archiv~1: Re: SETI Hmm...

Re: SETI Hmm...

Daniel Boyd Fox ( foxd@indiana.edu )
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:24:44 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Jim Ostrowski wrote:

> I never said any such thing. I came here to get the SETI list
> participants comments
> on the ATNF (Norris) observation. I got those from Dr. Shuch who is of
> the opinion, apparently, that Dr. Norris did everyone a big favor by
> looking into this for 20 minutes or so. The question as to the identity
> of the source object of the signal he observed
> remains unanswered. It appears to me that no-one else here is interested
> in answering it either.
>
> I remain convinced that Norris' dismissal of this signal as
> "interference" from a
> "terrestrial satellite" was not based on any acceptable scientific
> process whatsoever.
>
> You, Dr. Shuch , and everyone else here who brushes this aside or dodges
> the issue by bringing up the hoax matter, are participating in the
> attempted burial of this inarguable conclusion.
>
> Inarguable. Now if someone has a coherent argument to the contrary
> here's your opportunity to prove me wrong right here and now. I repeat
> the premise, please stay on point, DO NOT BRING UP THE HOAX MATTER:
>
> Norris' dismissal of this signal as "interference" from a "terrestrial
> satellite" was not based on any acceptable scientific procedure
> whatsoever.
>
> Case Closed damn straight.
>
> Jim Ostrowski
>

Jim,

I looked at the page in question. What do you consider acceptable
scientific procedure? Dr. Norris determined that the signal was moving
against the stellar background and therefore was not from E Q Pegasi.
Everything he found about the signal was consistent with a high altitude
satellite, including the frequency. It was not consistent with an
extra-terrestrial signal. What more do you want? You seem to want to
believe there is some sort of deception about this. There isn't.

Daniel Fox