As a scientist I don't deal in proofs. But the evidence is clear: Scientific American, good read though it occasionally is, simply regurgitates past scientific findings that hopefully have been peer-reviewed elsewhere. There's no peer-reviewing of articles in SA. Technical matters are watered down so that reasonably intelligent non-specialist readers won't struggle. All good. But that's the very epitome of a popular science magazine. The fact that you don't see it that way speaks volumes about your own rather shaky scientific literacy, and that's putting it kindly. I see we've been somewhat deleted. I could suggest that your penchant for silly insults could be a contributory factor, though there are doubtless others.