Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam

was directed at the scientific community, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2.pdf makes no mention of asking for help to understand where the problem is. It simply announces a new result and the checks that were made to "ensure" that it was correct (as is common in any other scientific publication announcing a new result). 5. Immediate reactions from several leading minds in high energy physics were against the validity of the result. Perhaps these people should have been contacted before if they weren't sure of the result? 6. Shortly after the announcement was made, dozens of papers popped up "explaining" the result from every possible angle and receiving varying degrees of media coverage, further giving the impression to the general public that scientists don't know what they are talking about. Based on all of this, my conclusion can be just one. This was a publicity stunt that backfired. As a result, people lost their jobs and science was shamed in the public eyes. Nothing more than disservice to science in exchange for 15m of fame...

frame of the moving clock, you've got to transform the length between the stations in accord with the Lorentz transformation. According to this author CERN already did this, so it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion - I couldn't verify this, because it's not mentioned in the CERN paper he referenced. 1) What they did not do (according to this paper) is account for the fact that in the satellite frame, during the neutrino's flight the receiver station was moving towards the source. 2) time = distance / rate 3) CERN used rate = c, but they should have used rate = c + v because the receiver station was moving towards the neutrino. That is quite literally the entire thing, check the math in the paper if you don't believe me. This is not a claim that CERN somehow misapplied special relativity, it's a claim that they simply forgot to include the motion of the receiver. IMO this is far too elementary a mistake to have been missed for this long, so I'm suspicious. The CERN paper that the author references (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1) doesn't discuss relativistic corrections at all, so I don't know why the author assumes this mistake has been made, perhaps he's reading another paper that he didn't reference? From the OPERA one that he links (though I haven't read it in too much detail) I get the sense that if it was this simple, one of the many calibration tests that they've done would have easily caught the error (they talk about a lot of bidirectional synchronization stuff), so for now, at least, I would take this with a grain of salt.