Before stumbling on that, i was listening to Linda Moulton Howe on Coast to Coast AM describing "red rain cells" - apparently an odd form of life of non-Earthly origin, living yet lacking DNA. Hmm. Really so? Or some more mundane and known, just not recognized by nonexperts? With only modest effort websurfing, it's easy to find at least one intriguing news story or announcement or proclamation about something wild and exotic, freaky, totally new or otherwise superbly interesting. How many really lead to something?

Earthfiles had, just a few months ago, in July IIRC, images of Saturn's rings showing an odd spot of light. Fascinating and puzzling to non-experts, but as a Saturn imaging expert and someone who has lunch with other Saturn imaging experts, i knew right away what it was, and though it is a cool sight, it's hardly newsworthy or exotic. Linda published an expert-provided explanation. That's integrity. I can imagine cheesier "news" site operators playing up images like that, ignoring comments from experts.

Another integrity item in the news today: a chemist who wrote a paper over 50 years ago containing some speculations and extrapolations that didn't pan out over time, officially retracted that paper. Pseudoscientific nuts were citing the paper to support their nut ideas. I'd look up the name and details, but the sand is dry so i resume my work....