I had a good friend who lived
there and I often visited with but he died in 2006.  Still I like the area and its a short train ride.

Rock band? no way, rappers yes.

Its in the rocks
you takes your knocks
get tight my man
its an alluvial fan
or volcanic or sediment
you jus can't claim impediment

We like the pretty pictures they make too.

Date: 2008/08/30 21:20:17, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
This ought to really test their metal. It is certainly a highly charged issue.

Date: 2008/08/30 21:29:02, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Damn! I meant to say it is a highly negative issue. Sometimes the train of thought is only weakly bonded to the tracks. Then again perhaps it was just a magnetic moment.

Date: 2010/03/01 04:02:08, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Just dropping in on a thread that involves geology, I have wasted an inordinate amount of time reading the first 17 pages and had to skip to the end because I have to get to work in about 5 hours.

It is very entertaining to read various people's responses to the creotards inanities but I have to admit I don't have the fortitude for it. Life is too short. That is not so say I do not have a kind of grudging respect for the many here who actually choose to remain in the trenches risking intellectual damage to themselves out of the sheer obstinacy of the the stupidity and dishonesty of a Byers. If life was just, you all should be rewarded.

But I would like to try to bring the thread, perhaps in parallel back to the original question which is what caught my attention in the first place.  The question that was broached if memory serves me, was something to the effect, is it possible to be a geologist and deny evolution?

The obvious answer is of course yes. I am sure many of my colleagues think evolution is bunk.  Why they think so I cannot very well elaborate on because frankly I haven't much opportunity and even less interest in discussing it with them.  Or much of anything else for that matter.

While it is quite true that in my own field for example evolution is not a factor at all, my grounding in geology is far broader than my own field, and I have some limited knowledge of many of its other disciplines.  Something that is not overly obvious to one outside the scientific envioronment that is very important is having a sense of confidence in and trust of the motives and efforts and intentions of ones fellows (pts), which gives an ability to rely on other's work in trying to further your own. In a word trust.

After 35 years of effort trying to learn a very narrow and specific subset of geology within its overall context to the science as a whole and the the society in which I pursue it, I have not made much of any contribution, but everything I have contributed to the best of my ability has always been honest.  And for my confidence in my own honesty to be at least reasonably high, I have to make an effort to critically understand what others in that field are finding. To a great extent I have to trust that they too are making their best effort.

I will go away from the evolution question for a moment and portray instead a different motivation that I think corrupts the science - money. It is similar to creationism but I won't address that. Money can corrupt good science and produce phony science in abundance.  It happens all the time. In my specific field it happens mainly on stock exchanges where mineral properties that are probably worthless are touted as the next great gold rush. The scientists who provide the information that is turned into hype rationalize the dishonesty of it in some way. Often I am sure it is simply a matter of a marginally negative assessment being turned into a big winner because that is the only way to move investors.

So my conclusion is that yes indeed one can be a 'geologist' and still hold beliefs that are contradictory to the premise of the whole discipline,  and at the same time demonstrably of spurious origins.  I do not at all mean to imply that most scientists, in any field, are corrupt. But obviously, some are in every field, because of things like money, and self-serving beliefs.

Just as in this forum, you have to learn whom you can trust.

I want to make one last observation. I think that the purpose of attacking science, whether it be by political or polemical or other means, is intended solely and entirely to try to discredit its results.  The purveyors of the snake oil of faith realize that if the body politic understands the power of science they are doomed. Because they rely entirely on superstition.

I for one never cared whether someone clung to superstition or not, until they began to try to impose it on me.

My circumstances are such that I am able to communicate only for a few hours late in the day but I would like to continue the discussion of the threats and condition of science both academic and applied with those here who are serious about it.

That is to say to the creotards I intend to ignore you.

Date: 2010/03/02 00:18:32, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Thank you Jdog,

Since this thread has survived this long I will keep coming back to see if some interesting conversation arises.

Ciao,

Date: 2010/03/02 22:18:05, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
On the topic of professional dishonesty, it happens in all fields. There are dishonest judges, dishonest doctors, etc. etc. In most cases this may not involve intellectual dishonesty except in some narrow context  where it is easier and more lucrative to sell snakeoil than succeed in a competitive marketplace. There are many examples.

What is odd is that there are only a few fields in which dishonesty appears to be an actual requirement. As Huckleberry Finn so aptly put it - "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."

