Obviously many of the instruments are specialized, with huge requirements for turning the data into results.

But this is not true for the Hubble, or many other telescopes. And it isn't just space telescopes, the output of most earth based scopes are also off limits to everyone but a special few.

Even though public funds or taxes pay for them.

And you know it doesn't take a specialist to know what a three hour exposure by a big scope looks like.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

I'll let others debate how much of that data is, or would be, usefully distributed live. And simply ask again where is the example of a worthwhile discovery withheld?

And are you saying that you, as a typical taxpayer, are demanding EVERY single piece of data and telemetry from every spacecraft/test/experiment/operation be immediately broadcast on the internet, or via some other distribution system? Do you think that would be money well spent? All data, including that which may require intensive processing, crosschecking and expert interpretation, including telemetry from the craft?

Gee, I only speak for myself, but I'd prefer that the scientific community did their best NOT to spend my money on deluging me with data and providing the necessary interpretations, but instead got on with their job and just showed me the good stuff, or provided me with data if I could show that I needed it. I don't pretend to know better than them.

Now I also recognise that the line must be drawn somewhere, but you haven't as yet given any indication on where that line might be. Perhaps that is a good topic for another thread, but at the moment I don't see anything tangible to debate.

May I also ask - are you a recognised scientist/researcher in these fields? Have you actually *asked* to receive anything that is particularly meaningful or useful to you, that is not available? If so, what?

I am neither of those, by the way, but at least three times during the various conversations I have had with space agencies (not just NASA) the result has been that the representative has happily sent me information that was 'unreleased' (or at least I couldn't find it!). On one occasion it was an image that simply wasn't online, on another a much higher resolution TIF to replace a low-res JPG, and on the third, it was a table of data and graph.

I would hazard a guess that >90% of the information coming in to these agencies would be useless without interpretation, and mostly dead boring to anyone who wasn't working in the field. And I would be horrified to learn that my money was being spent so wastefully if it was all distributed.

I would bet 99% of the information from large optical telescopes would be of great interest to many astronomers, or at least the ones interested in optical astronomy. Many of them have multiple sensor arrays, and because computers are used and the data is digital, it is easy to share data worldwide.

That this is not done, has nothing to do with technology, or obstacles to analyzing and adjusting the output.

__________________
smile, and the Universe smiles with you

Why, exactly? If they are after the best resolution or light gathering, or wish to examine 'well-known' objects in the best possible detail, then clearly Hubble images would be the go. If they wish to see specific areas, they can already (for a very small fee, admittedly) sign up for an online 'drive-yourself' membership at some scopes, or simply.. buy some time.

And again, which scopes are you specifically referring to, so we can discuss what they DO/DON'T offer and why/why not.

Many of them also charge for usage, so why shouldn't they try to recoup costs by NOT supplying data for free? And if someone has paid to use the telescope, do you think they should offer 'their' data for free?


So you are clearly implying you know why - please elaborate.

All Hubble data is eventually released to all, but the scientist[s] who may have spent years working on the proposal which the Hubble collected the data for do get some time to work with that data first.
In general that is to prevent people who might have more experience working with Hubble data (which can be hard to grok I have heard) coming in and scooping them.

If you have a better solution to that problem I'm sure they would be interested in hearing it.

In your screed you go on about 'NASA' yet ignore the actual scientists who use Hubble and other telescopes. The ones who do make the actual discoveries.

Firstly, the data live as it comes in won't make sense. It needs to be converted first. My wife has seen raw Hubble data and it is meaningless as it is.

Secondly, this is science. People spend literally years designing proposals for time on these instruments. They get that data first because it is their project. It's only fair to give them a period to analyse the data they spent ages working up to acquiring.

