archiv~1: Re: SETI Off-topic Censorious Posts

Re: SETI Off-topic Censorious Posts

Mitchell Jones ( )
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:33:08 -0600

>On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> ***{I have seen claims that the "suncruiser" was really Mars, as well as
>> claims that it was Saturn or a comet, but such arguments leave me cold. The
>> reason: it is apparent by simple inspection that it could be none of those
>> things. Frankly, I haven't seen any claims that the "suncruiser" has been
>> tracking the coordinates of Mars or those of Saturn, so I can't speak to
>> that. Nevertheless, let's suppose that some object, just for the sake of
>> argument, always seems to be where Mars should be, when we point our
>> telescopes at it. However, when we actually look through our telescopes at
>> the object, we see a kangaroo. The question is: should we label the
>> kangaroo as "Mars" and go on to other activities, or should we pause and
>> consider the possibility that something odd is going on? In my view, common
>> sense dictates that we should do the latter. Unfortunately, common sense
>> does not yet seem to have entered the picture where the "suncruiser" is
>> concerned. --Mitchell Jones}***
>If the SOHO image was the one NASA said showed Mars, it did indeed show
>Mars. Checking a planetarium program did indeed show that Mars should be
>in the image. I'm amused that this dribble is still being spouted.

***{If NASA told you that Mars should be at a location and, when you
looked, you saw a kangaroo, does that mean you would label the kangaroo as
"Mars" and think no more about the matter? If so, then I think you are a
bit odd. :-) Seriously, what your above comment tells me is that you
haven't checked out the suncruiser website. I suggest that you do so, and
*then* tell me whether what you see could be Mars. The link is Enjoy! --Mitchell Jones}***

>> ***{Well, I don't have a computer program to check out your claim, but when
>> I visualize the situation, what you say looks wrong to me. The sun will
>> cross the ascension plane of EQ Peg about a week before it crosses the
>> ascension plane of the vernal equinox--which means: about Sept. 15. [These
>> two ascension planes are separated by an acute angle of 0h28m8s, which is
>> about (28/60)15 = 7 degrees. Thus we have (7/360)365 = 7.09 days, or about
>> a week.] At that time, the Sun will be very near the Earth's equatorial
>> plane. (Sept. 22 is the autumnal equinox.) Since the Earth's equatorial
>> plane has a declination of zero by definition, that means EQ Peg will be
>> about 19 degrees above the Sun when it has the same ascension coordinate as
>> the Sun. That means the Sun and EQ Peg will *never* line up. --Mitchell
>> Jones}***
>My mistake, I punched in 20 Hours Right Ascension. The sun won't be at 23
>Hours until the early part of March.

***{I beg to differ. Your mistake appears to be trivial, while mine was
major. Your comment that you have a computer program which tells you that,
in March, the sun will be at RA 23h31m52s caused me to rethink my
visualization, and I quickly realized that I have somehow managed to look
at the situation ass backwards. The vernal equinox occurs on about March
21, when the Sun crosses the plane of the Earth's equator, but at that
point in time, as I have been thinking of the situation, the half plane
defined by RA 0h0m0s would point from the polar axis of the Earth directly
*away* from the Sun, rather than toward it! I am not sure exactly how I
managed to twist myself around on this point, but this does clearly
indicate the dangers of proceeding from "memory" when dealing with a
subject which you have not focused on for several years. What appears to be
"memory" can apparently get rather screwed up, if not refreshed by a bit of
review before one opens one's mouth. Anyway, what this means is that I was
dead wrong in thinking that there was a potential connection between the
Paul Dore signal, real or not, and the alleged "suncruiser." In fact, the
first alleged hit on that signal occurred on Sept. 17, just 5 days before
the autumnal equinox, when the Sun would have been at RA 12h0m0s--which
means: EQ Peg was in virtually the opposite direction of the Sun when this
alleged SETI hit occurred! Result: it's down in flames for yours truly on
this point! --Mitchell Jones}***

Of course it will be higher in the
>sky then. This whole line of thought is wrong still from the start.

***{Yes, you are absolutely correct. Even if the "Paul Dore" signal was
real, there is no connection whatsoever between it and the "suncruiser."
Gulp, gulp! (That's the sound of me eating my words. :-) --Mitchell

>BTW all the signals involved in the hoax were faked. That's why we call
>it a hoax.

