archiv~1: Re: SETI More about the HOAX

Re: SETI More about the HOAX

Bruce Bourdon ( (no email) )
Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:43:36 -0500


I am a (new) lurker on this list, but I am also an engineer and a fan of
real science.

Our access to real science is already limited, and the ammount of psuedo
science that surrounds us seems to be growing continuously.

I very much appreciate the access that this list provides, as a window into
a fascinating field that you share.

I'm sure I am not alone in saying PLEASE don't end your activity on this
list or encorage others to do so!

I will continue to ignore contributions such as those made recently by
PHENOMENA. Please don't shut us out because of them.

Bruce. Ka1kxl

>Dear SETInet recipients,
>I have watched with dismay as the quality of our much respected SETInet has
>degraded to such a dismal level that I think that I will pull the plug on
this list as
>Dr Shuch did a few weeks ago.
>We are not part of the UFO fringe. We are supposed to be doing real
>blabbering on like the uninformed rabble that regularly post the Garbage
like what is below.
>Let me tell you all ONCE & ONCE ONLY. The Australian CSIRO Division of
Radio Physics
>is an organisation that is beyond reproach. I am personal friends with many
of the people that
>are regularly mentioned on this list. Ray Norris's Data is exactly correct.
The signal shown was
>a satellite. The vertical scale of the graph is exaggerated. We, Us Real
Scientists know these facts
>and can actually read a printout from a Spectrum analyser. Who of you have
actually seen the
>very small bump that betrays the Hyd line. It is so small as not to be very
noticeable at all. To glean
>some data from this part of the electromagnetic spectrum you need to
exaggerate the vertical scale
>WOW, this causes stray signals present to (satellite transmissions) look
enormous. You should all
>go to the CSIRO's Parkes Observatory web page (13 beam) and look at the
spectrum display
>there. It will make you all go AHHH, Ray Norris is smart after all. He is
not trying to pull the wool
>over anyone's eyes, just report actual spectra from the Radio Telescope.
>The "Very Narrow band Instrument" is not so narrow band after all. Go check
out the facts for
>some real data. What a crock of @#$@#%@@.
>All this Garbage was dreamed up by those who will try and fool the
uninformed who look to
>others (who are mostly ignorant of the real world of radio astronomy and
science in general)
>for their informed information. There is obviously much to be gained in
this world if you are
>a charlatan who spreads the word of lies and deceit to those who will
listen to them. It is
>obvious that this Paul Dore and others including Richard Hoagland have much
to gain from
>spreading false ideas and information to the public. This type of organized
>program (read the book "The Monuments Of Mars" for a laugh) is as sick a
trick on the followers
>of this type of "SCIENCE". This type of disinformation is much worse than
anything the Government
>is supposed to perpetrating on the public. No wonder the Government has
said very little on
>any of these issue's. I think they probably would have trouble keeping a
straight face.
>I am an ardent supported of free speech, and there a many things that need
to be bought out
>into the open from time to time. But this type stuff is a bit much. I am
becoming an Advocate of
>a closed general discussion group list that needs an acceptance to get
>Let this corpse lie in peace.
>Noel C. Welstead
>SETIvolcor Eastern Australia.
>> Down Under Radio Astronomers Are Upside Down: Prove They're Just Horsing
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.