archiv~1: Re: [Fwd: Review of Possible EQ Peg SETI Hits]

Re: [Fwd: Review of Possible EQ Peg SETI Hits]

Daniel Boyd Fox ( foxd@indiana.edu )
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:18:24 -0500 (EST)

Since both these were terrestrial interference and not the same
terrestrial interference, doing calculations with them is going to give
bogus results. It's a 'garbage in, garbage out' type of calculation.

I know you had your heart set on a real signal, but some terrible person
tried to lie to us all. In your case he was successful. There was no ET
signal from EQ Pagasi. It was a hoax. If there was a coverup, they would
not have mentioned either the local interference or the satellite
interference. They would of said they didn't see any signal of any sort!
You are trying desperately to rationalize that it is somehow not a hoax.
Your strong desires are blinding you.

Daniel Fox

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Terry wrote:

>
> >...signal being received both in
> >Arecibo, Puerto Rico and at Jodrell Bank in England...
>
> Another line of inquiry for those of you who are
> mathematical geniouses. Taking parallax, width of
> observation beams, and angle of
> the earth into account, how far away
> does a signal have to be in order for
> it to be seen at the same spot in the sky from both
> Puerto Rico and England at the same time?
> --
> webmaster@lofthouse.com
> http://www.lofthouse.com/
>