Back to our regular programming... arrogance is something of a occupational hazard for physicists.
I think that we should stop using the term antineutrino. - is an opinion, inherently arrogant, and invites the response "you are allowed to think what you like" or "so what?" You do try to support this opinion with some facts, but you don't support the facts empirically (that citation I asked for would have been a good start). BTW: I had to suppress my initial reaction to this - you get a thick skin after a while but sometimes it gets a bit much. It's usually better just to ignore the arrogant bits - they tend to go away in the ensuing discussion. Besides, there is a faint chance it may be justified. I focussed on answering the question.
But you didn't ask a question. Answering questions is kinda what we do here so you must be implying a question in there someplace. The implicit question, here is likely something like: "is this opinion well founded?" The answer to this implicit question is "no".
The stated observations are reasons to consider the possibility but not good enough to draw conclusions. The evidence is still coming in. Look how long it took to work out that neutrinos had mass... this is not going to be resolved in a hurry. [When I was a senior undergrad, neutrinos were massless - but we were aware of experiments being performed to check. Next year, as a post grad, the matter was decided and I had the heady experience of taking a pen to my text-books and editing them. An arrogant move: what? I know better than the authors? Well ... yes. It was a justified arrogance.]
One of the things we do here is to try work out how someone expressing a poorly founded opinion could have arrived at it and/or could avoid that reasoning in future. In your case, you needed to take into account that none of the large numbers of extremely smart people working on the problem have considered the facts in question compelling though they are certainly aware of them. i.e. the arrogance in the phrasing may have hidden more constructive reasoning.
If you take this into account when you write the question, you'd end up with different wording - probably along the lines: how is it that the neutrino=majorana fermion question is still considered open given the following facts...? OR considering that this is an undecided question, why default to the neutrino/antineutrino description and not the majorana one?
See the difference?
In fact, from questions like that you can usually find your own answers.
Though it can still be fun discussing them.