Another worthy quote is Feynman in Louis' signature line.  In my experience one of the most difficult things to do in science is to maintain a reasonably objective perspective on whether or not what you are working on leads to something, or is just flat wrong. Unfortunately, obtaining a meaningful answer to such questions can take decades of work and still be a dissapointment.  If you can manage to avoid fooling yourself, about the only option upon discovering you have been pursuing a dead end, is to go back and start over.

I am not an academic geologist doing research per se. I am more of an economic geologist, but to provide any service of value to my clients I have to stay aware of the current pertinent research, and I have to treat my own efforts and results as if they too are research. In a way this is more difficult that research in academia because what the explorationist seeks is some more efficacious method of detecting the very weak and complex signals of an undiscovered deposit,  or the discovery of entirely new kinds of deposits that are economically viable.  In my specialty pursuit of the former is more promising than pursuit of the latter.

After 35 years of effort investigating a fairly straightforward hypothesis to enhance the resolution of exploration methods such that identifyable targets  can be more highly constrained as to the probability they are viable for production, there is no conclusive result. This is far from a unique idea, I have many colleagues both in and out of academia who are working on the exact same problem though in different ways.  

I trust their intellectual honesty. Often in the passage of time we have encountered one another and argued with earnestness inf favor of our approaches. In the field of proprietary work it is not often that we get to share our results in detail but after a time everyone comes to know whether or not a particular undertaking has succeeded or not. And of course you can always simply ask, and depend upon getting an intellectually honest answer. "Did it work?" "No it didn't." Often because of the competitiveness and secrecy of exploration, you don't even know what "it" was.

Surrounding the small constellation of colleagues whom you trust is a much larger assortment of others who in some way touch upon the same aims. Some are professionals of otherwise good repute but who have some taint that pushes them off the main track and into the bush.  That group grades smoothly into hacks and cranks who have nothing but claim everything and whom, I guess manage to make a buck at it. Which is their only motive. Farther out still you have those who enrobe themselves in a science-like costume and then go forth to spew massive lies and defamation of anyone who disagrees with their foregone conclusions.  They seek to trade on the credibility of real science. As Russell put it so clearly, "For years we were told that faith could move mountains, and no one believed it. Now we are told that atom bombs can move mountains, and everyone believes it.

To some extent, I think the most irksome thing about the dialog with creotards is simply the fact that they have no skin in the game. They are essentially reading from a script.

So the topic I offer up is essentially this, is it possible to believe in something and not be a liar?

Date: 2012/03/17 02:23:10, Link
Author: Krubozumo Nyankoye
Very interesting thread, I have not been here much lately but I always enjoy my visits.

First, on topic, the Coppedge matter. Egregious as his behavior in the work environment was, this whole lawsuit sounds like a put up job to a)garner publicity for the 'academic freedom' ploy, and b) cast aspersions on JPL.  I hope he gets slapped down hard.

On the question of engineering v. science, it is partly just a cultural difference. Engineers are expected to have conventional solutions to a wide range of problems. Scientists on the other hand generally are faced with a wide range of problems for which there are no solutions and their charge is to discover some. When you are doing good science, you really are in a uncertain situation, it takes a certain kind of calm and self-assurance to cope with that uncertainty for years and years. I don't think that kind of environment appeals to the religious. They seem to have a kind of fetish about certainty. So perhaps it is natural that the religious gravitate towards engineering instead of science.  There are no doubt plenty of brilliant engineers who are confronted with similar difficulties to those of science when developing hardware or software for truly novel applications and uses. Like the engineers who developed the four computer decision system for the avionics of the shuttle. For the time and the technology it was a brilliant piece of work.

Since I kind of have a foot in both puddles, I have a certain empathy for all parties. I have known a few scientists who were good enough at what they did but who were pretty dogmatic in other respects. Perhaps the distinguishing factor is more like a kind of natural selection. There are far fewer niches for scientists than there are for engineers.  And those niches are a much tighter fit. There are plenty of jobs for engineers without a PhD. but not many for scientists. So the winnowing process is both brutal and highly selective.

If you think about it for a while it is a little amazing that JPL tolerated this guy's extracurricular activities for as long as they did. In his capacity as a sysadmin he was in an ideal position to totally fuck up the mission, and if he was clever about it, get away scot free while serving up a truck load of scorn and derision to those elite scientists. He certainly didn't seem to shy away from deriding the work that the mission produced in as public a way as possible. Perhaps he, and his collaborators, calculated that he could do more damage to science based policy and decisions by letting the mission play out and just fanatically contradicting every result published with his idiotic rants about A.S.S.

Or perhaps they just weren't clever enough to figure out a way to cover their tracks if they did overt sabotage.

Strange world we live in. Stranger than we can suppose.

 

 

 

=====