I am baffled by the article&#x27;s frequent use of the word Kepler. The first mention is correct: &quot;New planets are uncovered all the time, thanks to Kepler. In fact, the mission just unearthed a stash of more than 1,200 new exoplanets, bringing its total haul to over 3,200.&quot;<p>This refers to the Kepler Mission[1] which points to a fixed spot in interstellar space and finds exoplanets. But that mission has NOTHING to do with our solar system. It isn&#x27;t pointed anywhere near the solar ecliptic and couldn&#x27;t see a local planet if it was.<p>So when it says &quot;That lack of reflective light made it hard for Kepler to even spot the planet&quot; it is being ignorantly misleading, and when it says &quot;although Kepler managed to catch brief glimpse in 2014&quot; it is just wrong. &quot;the Konkoly researchers hadn’t thought to pair NASA Kepler data with ESA Herschel data&quot; -- for very good reason, Kepler data would be completely irrelevant. &quot;information about the amount of light the planet was reflecting from Kepler...&quot; again, completely impossible and wrong.<p>The byline is Ria Misra, clearly a person who should not be allowed to write about astronomy anytime soon.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;kepler.nasa.gov&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;kepler.nasa.gov&#x2F;</a>