archiv~1: Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.

Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:27:58 EST

In a message dated 11/20/98 11:10:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, jimostr@ca- writes:

<< wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/98 8:25:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, jimostr@ca-
> writes:
> <<
> So it appears we have a case where a hoax is solved by yourself and some
> associate(s) of yours as to content BEFORE it is even perpetrated in a
> public way.
> How conveeeeenient!
> >>
> How wrooooooong!
> NC

Dear Professor,

Look, as I said I will unsubscribe today , but I don't want to leave
here without having my facts straight when I take this subject
elsewhwere as you suggested.

I quote _DR._ Shuch:

"Actually, the analysis was done between registered Project Argus
participants, on the *closed* signal verification email list, two days
before the alleged signal was posted to the open list, and before the
Geocities site even came into existence."

Is this incorrect?

Jim Ostrowski>>

No; it is correct. But YOUR statement is not. The closed list was reviewing
the data and found it to be bogus. However, the data was posted on THIS PUBLIC
list on 10-26. At that time , I first saw the data and found it to be bogus,
at which point Paul Shuch made the first statement from the closed-list
analysis on this public list. That's how I found out about the closed-list
hacking, and I feel that the SL did the right thing in not announcing it
earlier. Why announce a hoax when the people it affects all know? There was NO
public description of the data until 10-26. I have no idea (or interest) on
when the geocities web site came up. I saw it on 10-29, may 10-28.

I am not privy to the closed list, nor was I on 10-26 or before.

What's the big mystery?