Thirdly, I would be most of the data is available if you know where to look for it. The media is crammed full of the images that these telescopes take. Cassini, for example, has a whole section on the NASA website full of the raw images from the Saturn system.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

OK - I will

European Southern Observatory

http://arch-http.hq.eso.org/ESO-ECF-Archive.html
Hubble
http://archive.stsci.edu/
This also includes data not only from Hubble, but also
FUSE
IUE
EUVE
HUT
UIT
WUPPE
BEFS
IMAPS
TUES
DSS
SDSS
(list here : http://archive.stsci.edu/mast_faq.php?mission=MAST#10 )

CFHT Science Archive
http://www2.cadc-ccda.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cadc/
That includes..

CFHT Archive CGPS Archive Gemini Archive JCMT Archive
BLAST FUSE Archive HST Archive MOST
CFHTLS MACHO

The SWIFT spacecraft data
http://www.swift.ac.uk/

Is that enough for you to be getting on with - or would you like some more?

You want more?

OK

The PDS Imaging Node

http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/
Mars Odyssey
Cassini
Clementine
Galileo
Magellan
Mars Express
Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Pathfinder
MRO
Messenger
Phoenix
Viking
Voyager

The PDS Small Bodies Node
http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/missions/index.html
Deep Impact
DS1
Galileo
Giotto
ICE/ISEE
NEAR
Sakigake
Suisei
Stardust
Vega 1
Vega 2
Cassini
Hayabusa (was Muses C)
Rosetta
Ulysses
New Horizons
EPOXI
Dawn
Stardust-NExT

PDS Planetary Ring Node
http://pds-rings.seti.org/
New Horizons
Cassini
Voyager
Galileo
Hubble Telescope
Saturn RPX 1995
Uranus RPX 2007

I'll leave it at that for now - once you've looked through ALL of that, then by all means come back with a NASA/ESA funded instrument for which I've not given you a link for data - and I'll go find you one.

In the meantime - please retract your claim and apologise to the scientists and engineers whose integrity you so hideously defamed.

Wouldn't some sort of live feed from all the instruments currently orbiting the Earth, not to mention those beyond LEO, involve a significant expense in addition to the other issues already mentioned? Speaking as a UK taxpayer I'd rather they spent the money on more space projects than an unintelligble data stream.

Just to stop this rediculous discussion about data not being available for the general public, I would like to point, especially Robinson to one great service by NASA called the Planetary Data System (PDS).

Here ALL the data of NASA missions are collected in usable form and as one can read in the FAQ:

Also, it is not NASA that did not publish the results about water on the moon, it was the researchers working on the data that were not sure whether they had a point or not. Just the fact that it was in a NASA press release, does not mean that NASA took the decision.

And then there is the European companion of PDS at ESA, which is called Planetary Science Archive (PSA), which serves the same purpose.

But is it not easy to make such data bases. For one it takes time to analyse the data and to put them into the correct format. The data need to be calibrated, be put into useful coordinates, be documented etc.

I myself just reviewed two data sets of magnetic field measurements of an event that happened in August last year (cannot say yet which mission, because of non-disclosure agreements). These data are made usable by the instrument groups, and I checked them if they were indeed good enough to work with. Then I wrote a report, and the files need to be corrected a bit still. And then they will be put into both PDS and PSA, and then basically EVERYONΕ can use the data.

So, please stop with this utter nonsense of data not being available, you just don't know where the data is available. Now, have fun collecting the data from the two websites.

ETA:

Ah, I missed djellison's message, with a very extensive list of where data are available.

Naturally, the THEMIS data are also available online.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

For some these are available, for e.g. Cluster you can go to the ESA CSDS website and when DoubleStar was still working there was the DDMS website at the Space Research Insitute in Graz, Austria. Maybe not the latest data, because they have to be collected and produced, that summary plots can be made.

For the THEMIS mission, see the previous post, in a few days the data are on the web.

Then there are lots of websites with data from all the spacecraft circling Earth, as that is very much needed for space physics.

