Like that makes it true. Do you believe everything the government writes? Are you going to believe the Obama speech today? It was produced for a proponent of ID. It is not a bipartisan report, it isn't even a full commission report that's been approved. It's just a staff report to a Congressman who is on Sternberg's side. And I just established the false conclusion in it.
it was an active conspiracy to remove Sternberg from the Smithsonian.
So, was he removed? Did he lose his keys? Did he lose his office? Did he lose access to the collections? You can't actually show repercussions against Sternberg, can you? Hell, you can't even show repercussions for his actual violations of SI procedures regardless of his beliefs.
By your logic Squeaky Fromme was innocent because she missed Gerald Ford.
Applying this logic, Fromme would have realized that shooting Ford was a bad thing and never even tried. Some of the SI scientists were calling for his head because of the stunt he pulled, but the management ignored them.
Contrary to you establishing persecution, I've proven Sternberg got special consideration because of his beliefs.
It is backed up by more than your opinions. And there are actually two reports. One by the OSC and the other the in depth Congressional report that I referenced.
Are you going to believe the Obama speech today?
Red Herring.
It is not a bipartisan report, it isn't even a full commission report that's been approved. It's just a staff report to a Congressman who is on Sternberg's side. And I just established the false conclusion in it.
Another red herring. There were two investigations, OSC and Congressional. What is really telling is your concern that the report be bipartisan. We all know what that means. Only Democrats insist bi-partisanship.
So, was he removed? Did he lose his keys? Did he lose his office? Did he lose access to the collections? You can't actually show repercussions against Sternberg, can you? Hell, you can't even show repercussions for his actual violations of SI procedures regardless of his beliefs.
Irrelevant, the conspiracy existed. What SI procedures did he violate?
Contrary to you establishing persecution, I've proven Sternberg got special consideration because of his beliefs.
Brother are you screwed up. Only you can consider a conspiracy against a person as something beneficial. You've proved nothing but you've spouted a lot of opinion which has been debunked by the facts. The article was peer-reviewed. And NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.