I was too busy to comment at the time, but when I saw this post at NASA Watch the other day, I said "Huh?"

In recent days [Courtney] Stadd has made it known to people that he would be interested in the position of Deputy Administrator - if asked.

My own sources indicate that Courtney could have had the administrator job, back before O'Keefe was picked, but didn't want it because he couldn't afford to take it, and didn't want to become as consumed with it as he'd have had to in order to even hope to straighten out the agency. So why would he now be interested in playing second banana to Mike Griffin, when the workload would be just as high, and the pay and authority less? As Keith notes, however, Courtney has denied it (as I would have expected).

From Stadd's comment to NASAWatch:
"Honestly, if you had called me before publishing it, I would have told you that I am simply NOT a candidate."

There you have (one of) NASAWatch's problems in a nutshell: rumors and not even the most basic fact checking. Not the first time this has happened. Sadly, it is surely not the last.

I "checked my facts", Trevor.

Believe what you wish. Multiple aerospace sources in Washington recounted personal, very recent conversations with Courtney wherein he said exactly what I first reported. If Courtney now wants to make a public statement to the contrary, its up to him to live with the fact that there are a lot of people scratching their heads as to why he changed his tune from what he had told them - to what he is saying now.

> Multiple aerospace sources in Washington recounted personal, very recent
> conversations with Courtney wherein he said exactly what I first reported.

And if you hear rumors from multiple sources, it's gotta be true -- especially when those sources won't reveal their names in public. If the story wasn't true, why would they hide their identities.

Don't let the cigarette smoking man intimidate you, Keith. The truth is out there!

Yawn. More taunts about anonymous sources from anonymous posters.

I would take these tipoffs would be more useful if there were some indication of the position and credibility of these sources, such as "a senior NASA official" or "a congressional staffer familiar with the search process" etc. etc.

Kevin: yes, and yes - plus industry.

"yes, and yes - plus industry."

And yet somehow it never occurred to you to call up the subject of your story for comment?

How many times has this happened to you? Do you start to see a pattern?

Trevor: And yet somehow it never occurred to you to call up the subject of your story for comment?

He said what he said. I don't need to confirm what he says he said when I have half a dozen individuals who had the conversation with him. Moreover, the story was also about what people were saying here in Washington on a daily basis (where are you?) - and many more people have been floating his name.

Trevor: Do you start to see a pattern?

Yes Trevor, I see a pattern. You don't like NASA Watch. Save yourself the aggravation: don't read it. You'll feel better, I promise.

> He said what he said. I don't need to confirm what he says he said when I have half a dozen individuals
> who had the conversation with him.

Exactly. If not for rumors from mysterious "individuals," we never would have known the White House was going to announce a new Administrator back in February

Or that NASA was going to make a really big announcement related to life on Mars last year.

Or that NASA astronauts never walked on the Moon.

Individuals cannot speak openly about such things because of the Conspiracy, so they rely on reporters like Keith Cowing and Art Bell to protect their identities.

I myself have spoken to half a dozen individuals who tell me the Moon landings were filmed on a sound stage in Nevada. They include "a senior NASA official" and "a congressional staffer" plus "industry," so it must be true just as everything reported on NASA Watch is true.

If not, then secret accusations are not reliable and my name isn't Fox Mulder.

Yawn^2 --- Yet another complaint about anonymous sources from an anonymous poster. Sort of cancels each other out.

"I don't need to confirm what he says he said when I have half a dozen individuals who had the conversation with him."

You claim that he said it based upon anonymous sources. He claims he did not say it. Rand Simberg is himself highly skeptical. And none of this explains why you never bothered to pick up a telephone and ask him yourself. If you had, you wouldn't be cleaning that egg off your face right now.

Obviously you never took a journalism class, because making a phone call to the subject of a story is a basic rule that you break repeatedly.

Have a nice day, Trevor.

that is messed up i find a page with a guy who has my first name talking(or typing) to a guy with my last name. crazy