Naww. Its not quite anomalist enough (its like ripeness). I think Nick nails it- the problem is with the original source. I find it spurious that such radio telescopes could have the capacity to detect the emissions, and if they could, so many rather improbable events would have to obtain that it would be one-in-sveral-billion to get a result. BUT- I don't think its anomalist because:

0) Does not hinge upon pseudoscientific premises
1) Its about claims of objective fact.
2) It does not rely on 'special' knowledge or 'hidden' cause.
3) Because of 0, 1 and 2, it can be either right or wrong on its merits (IE, falsifiable, thus properly scientific)
4) The argument does not violate any bound of informal logical or scientific reasoning (although I suspect it to be factually incorrect).
5) The argument assumes a willingness to engage on merits of the case.

DL