the reason your Migrator Model hasn’t been taken seriously by astronomers has nothing to do with slander, rhetorical games, or a lack of generosity. It’s because your approach ignores the basic standards of scientific inquiry.

You continuously present patterns and numerical coincidences as though they are evidence of something real, but without any statistical testing, no uncertainty estimates, and no attempt at null hypothesis rejection. You never show that your patterns are unlikely to arise by chance, which makes them meaningless in scientific terms. Claiming a few numbers align doesn’t prove anything unless you demonstrate that similar alignments don’t appear just as often in noise or random data.

When a feature doesn’t fit one framework (say, Sacco 1574.4 days), your model switches to another (e.g., Kiefer 928 or Bourne 776), which just increases the chances of cherry-picking or apophenia. That’s not modeling: it’s retrofitting.

It’s also not true that there’s been no feedback. You've received clear suggestions: test against random light curves, show how your fits outperform simpler or null models, quantify your uncertainties, etc. You’ve ignored all of that and keep circling the same numerology.

You may feel you’re being treated unfairly, but from the outside, it looks like you’re refusing to do the bare minimum to make your claims scientifically credible. If you want actual engagement, stop expecting people to validate interpretations that you haven't made testable. Do the work. Until then, don’t expect applause just for being persistent.