I wrapped up the last page by saying you should listen to the professional scientists when our opinions differ and I've said that many times before so I thought I would dedicate a page to their expressed written thoughts.
The difficulty with this comes from the fact that when the Pro-fessionals present their papers they are usually very non biased with their suppositions. They tend to present more than one possible scenario when postulating their theories and their interpretation and presentation of information seems mostly non biased but then in a press release they follow a party line train of thought. Their papers tend to be balanced with multiple options describing a scene while on the other hand their media message follows one train of thought.
On the Con side when their message is brought to the media it mostly all aligns in one predetermined direction. The thing is, I have a problem with deception. When a scientist presents one set of facts in a paper then sells another version in the media it borders on being deceptive. I understand most of this message duality comes from self deception (not some conspiracy) but its a slippery slope once started upon.
Pro-fessional scientists have written multiple papers on Pluto. What I wanted to do on this page is present a version of the message derived from the papers using their words, compare it to their media Con-trived message and explain why I stand for (pro) or against (con) these points of view.