And "unintelligible data stream" is just in the eye of the beholder. What may look to you as just some wiggling lines, will show me that something very interesting has happened in e.g. the Eart's magnetotail. Some data comes in streams that will be "unintelligible" for the general public, that cannot be helped. I did not study and write a PhD thesis for nothing.

Naturally, all the pictures that are send down are good for the general public, but more often than not pics in the visual range only deliver very little scientific content. (one exception e.g. is pics of the ice blocks on Europa, from which a minimal thickness of the ice layer could be determined).

You said: "I'd rather they spent the money on more space projects than an unintelligble data stream." But every space project mission will send "unintelligible data streams" for you, because most measurements cannot BUT be presented as data streams (magnetic and electric field, plasma, radio waves etc. etc.).

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

FWIW - There is as in-near-to-real-time data as feasible from some.

The GOES / Meteosat / Terra / Aqua / Envisat sats are spitting out stuff in near to realtime.
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/index.htm
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://miravi.eo.esa.int/en/

Ditto SOHO
http://sohowww.estec.esa.nl/

Spirit and Opportunity do so as well
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/

As does Cassini
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/raw/

Robinson is one of those unique people who's demanding things that he clearly has no real interest in - because if he did, he would know it's already out there waiting for him. He's seen these replies - he's active in another thread. He is yet to grace us with a reply.

Sorry but I think you've rather gotten the wrong idea of what I was saying. My point was that some sort of twenty-four hour a day stream from all these satellites transmitted for all the world to see, which seemed to be what Robinson was asking for, would be a waste of money. I wasn't implying the data was innately unitelligble or that it shouldn't distributed at the appropriate time to the scientific community, just that it would be meaningless for most people and thus Robinson's suggestion would just take money away from the kind of science you are describing.

Indeed, I misunderstood, sorry about that ole chap!

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

No problem, you were simply defending science, can't argue with that.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Who gets the credit for this ground breaking discovery? Nasa or India?

Those institutions and more.

NASA Press Release: NASA Instruments Reveal Water Molecules on Lunar Surface

Credit the team.

VOA News: Scientists Report Finding Water on Moon:

Credit at least three craft, and the people and the institutions behind them: Chandrayaan, EPOXI, and Cassini.

ScieneNow: A Whiff of Water Found on the Moon

If you want to know more about the announcement, and are not interested in the ill-founded charges that research scientists somehow owe us a duty to tell us their suspicions, see topic LRO press conference, 2009-09-17 and other topics in the Space Exploration section.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Oh sorry, I thought that was the fundamental charter of scientists. By all means, don't share your suspicions - someone will laugh at you or worse, god forbid, take your data and run with it.

Sit on any and all data that is inconclusive or contradictory until 1) You find an answer. 2) Someone else publishes similar results; at which time you can jump on the bandwagon with your earlier but inconclusive or controversial data.

The PDS is a great resource, but it is far from complete. Check out this link:

http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/vi...IS-2-SPEC-V1.1

See if you can find and UVIS spectra of Iapetus. I can't, but I think there should be some UVIS spectra of Iapetus, because the Fly-by announcements said there would be, and because some UVIS results that are in the photo journal:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Iapetus

There are thumbnails for both a Jpeg and a tiff file:

PIA10009:
Two Ultraviolet Views of Iapetus
Full Resolution: TIFF (8.64 MB) JPEG (253.6 kB)

But I find nothing when I look for UVIS spectra of Iapetus:

http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/data-s...pectrograph%2C

So either I don't know how to search, the spectral indexes are incomplete, or the data has been embargoed.

In any case I don't see this as suspicious; only as evidence something might not be fully understood and some scientist(s), somewhere might not be sharing, but are waiting for confirmation of their suspicions.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Correct - you don't.

