I don't know who "Mikey" is but I would prefer "Jim" to "Jimmy boy" .
> I personally will not discuss this topic any further, save saying I will
> not discuss this topic any further. I think there's an echo in here. It's
> kinda like bouncing off the interior of the empty heads of the people that
> insist that there IS SOMETHING THERE, in the data of the HOAX.
I never said any such thing. I came here to get the SETI list
on the ATNF (Norris) observation. I got those from Dr. Shuch who is of
the opinion, apparently, that Dr. Norris did everyone a big favor by
looking into this for 20 minutes or so. The question as to the identity
of the source object of the signal he observed
remains unanswered. It appears to me that no-one else here is interested
in answering it either.
I remain convinced that Norris' dismissal of this signal as
"interference" from a
"terrestrial satellite" was not based on any acceptable scientific
You, Dr. Shuch , and everyone else here who brushes this aside or dodges
the issue by bringing up the hoax matter, are participating in the
attempted burial of this inarguable conclusion.
Inarguable. Now if someone has a coherent argument to the contrary
here's your opportunity to prove me wrong right here and now. I repeat
the premise, please stay on point, DO NOT BRING UP THE HOAX MATTER:
Norris' dismissal of this signal as "interference" from a "terrestrial
satellite" was not based on any acceptable scientific procedure
Case Closed damn straight.