archiv~1: (no subject)

(no subject)

Noel Welstead ( (no email) )
(no date)


> Down Under Radio Astronomers Are Upside Down: Prove They're Just Horsing Around
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More data just keeps pouring in.
> After sign off from the Art Bell show last night, TEM posted an image showing the SETI data obtained
> in Australia.The images came from the Australian Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and were posted by
> Dr. Ray Norris, a principal investigator with the facility. While the paper claimed to be a "case
> closed" on the Dore affair, it was full of several major logical holes and seemed to ignore their
> own data graphs. The posting is obviously intended for political consumption, aimed at the general
> public who lack the training to spot the obvious inconsistencies.
> It starts by linking Dore with the Effelsberg story, which is easily used to discredit the Dore
> data. It should be remembered that Dore at no time named the two astronomers or the Observatory he
> claimed were going to support him at the press conference.Those stories came from the British press.
> Norris then points out that the claim has been "ridiculed" by the SETI community, partly because
> Dore (who is not part of that community) did not follow established protocol for reporting it. Dore
> of course, evidently had good reason for not reporting it, he did not trust the SETI community and
> did not wish to be "ridiculed" before confirming his findings.
> Setting aside for a moment the implications of a community of "scientists" who would rather ridicule
> a possible find in their chosen field than check it out, ATCA at least pointed their telescope at EQ
> Pegasi. After using a very narrow band instrument pointed at the star, they came up with nothing.
> When they switched to a mode with less sensitivity and a larger field of view, they had a major hit
> at 1451.8 MHz, which they promptly dismissed as "probably not related," because Dore's original
> signal was reported as 1453.075 MHz and the signal was several degrees off the star's position. The
> logic of this conclusion is hard to absorb.
> The signal, derisively described as "interference" by Norris, is a megaphonic blast of biblical
> proportions! It is unimaginable that a spike which is nearly twice the amplitude of the background
> noise can be mere interference.
> The SETI model may be the problem. Evidently, the SETI guys assume that ET will be sitting around
> one night, listening on his ET version of a HAM radio, and catch a call from us. They have decided
> that what he will then do is send another signal back from his little cabin in the ET woods, and
> wait around for 22 light years or so for us to call him back.
> Now, even if you ignore the fact that a radio telescope would probably be the ET equivalent of an
> 8-track tape to any mildly advanced civilization, had it occurred to these geniuses that ET might do
> something else? Like get in his car and go have a look?
> Assuming that any signal off a stellar source is "not related" is about as smart as assuming that a
> traffic light is not related to your car unless it is positioned directly in front of you, not to
> mention stop signs, which are way off to the side. Given the "probe model" put forth by Hoagland on
> Art Bell's show last Friday, it would seem only logical to check the general vicinity, which they
> did. But then to dismiss such an obvious hit as "Almost certainly ... a terrestrial satellite" is
> sheer stupidity. I mean, didn't it ever occur to these guys that ET might have a car phone?
> Norris goes on to argue that it must be a satellite signal because it is modulating up and down. He
> assumes that this due to a rotational period of the source object, which he has decided is a
> satellite. OK, which satellite? It is a fairly easy thing to check for a terrestrial satellite in
> the area, although it can take some time. But he hasn't apparently even tried. Another problem is
> that most satellites don't rotate unless they are committed to particle research, and there are no
> such bogey's in the sky at the moment.
> Of course, there is another perfectly reasonable explanation for the observed modulation. It's
> pinging.
> The idea of an approaching probe sending out a navigational beacon is evidently beyond the SETI
> mindset. To dismiss the signal as a satellite simply because it is not on a star and seems to be
> dropping in frequency is overtly stupid. The fact is the signal has all the characteristics that
> SETI should logically be looking for, if in fact they are actually interested in finding ET. It is
> our suspicion here that they are not.
> To make such arrogant assumptions and dismiss such compelling data is criminal. If the target is
> moving and decelerating, then we can expect that it will continue to drift farther from the position
> of EQ Pegasi and it's frequency will continue to drop. Further observations are essential if we are
> to determine where it is really coming from and what it really is.
> To ascribe such behavior to gross incompetence is far fetched. This posting seems calculated to
> discourage anyone else from looking, as opposed to trying to determine the nature of the signal. As
> we stated yesterday, SETI must fall into one of two categories on this issue, liars or idiots. At
> the moment, they appear to be liars.
> But, we know one thing more than we knew yesterday. The signal is real.