The big PDS search tool is broken. Of course, because evidence of scientists hiding data is critical to your case - you wouldn't DREAM of looking elsewhere for it, would you?

http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/data...sini/UVIS.html

Specifically - the Sept 20th 2007 data of the photojournal image that was here
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10009

http://atmos.nmsu.edu/pdsd/archive/d...ATA/D2007_253/

An index further detailing the timing / location etc of observations is also available here
http://atmos.nmsu.edu/pdsd/archive/d...is_0020/INDEX/

Those familiar to the PDS would know this. It's easy to find after just a tiny bit of exposure to it.

It's all there Jerry. You just don't WANT it to be so you can launch criticism at those whose scientific research is contrary to your compositional/gravitational ATM nonsense.

You're not a scientist, are you? I am. Let me assure you it is certainly NOT the 'fundamental charter' of scientists to publish any and all results as they come in. Science is, first and foremost, a profession, a job. If I simply publish all my research as I do it the result could be a total disaster for me and the company I work for.

That IS worse. If I spend years drawing up proposals for research, acquiring the funding to carry it out, designing and building the hardware to do it, and so on, and someone else takes my data and publishes it with their own conclusions, what have I gained? The people who funded me want to know why I wasted their money if I couldn't do anything with the information. I may lose my job. If it's a public announcement then the professional embarrassment could be a disaster.

That's how real science works.

That's not bandwagon jumping. That is independent confirmation of your own results. Again, it's how science works.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Yeah, awfully sorry ole chap, but it takes time for the data to be put into PDS, not just every data bit will be in there, the data get processed and reviewed by independent researchers and then they will be put into PDS, so NO do NOT expect the latest raw data to be available to you immediately. Apparently you think what comes from the spacecraft can immediately be distributed into your mailbox.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Just to reiterate - the specific UVIS observation to which Jerry links IS in the PDS - he just didn't spend long enough looking. I have provided links to it above.

If you want help finding any other data sets you believe to not be out there, then by all means shout and I'm sure we can help you find it. Rather than than utterly unjustified defamation of scientists because you couldn't be bothered to look hard enough.

I trust you now intend to USE that dataset for your own research?

The idea of holding onto your data until you find a conclusion is hardly new. Do you think Galileo started telling people, "Hey, I've found this dots around Jupiter"? Or do you think he waited until he had enough to show someone? Do you think early astronomers published their exhaustive sky charts as they created them? As I recall, Kepler didn't even get his hands on all of Tycho Brahe's research until Brahe died!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oh sorry, I thought that was the fundamental charter of scientists.

If science had a fundamental charter, it would probably be to get the right answer and to know that it was the right answer -- at least within the ability of prevailing methods to determine that.

By all means, don't share your suspicions...

By all means don't -- at least not with the world at large. Suspicions are not findings, but they seem often to be taken as such.

Science distinguishes itself from the lesser-respected discipline of Making It Up As You Go precisely by applying time-tested controls on the processes of obtaining and reasoning about observations.

In the course of study a scientist may arrive at certain ideas. And especially in publicly funded science it is common for scientists to confer privately about those suspicions. But that does not mean necessarily releasing that information and findings to the world at large for comment.

...someone will laugh at you...

And with good cause. Again, science distinguishes itself by careful deliberation, not by following every whim of supposition.

...or worse, god forbid, take your data and run with it.

Yes. Science is expensive. People who fund the research can expect that the people they gave their money to will be the ones to present the findings, according to the proposal by which the funding was issued. The business of science is secondary to the philosophy of science, but it is nevertheless a factor to reckon with.

Sit on any and all data that is inconclusive or contradictory until 1) You find an answer.

Yes, that is the proper procedure. To do otherwise would be reckless and irresponsible. Good science distinguishes itself from junk science precisely by its restraint against releasing unsure findings.

Science is not an antiseptically pure process of just reading numbers off a dial that tell you exactly what you want to know. It requires, for example, clever methods of observing what are often only secondary indications of the property you wish to measure. It requires knowing the various ways in which things can go wrong. There is a lot of room for error.

