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

[Bill Cooke]

My apologies - the post from me that just appeared was erroneously sent from my work email several days ago, and was just now released by the moderator. I did not compose it today, and apologize for sending from am email not verified by the list.

Sent from my iPad
Bill Cooke

On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:19 PM, MstrEman <mstreman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Bill, List,
> 
> I feel it is patently unfair to all to continue any discussion under
> this specific thread/subject-line when the moderator has declared ALL
> discussion off limits.  This is not directed at Bill at all but, as
> there were oodles of follow-on posts AND this thread won't die, I am
> posting my feelings  why it is only fair to all if we stop all follow
> on discussion under this specific thread..
> 
> For the record, the original discussion of specific fireball spectra
> was declared by the moderator to be unsupported scientifically--even
> when the text was lifted directly from a NASA website amongst others.
> The moderator made several post declaring that the NASA content was
> "non-scientific" apparently thinking it was my "non-scientific
> meanderings" alone-- even when the information was specifically stated
> to be from NASA's site. ( I wonder if the many NASA employees on this
> list even caught that or if they had issue with the idea that NASA
> wasn't keeping tight reign on the quality of information they were
> publishing on their webpages. That is for another discussion).  No one
> has to agree with my position but it is intellectually dishonest to
> prevent me from stating my position or to otherwise state things which
> I did not write.
> 
> The series of papers were to be first an " information paper" to state
> in detail the answers to some questions specifically raised last
> spring.  It was then to be followed by a "request for collaboration"
> with "specific scientific inquiry by experts" applied to the
> hypothesis --that was before the threads were hijacked.  Without the
> specifics of the narrow range of candidates-- making pronouncements of
> " no correlation/association " seems akin to declaring that sprites do
> not exist because science had never documented any-that was until
> science started actually looking for them.   Were I allowed to discuss
> this topic further, I would have clarified that we were dealing with a
> narrow range of possibilities and that I was not discussing
> "sporadics" which could be traced to already known comets.
> 
> I however do appreciate the analysis/data  Bill provided  I would just
> like to see a change of subject-line to stay compliant with the
> current restrictions--nothing more nothing less.  Contrary to popular
> belief, I wholly support the contributions and sharing of expertise of