== Keeping the speculative papers giving explanations for a fictitious phenomenon == 

 Since the team members have resigned, users D.H. and Strebe have removed quite a large amount of very well sourced content ().I think that this content should be kept in the article, as it clearly shows how the scientific community reacted to the experiment, so i.m.o. the content remains relevant to the article. While some of these publications and (now probably moot) explanations might be embarrassing for some authors, I don't think it is up to us to decide that. I actually think that the decision to remove all this, could be interpreted as a (mild) form of original research. I propose we keep all of this in the article. Any seconds? -