(meteorobs) re "Forecast" of fireballs from NEO visit - huh?

[MstrEman]

Dear Johnny ..... come very, very, lately...indeed

It is clear from your post that you have not current on this topic as
you believe. Based on your own wording you did not read the "green
fireball color" post I was referring to.  If you had you would be
misquoting it too!  lol

 You were so stridently proving my claim of prejudice that you did not
read my recent post except to look for opportunities to distort what
you think I said.  When you bother to bring yourself up to speed on
fireball spectra come back and I'll be happy to hear what you have to
say--so long as you can stay on topic.

The "tired old tedious green fireball thread" was never actually
addressed beyond anecdotal opinions and capture of meteor spectra is
so rare that I think there may only be one color image in existence--a
Leonid  which was captured by one of our own list members.  There are
a few specific facts from that "non-reliable, pseudo-scientific, NASA"
that has made some research available that may give insight into the
difference between spectra and perception by the human eye-brain
system. I don't want to bog this list down with technical stuff.

 If in the future you want to do a hack job on whatever I say, please
at least address what I actually say and not your broad sweeping
generalizations unrelated to the specifics of what I  post.  I haven't
gone phrase by phrase comparing what "you claim that I said vs what I
DID say-- BUT  I believe I have already covered just about everything
in my original couple of posts that stand as written.  This banter
shows you've " put words  in my mouth" which I did not say (i.e. put
forth arguments I did not make).

I am almost through but I have a few related thoughts about this whole
attempt to suppress questions by shear character attacks rather than
actually discussing the facts and principles bearing on the situation.
  Why can't the "parties" asking the questions and making the comments
speak for themselves?  I find it very curious that simple cogent
scientifically based discussion doesn't come from those most vocal
against looking for associations.  What goes for one should go for all
and claims against should be equally defended and no punches pulled
out of misguided accommodation.

John, can I assume that those parts you didn't hack, slant, or distort
are those you are in agreement with or did you just run out of
imaginary arguments that you have cute quips you could throw in?

Bottom lines;
No data can be correlated if it isn't collected and treated statistically.
Collected data can sit un-reviewed and has no knowledge building benefit.
The major point of the discussion going on for almost a year now is
that the possibilities need to be addressed with some starting point
and a starting point has been proffered.  Else claims either way are
moot and useless.

Again John, where was your analysis a year ago and why are you just
now entering the conversation if you are in fact interested in helping
others get answers rather than defending herd behavior?

Cheers
Elton