Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. Speaking of ignorance of the scientific method... Look, this is what science is about.

Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. Speaking of ignorance of the scientific method... Look, this is what science is about. It's an accomplishment of multiplicitous scepticism over time. Imagine if people had harbored the same iron-clad certainty as to the completeness of Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. They'd probably say something along the lines of, "Sure, there are things that point to space-time distortion around heavy bodies, but that's not the case." And if they were feeling particularly sinister, they'd follow up with, "Look at the wikipedia entry for the facts." Many things once held to be true are revolutionized by advances in technology. There is absolutely no reason to question the rigour and knowledge with which the Danish expert approached this study. A cursory look (which we seem so fond of today) at his credentials reveals a man of some experience: http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 Science is objective scepticism over many, many cycles. It's not a cursory look at a wikipedia page.