archiv~1: Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.Delete-able thread.

Re: SETI ATNF clams up on 1.451 ghz hit.Delete-able thread.

MarcusJohn@aol.com
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:21:21 EST

In a message dated 11/21/98 1:38:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, jimostr@ca-
ois.com writes:

> The fact that you have to ask this question illustrates the problem.
> It's obvious to me but apparently your particular orientation and
> mindset prevents you from seeing it somehow, Dr. Cohen.

Ok, now. That's enough time spent on this matter. Thank you for your interest,
but you can analyze all you want and spend 100 posts on the matter, and it is
still a hoax. Please see the seti leagues website for further documentation.
Most of your questions are answered there.

> The big mystery is the identity , motivation and institutional
> affiliation (if any) of the hoaxer(s).

And what are you doing to find the motivation and affiliation of the hoaxer?

> Dr. Shuch asked what qualifications do I have to judge Dr. Norris'
> procedures as being
> "unacceptable". Framing the issue this way , it becomes obvious that Dr.
> Norris' procedures ARE "acceptable" - to people with the PREFERRED
> credentials, such as the ones Dr. Shuch has.

And how would you define credentials, dare I ask? Repair technitians are more
qualified?

> Ergo- if someone with
> these preferred credentials makes a pronouncement, then everyone who
> does not have them must just accept it. Although I may not have these
> same kinds of credentials, most notably a "Dr." or a "Prof." in front of
> my name, I do not believe that fact disqualifies me from making
> reasonable judgements about things based on the evidence in front of me.
> I admit I may not have all the evidence that might be available. That is
> what I'm trying to get here.

Make all the judgements you want, but this list is not here for you to
pronounce your ill founded misguided judgements. There must be some other
forums for you to waste other peoples time.

>
> So rather than debate the issue as I framed it earlier, I proposed the
> following :
>
> That Dr. Norris' conclusions were arbitrary and NOT reasonable.
>
> Dr. Shuch , of course, takes the inverse of this position.

Ok, so that is your reasoned opinion. Thank you for informing us. Now goodbye.

> My background:
>

summarize:
Blah blah blah 'arrogance' blah blah 'biblical' blah 'probe'

> Please remember these are not my words, and as inflammatory as they may
> seem, I merely quote them for the purposes of this discussion, and I
> specifically have not arrived at the conclusion that you are liars or
> idiots.

Whether you disavow them or not, they are your words, because you quote them
here and they were posted by you. And if you continue to imply that we are
liars or idiots, then you further distance yourself from the pursuit of
science, and you are making people angry. Now grow up and knock it off. Better
yet, go away.

> What are the chances, if this was all due a big hoax, that Dr. Norris
> would encounter
> a signal in the very same region of the sky quite near EQ Peg less than
> 1 percent in deviation from the frequency asserted in someone's fantasy?
> (the hoaxter's)

Pleeeease, if you want to prove this, then do some measurements. When we see
your data, we will believe you if it is warranted.

Now, this is an open list for the scientific pursuit of SETI. If you don't
believe in science or scientists then your opinion has limited weight here.

Again, good bye.

John Marcus.
KE3SW.