The "analysis" presented there is heavily laden with emotion, which reduces its own credibility in short order.
I know nothing about the Journal Of Cosmology, but the tone of this blog entry prevents me from accepting it as useful information, it comes across more as axe-grinding.
But let's assume JoC is a crackpot journal. Why is a NASA scientist publishing there?
Did he decide that NASA's credibility on alien life discoveries has not been damaged enough and he wanted to make it worse?
NASA employs many people. I worked there once myself. That there are crackpots and other less-than-credible folks working there is not only not surprising, but something I witnessed first hand. Despite popular culture's imagery, NASA is not some elite group of the world's finest intellects. It is really no more big a deal than working for a giant military contractor. In fact, most of the workers at NASA do work for a giant military contractor.
That said, I have nothing to offer on the actual subject at hand - the validity of the claims.
"But let's assume JoC is a crackpot journal. Why is a NASA scientist publishing there?"
He's publishing there because he couldn't publish it in a reputable journal, indicating its quality is rather low. I agree that this article doesn't take the most mature tone ever, but it breaks down what's wrong with the article itself further into it. It's unnecessary to rely on credibility at all; of the journal itself OR the fact that the guy worked at NASA.
I know nothing about the Journal Of Cosmology, but the tone of this blog entry prevents me from accepting it as useful information, it comes across more as axe-grinding.
But let's assume JoC is a crackpot journal. Why is a NASA scientist publishing there?
Did he decide that NASA's credibility on alien life discoveries has not been damaged enough and he wanted to make it worse?