I dislike the whole opening about &quot;superluminal neutrinos&quot;. That announcement was asking for others to identify the issue with the testing rig, as they figured there was one but could not find it themselves. As far as I know, the only ones to claim the existence of superluminal neutrinos were the media.<p>I agree that there is an unacceptable stigma against certain fields of research (look at how long it is taking to test the EM drive, which has been reproduced how many times already?), but I don&#x27;t see a problem in not believing someone already convicted of fraud when they claim to have discovered something but won&#x27;t let you see how it works.<p>Until findings are reproduced, I give this the same level of credibility I give this guy:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=fEJtsC5sVZA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=fEJtsC5sVZA</a>