In short, when you get unexpected results in science, it's far more likely that you screwed something up to get them, not that your understanding is about to be fundamentally redirected. Hence it's prudent to see if someone else's experiment, designed differently or perhaps using better equipment, produces compatible results. Much scientific inquiry is based on correcting the methodological errors or observational shortcomings of prior work.

...2) Someone else publishes similar results; at which time you can jump on the bandwagon with your earlier but inconclusive or controversial data.

Yes: the difference being that your once inconclusive findings are now more conclusive and reliable by having been duplicated by others or supported by congruent measurements and reasoning.

Science is a bandwagon in the sense that it is based on the notion that reliable findings are obtained by people performing inquiries using the same real-world methods, the same observational controls, and the same modes of reasoning -- albeit with enough variation to discount flukes in the experiments.

So either I don't know how to search...

That's apparently the case.

Further, it is only in the past few years that "availability" has come to mean pointing and clicking for free from the comfort of one's own armchair. The availability of scientific data has not always implied that it should be absurdly easy to obtain, nor that it should be delivered to you for free. In times past, I've spent days tracking down the curators of data -- not because the data are hidden, but because the points of contact are just naturally obscure enough. And I had to pay for copies of the 9-track tape -- a reasonable request. And I had to wait a week for it to be shipped to me. And I had to spend a morning figuring out the IBM JCL to read an unlabeled tape. (And trust me: it was a DD that would make a grown man weep.)

Just because you can't reach raw scientific data in a few mouse clicks doesn't mean it's being "embargoed."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yup, there's more to the world than a wide web.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It is precisely this 'throwing all your findings out without checking' that leads to HBs being so utterly embarrassed in public debate with real scientists. They look at the pictures, see something odd to them, and immediately begin shouting about it without checking. I see something odd, then go and look around a bit and see if it comes up in any other context, then revise my opinion of what constitutes 'odd'.

For the worst example of this, see the book by Phillipe Lehreux. He claims to have done a decent bit of research, then immediately published his 'findings' without doing any more work. The result of this is that he asks questions that can be answered within minutes of looking at some footage. For example he asks how Armstrong descended the LM ladder with a camera attached to his chest (he didn't) and why he didn't check to ensure he could get back up onto the bottom rung of the LM ladder when he found it 3ft off the ground (he did). Those questions are answered within five minutes of the start of the Apollo 11 EVA TV footage, but he didn't check.

But that approach is precisely what Jerry is advocating all scientists should actually do. Forgive me if I want to avoid professional embarrassment and ridicule by holding on to my data until I know what it shows.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

That is the definition of a scientific technician, not a scientist.
Whoooh! That sounds like an admonition of/to a priest or a monk, not a scientist!

The falsification process requires whims and suppositions.

I remember laughing when it was first proposed that dinosaurs were bird-like. But then someone measured a stride and calculated velocity; someone else found feathers, someone else evidence of hollow bones, and all in the sudden a laughable concept became the latest-and-greatest-truth and a long-held theory was disproven. If someone had not first proposed a laughable theory (based upon very limited evidence); and everyone followed the JayUtah-school of not sharing their suspicions; the whole picture might never have emerged.

Someone (on the board) once describe a scientist as someone you believe without question an answer they give to describe something they once said was impossible. It was impossible to chemically bond an inert gas. We laughed about expanding ocean floors when I was a kid, too.

To carefully deliberate, you have to have all the facts. But when the facts don't jive with the evidence you have a quandry. There are far too many astrophysical quandries to solomnly assert a distinguished careful deliberation clause. There is room for some suspicions and whims.

That is bean counting, not science. Most fundamental research is publicly funded and requires public accountability, not only of the beans, but of the results. ON THE WHOLE the release of data from missions like Cassini-Huygens are exceptionally good - especially when compared with mission like whatever it is the ESA has circling Venus (I gave up waiting for data so long ago I forgot.)

But there are a few annoying sags.

