Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't exist or that you weren't
a doctor, just that I was not sure. Your name was enclosed in quotes
because I only had second hand information from a single source
amounting to an _allegation_ that you existed and said this or that. If
you sign your letters as you appear to as "Chip" and use "fractenna" as
a login handle, how do I know you who you are?
> I am not associated with SL--yet. On another post I said I will apply this
> weekend. I did indeed say, three weeks ago, that I would join. It's on my list
> of things to do.
> I do indeed state that the SCIENCE of telecommunications obviates the option
> of a SINGLE MONOCHROMATIC line transmission over anything but the closest of
> cosmic distances (greater than about 200 ly).
( The galaxy is 100,000 ly
> across.) But on the other hand, I am not advocating broadband. Rather a
> series of NARROWBAND transmissions spread out in frequency over HUNREDS OR
> THOUSANDS OF MEGAHERTZ. This is because multipath effects make the single line
> mode unacceptable. If someone else has an efficient solution to
> multipath--that's easily detectable--then clue us in!
OK. So you seem to be saying then that monochromatic sources would
suffer from multipath
but wide-spectrum ones do not? What exactly are your monochromatic
signals bouncing off of to create the multipath and why don't the wide
spectrum ones behave the same way?
> IF you listened to the Laura Lee show, you will see that this attempt to
> correlate an INTERFERENCE transmission with another --presumably--INTERFERENCE
> transmission has no basis. Ray Norris's work is corroborative wrt the HOAX;
> Since neither GU0NHD or JA1TR nor Paul Dore had anything to do with the data
> bogusly ascribed to them one can hardly use fraud to shore- up an alleged
As Dr. Shuch correctly noted, my questions pertained to the procedure
followed by the SETI league members in following up on what _could_ have
been real, for all anyone PRESUMABLY knew at the time. It would take a
lot less time to turn a dish than it would to reveal that the Dore site
was hoaxed with a careful pixel analysis. The only published report I
saw was the one of Dr. Norris' and he was unaware of any hoax
determination at the time of his observation, apparently. He in fact
agreed that what he did observe could have been a "secret" gov't
satellite (deep space probe, maybe?), having ruled out a geosynchronous
orbit for the source.
>Futhermore, the data was fabricated and did not portray what anon
> said was there...
Whose data was fabricated? The hoaxter's? Of course the assumption is
that if someone is perpetrating a hoax, the data is fabricated. This
doesn't explain the observation of Dr. Norris. That wasn't fabricated I
I will throw this question out one more time. To whose benefit does the
perpetration and subsequent "exposure" of a hoax work? If the identity
of the actual hoaxter is not yet known , how can we say with a certainty
that the entities that at least _helped_ "expose" the hoax did not in
fact perpetrate it?
BTW I do not know for a certainty who was the first to expose this hoax.
> If you are attempting to say that Ray Norris' work fits into the
> polychromatic scheme for multifrequency, narrowband transmission, the answer
> is NO.
Fine, but that was not what I was trying to say at all. The signal
observed by Dr. Norris appears anomalous to me, and I just wonder what
it could have been, that's all.
If not a navigational beacon , or a primitive signal saying "here I am"
, then what?
If on the other hand such observations are frequent, then they aren't
anomalous. But if
that were true the SETI league would have to filter them out somehow. If
your program of observations filters out "here I am!" signals , what
kind of signals do you expect to get through ?