Sorry?! No case at all can be made that I intended the PDF to be considered as being within the explanatory tradition of peer-reviewed papers. The "explanatory tradition" I was referring to was the publication of vulgarised scientific documents on the Internet, for the information of the layman. To prove the matter, Nereid found it herself on the Internet.

As regards the apparent origin of the document es having being initially written for a "poster presentation" at the IEEE's 33rd ICOPS, several points should be made, since a very large part of the case being made out for invalidation the contents of the document seems to rest on the alleged misrepresentation committed by Thornhill and Talbott. The reasoning is presumably that if they need to give fake credentials to the document, then its content must necessarily be worthless.

Nereid has demonstrated that T&T's "poster presentation" does not figure in the conference's official schedule of poster presentations. What is interesting to note, however, after searching in a little more depth, is that at least Wallace Thornhill's presence at, and active participation in, the conference cannot be doubted. The schedule of "oral sessions" lists Thornhill as presenting a 30 minute talk on "THE PLASMA Z-PINCH MORPHOLOGY OF SUPERNOVA 1987A AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SUPERNOVA REMNANTS" and as being co-author with CJ Ransom of a second paper, "LABORATORY REPRODUCTION OF POSSIBLE SOLAR SYSTEM PLASMA EFFECTS" presented by Ransom. The two papers figure in the conference proceedings. One last detail: Thornhill's 30 minute talk had the status of an "invited paper", according to the ICOPS rules on "Oral & Poster format". Not bad for an alleged impostor.

I think this sheds a rather different light on the matter. As regards the "Poster presentation" PDF, I think it's time to stop being too falsely naive. Many readers of this thread will have attended major conferences (in whatever field, not just in astronomy). We all know that alongside the official events, there are also less official ones which are perfectly well accepted, not to say encouraged, by the organisers - that's also what gives added life and interest to this sort of conference. In a completely different field, it's a bit like the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, devoted to more experimental art forms, which perfectly well coexists with and complements the Edinburgh International Festival devoted specifically to classical music, opera and theatre. At most major conferences I've attended, in addition to the official poster boards, there was also space for less formal contributions, often last minute after-thoughts. (Note that the "Electric Comet" PDF has nothing directly to do with Thornhill's two "official" contributions). It so happens also that Thornhill and Talbott share many of the same fields of interest as Anthony Peratt, one of the most eminent current fellows of the IEEE. One of their most recent forms of collaboration was on the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" video I've already referenced. I wasn't present at the ICOPS conference so I don't know exactly how things were organized but it's not difficult to imagine that Thornhill was allowed or invited to post the ECM PDF outside the framework of the published schedule. Would that make him an impostor and thereby invalidate per se the ideas presented?

__________________
Where is the truth? Who sees the old hag and who the young beauty?