LASP/Colorado is the Cassini UVIS homesite - I found it in Dellison's references. So if you want to know what is new in UVIS, it seems like a likely place to look. But there are only two entries in the 'Whats new pages' (plus one in 'what's new archives); and only one paper (published in 2003) referenced in the "publications' tag. So I get to be frustrated looking for UVIS data:


http://lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/whats_new/

...three paragraphs in two years? No publications listed since 2003? No clue of what the 'dark stuff' could be? Could somebody be sitting on some suspicions?

So each of the good little scientists studying bird-like characteristics in dinosours should have sat on their data until someone who did not have all of the relevant facts surmised Dinosour theorists of yesteryear laid an egg.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That is the definition of a scientific technician, not a scientist.

I disagree. This is a direct question: what exactly are your academic qualifications and certifications as a scientist? Please name the accredited institutions where you have practiced as a professional science.

Since you seem to be setting yourself up as a judge of proper scientific practice, you have made relevant your qualifications to sit in such judgment. I will therefore compel you to answer these questions as a premise to your argument.

Whoooh! That sounds like an admonition of/to a priest or a monk, not a scientist!

Do you have any arguments that do not boil down to insubstantial ridicule of accepted scientific practice and methodology?

The falsification process requires whims and suppositions.

No, it specifically eschews them.

If someone had not first proposed a laughable theory...

Just because you laughed doesn't make it laughable.

Someone (on the board) once described a scientist as...

Please address my arguments, not what someone else has said.

To carefully deliberate, you have to have all the facts.

No. One must first carefully deliberate whether one has facts, or whether one merely has the appearance of fact because of some intervening factor for which he did not account, or some effect whose precise cause cannot be determined because additional information is required.

Scientific observation and generalization are difficult and error-prone. That is why unexpected results are not immediately published: it is more likely that unexpected results are the product of error.

But when the facts don't jive with the evidence you have a quandry.

When the facts don't jive with the evidence you have to carefully determine which of them is in error. That may require additional study and conference, during which time it would be irresponsible to assert one or the other.

There is room for some suspicions and whims.

Not under color of formal findings. If you wish to hob-nob informally with scientists, then go to where scientists do that. Do not expect them to publish their suspicions and whims for your amusement and count on everyone to respect the difference.

That is bean counting, not science.

Nevertheless it is a factor that affects the behavior of professional scientists and their funding agencies. You may not set it aside simply because it is uncomfortable to your view.

Most fundamental research is publicly funded and requires public accountability, not only of the beans, but of the results.

Your notion of "public accountability" is not the gold standard. You seem to lack any meaningful experience for how science actually works. If you wish it to be different, then so be that wish. But you seem to be crying fraud for no apparent reason other than your desire to have things your way.

But there are a few annoying sags.

Things that annoy you personally do not qualify as an "embargo" of scientific data. You impose an unreasonable standard on the "availability" of scientific data.

Could somebody be sitting on some suspicions?

Are you asserting that someone is? What have you done to determine the actual cause for the data you perceive to be missing?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This is the definition of your tirade against UVIS. The data was out there, but you couldn't be bothered to go and find it. The fact that it IS out there now leaves you with a problem, because firstly, I doubt you even know how to use it, secondly, I doubt you know how to interpret it, and thirdly, it deflates your hope that the UVIS team simply publish the 'mainstream view' that you were hoping would be counteracted by their data which you hoped they were hiding.

They're hiding the VIMS data you said. And so I provided a link to it.

They're hiding the UVIS data you said. And so I provided link to it.

'Prescious little' of the Phoebe flyby data release you said? I think we've demonstrated, with evidence - that's it's ALL BEEN RELEASED>

ALL of it Jerry.

Had you equipped yourself with, you know, ALL THE FACTS first then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.

You owe them (all those science teams) and us an apology for defamy, lying, and wilful ignorance.

Oh yeah. If Jerry ran the zoo... we'd all be eatin' steak. Or something.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)