Journals published SR, GR, QM and QFT from their earliest days. Journals publish mistakes from time to time, even when that mistake is contradicted by popular belief. (Monopole discovery, medical effects which turn out to be wrong, statistically invalid reanalysis of old experimental data, etc.) So where is your evidence that journals have a filter that rejects non-mainstream good science and math? Please explain how this 1935 paper fits in "the mainstream." -- This "mainstream filter" appears to not only fictional but wholly undescribed. Instead, we get Jack_ who doesn't address why D'(t') < D(t) is not proof the the Lorentz transform doesn't predict length contraction directly without any tedious need to simulate beams of light or rulers passing each other in the night. We have someone who thinks his personal misunderstandings give rise to a valid proof. We have someone appearantly mystified by over 150 years of experimental demonstrations that space and time are not absolute, who accepts as an axiom the Lorentz transform but can't work out its basic implications.