b) You have no evidence that that they didn't have sources, no evidence that they have ulterior motives and no evidence that they published the article without evidence.
c) Like you said if it was a year of effort by top-shelf journalists surely there is more to the story than simply "nothing".
> ...there is more to the story than simply "nothing".
Well, where is it? Seriously, where?
Bloomberg made the assertion, a serious one that moved markets, and now it's on them to prove it. Or at least someone needs to step forward with something that remotely corroborates the story.
It's a hard-to-believe claim on a technical basis alone like something straight out of James Bond story. It was a year in the making and now approaching 5 months later and still nothing?
b) You have no evidence that that they didn't have sources, no evidence that they have ulterior motives and no evidence that they published the article without evidence.
c) Like you said if it was a year of effort by top-shelf journalists surely there is more to the story than simply "nothing".