I will leave Dr. De’s book alone - I don’t have time to engage with clearly crakpotic books - as you say, he went off the deep end.
Now for Herouni’s paper:
The claim is that he has an antennae with a self-noise temperature of ~2.7K (the number he cited is between 2.6-2.8K) due to the 275K temperature of the antennae. Even if Herouni’s claim is true,
Firstly: this does not give evidence that Planck, WMAP, POLARBEAR, etc are fradulent, as modern cooling technology allowed contemporary telescopes to get much lower temperature than 275K. The difference is not small. Liquid-helium cooling, for example, allows temperature to reach 4K, which is ~200K lower than Herouni’s temperature.This leads to a noise that is MUCH smaller than the 2.7K self-noise temp of Herouni. Not only that, Planck, WMAP, and COBE are in space, where the noise characteristic is much better than from the ground. Now you want a hypothesis test with modern equipment? This is the hypothesis test that you are looking for. It has been done, and the CMB persists.
Secondly: You might say that Herouni’s claim, if true, means that the original Penzias-Wilson detection is fradulent. Not so, because the signal-to-noise of an antennae is
\text{SNR} = \frac{T_{source}}{T_{sys}} \sqrt{\tau \Delta \nu} \; ,
where T_{source} is the source temperature, here ~2.7K for the CMB, T_{sys} is the noise contribution, which is ~2.7K for Herouni’s antenna, \tau the integration time, or how long do you look at the source, and \Delta \nu is the antenna bandwidth.
Antenna self-noise is not the only number that enters into the noise! For example, it doesn’t matter if your antenna noise is low if you didn’t bother to look at the sky for enough number of seconds.
When Herouni claimed that he cannot detect the CMB, what is his bandwidth? How long is his integration time? In fact, one can plug in Herouni’s number into the SNR equation and see that unless his bandwidth is very small, he should have been able to detect the CMB with the self-noise temperature that he reported.
Where did you find this paper? I must say, it looks very amateurish - neither the scientific analysis or composition is up to par with the average radio astronomy paper. Certainly doesn’t seem like the work of someone who has ~50 years of experience in the field.