archiv~1: SETI - Redherring - continued - Hmm...

SETI - Redherring - continued - Hmm...

Ray Shank ( (no email) )
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:29:55 -0600

Well jim,

I suggest that if you don't like the results, that you take it
up with Dr. Norris. All of the members that I have spoken to,
believe that Dr. Norris did a fine job.

I cannot speak for the others, but, out of the members I have
spoken with personally, all have agreed along with other SETI
scientists, that this signal was and is NOT an extraterrestrial
signal. Like I said in my last post, all the jumping up and
down you, or anyone else, will not make it be so.

I know of Dr. Norris, Dr. Shuch, Dr. Cohen and some of their
contributions they have personally made to the SETI science.
But not of you. WHO ARE YOU? Why should I (we) believe you?
What are your SETI credentials? Do you have a SETI station?
You seem to have absolutely nothing to offer here. You do not
seem to have any credibility to back up your opinions, save
your persistence. I have not read in any of your FLAMES, any
mention of any credentials, that would cause me to give weight
to any of your arguments. Nothing. And that is all I give you.

You seem to keep crying about something I and others have been
convinced of otherwise by REAL SETI professionals and amateurs
alike. I personally believe this signal is a load of crap, a
redhearring. It was designed as a publicity stunt. (gone bad)
But now, due to your persistence in this matter, I am beginning
to believe you are quite possibly involved in the HOAX.

You say "Prove me wrong right here and now." I say to you, jim.
I don't have to! You have not proved anything to me, except your
innate ability to totally waste my (our) time.

You see, I have better things to do... Have a good day :)

CASE CLOSED. (really) - (You will not receive of my time.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ostrowski []
Sent: Friday, November 20, 1998 10:23 PM
To: Ray Shank
Subject: Re: SETI Hmm...

Ray Shank wrote:
> Hmm....
> Well, guyz...
> I think Jimmy boy and Mikey are remnants of the "Lets keep the ole HOAX
> discussion churning crowd" or, more affectionately called "The Mickey
> Club."

I don't know who "Mikey" is but I would prefer "Jim" to "Jimmy boy" .

> I personally will not discuss this topic any further, save saying I will
> not discuss this topic any further. I think there's an echo in here.
> kinda like bouncing off the interior of the empty heads of the people that
> insist that there IS SOMETHING THERE, in the data of the HOAX.

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

Case Closed damn straight.

Jim Ostrowski