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

Re: SETI - Redherring - continued - Hmm...

David Ocame ( )
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:37:07 -0500

Ray Shank wrote:
> Hello gang, and the group.
> I have a hypothetical question.
> I have heard, through TV and other sources, that the criminal
> always returns to the scene of the crime.
> Let's say, I was the hoaxster. I did my homework. I did the
> best I could to bring myself fame and fortune, by being able
> to spoof the pros into actually thinking I was the first to
> receive a signal from ET. But, my efforts were soon to be
> discovered as what they really were. And all my dreams of
> laying around in the lime light vanished overnight. I brew
> and brew, and suddenly a light goes on.
> What would be wrong with going right up to the same professionals
> that exposed the crime, so I could learn EXACTLY what I did wrong.
> (or better yet, what to do right later.) I would definatly want
> to know WHO it was that FIRST to discovered the crime. I might
> want to try 'to get in good' with them, as to lend me some sort
> of credibility, or I might want to simply find out more about them
> in case I needed to try to discredit them later.
> Of course, since no one knew exactly who I was, I could be whoever
> I wanted to be, as I continued to do my research. My research would
> be, trying to find out exactly what I need to produce, to enable me
> to pull the wool over the eyes of those who would discredit me.
> Then I'd be rich!
> Hmmm... Just thought I'd ask...
> Ray Shank -
> Argus Observatory EM26eh
> Construction Site

I think Ray has a very good point here. Whether it's true or not, I
don't know. But, Ray's hypothetical scenario is surely valid. Therefore,
in light of this, I suggest we stop arguing with this Jim person, and
any others that might appear, and get back to SETI business.

Chip, and others have surely gone the extra mile, and explained our
verification and validation processes. We don't need to answer to this
person anymore.