***{On that point, I remain unsatisfied. I have already posted my critique
of the SETI Institute's analysis of the "Paul Dore" situation. Since you
have gunned me out of the sky on the "suncruiser" connection, would you
care to go for two in a row? To that end, please tell me what,
specifically, you see about the situation that enables you to discount the
possibility that "Paul Dore's" current claims are being made under duress?
It seems to me that if we treat the situation seriously, then we have a
clear-cut clash between what "Paul Dore" said early on and what he is
saying now. Since one of the things he said early on was that he was being
subjected to threats and intimidation by government goons, it seems to me
that there are two ways to plausibly explain the change in his story:

(1) The first part of the story may be true, and the second part--where he
began to deny all knowledge of the affair--may be false. This
interpretation would mean that his claimed SETI hit was real and his later
denials were a hoax.

(2) The first part of the story may be false, and the second part may be
true. This interpretation would mean that his claimed SETI hit was a hoax
and his later denials were true.

Since it has apparently been proven that his denials of involvement were
false (see below), should we not be willing to thoroughly search the EQ Peg
region for the alleged signal, on the grounds that (1), above, may actually
be the correct interpretation?

In case you missed it, I am including a post that appeared on the Art Bell
site that seems to prove that "Paul Dore's" denials of having claimed a
SETI hit are false. The material in question apparently originally came
from David Dubowski (


"To get the list of all the posts of seticontact, including the
very first posting of the geocities Canaveral/Hall website, go to, click on "POWER SEARCH", enter exactly, and
then click the "find" button. It will then return only those articles with
that header. Click on articles to read, and if desired, click on "More
Headers" to see the numerical header, which will appear in all the

"To get the list of all of Paul Dore's posts, again go to, click on powersearch, enter exactly and then
click the "find" button. It will then return only those articles with that
header. Click on articles to read, and if desired, click on "More Headers"
to see the numerical header, which will appear in all the articles."

"The first message that links Paul Dore to seticontact can be
found in the list of articles returned for It was dated
98/11/07, author name "impersonated", subject "Impersonation on the
Internet", posted to alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue It contains BOTH the Paul Dore
header AND the return email
address. The subsequent postings by "impersonated" all show this linkage as
of this writing."

What the above quote seems to indicate is that "Paul Dore", in fact, may
very well be the source of the original series of messages claiming a SETI
hit, as I suspected, and the implication may be that his later claim to
know nothing about the source of the material was a lie, and may have been
made under duress.

I would like to emphasize that I am seeking the truth here. I am not
committed to the idea that "Paul Dore" got a bona fide SETI hit at all. I
am merely having a lot of difficulty agreeing with the hoax theory. There
seems to be a lot of information that cuts the other way, and I think this
matter is far too important to be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

--Mitchell Jones}***

>> ***{If you are referring to the speculations recently posted on Art Bell's
>> website, I don't buy it. The guy they are claiming to be the hoaxer, based
>> on his writings, appears to be a virtual illiterate. There is *no way* he
>> could be the author of the posts originally attributed to Paul Dore, K.F.
>> Benton, and Jay Oka. --Mitchell Jones}***
>Art Bell's web site has identified the hoaxster? I wonder if the've
>pieced together who else is involved. After all they did need a graphic
>artist to edit the images as well as someone to maintain web pages and
>fake email addresses.
>Just checked the web page, yep same guy. To think I found him through
>stumbling on a 'SETI pulses' lead by accident. For an illiterate he seems
>to do a lot of writing of hoaxes.

***{To me, this hypothesis seems pretty thin, especially when the evidence
that "Paul Dore" was actually the source of the original reports is
considered. You have convinced me that there is no connection between the
"suncruiser" photos and the "Paul Dore" incident--though the anomalous SOHO
photos still need to be explained--but I remain unsatisfied with the
opinion that the hoax originated from private sources. To me, it seems
highly plausible that the claimed SETI hit was real, and is now being
covered up by means of pressure applied by government goons. The only way
to know for sure, as far as I can see, would be for radiotelescope amateurs
to do a thorough and persistent search for these signals, and come up
empty. Do you know of any who have done that? (Professional astronomers
appear to have made only token efforts to check for this signal, and seem
far too willing to dismiss tentative hits with a wave of the hand. I simply
do not trust what I have seen from them so far.) --Mitchell Jones}***

>Daniel Fox