Margoo,

Thanks for your support. It's not obvious from the report, but the most sophisticated program I used was actually written by me, using elegant mathematics developed by others long ago. Yes, I do know something about the subject. Thank you for noticing!

Apparently it's lost on some people on other forums, but the reason for using off-the-shelf programs as much as possible for the analysis is to enable others to repeat the analysis. This is a critical concern with experimental science in general. There is no off-the-shelf program analogous to one of mine, so I had to use that. It substantially increases the clarity.

Another point that seems to be lost on some people on other forums (judging from your description because I don't read the others) is that when one can do a simple analysis and prove that something isn't possible, it is NOT NECESSARY to do a more complete analysis. Anyone who thinks that what I've done isn't good enough to show that the alleged conversation isn't conversation doesn't understand what I've done. They don't really understand the problem and/or the technical issues involved.