archive: Re: SETI LDE's / Yet another hair-brained-antenna-idea?

Re: SETI LDE's / Yet another hair-brained-antenna-idea?

Richard Burke-Ward ( richard@burke-ward.demon.co.uk )
Mon, 7 Sep 98 10:53:41 +0100

Richar, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

>there are a lot of open minded folks on these lists..
>Maybe some folks think LDEs are like UFOs and want to
>hold back their comments until they see others come clean..
>(Of course no one wants people to think they are UFO kooks)..
>
>In plain english, if ETI probes really exist (in this area), then
>there is a very good likelihood of a link to many UFO sightings.(IMHO)..

Yes, there are a lot of open minded people (and sorry if I offended any
of you by implying otherwise).

That business of equating ETI probes and UFO's worries me too - because
suddenyl a logical line of thought ends you up in 'crazy' territory.
Personally I just keep an open mind. You can believe that *some* UFO
sightings are genuinely unexplained phenomena (and therefore it is not
possible categorically to exclude ETI involvement) *without* having to
invoke conspiracy theories and aliens thaty look so like us that you can
describe them by saying 'they look just like us, except...' ETI probes
are a possible explanation - but we don't need explanations yet, we need
genuine scientific inquiry.
>
>
>Right now, it seems unlikely there is a link between probes and LDEs..

Absolutely. But they *are* a phenomenon where the explanation is
currently a matter of faith not experiment. There may be a theory about
plasma clouds - and it's probably right - but it is completely untested,
and that means it is absolutely not a scientific explanation. Yet. I
was only suggesting that SETI League members are the ideal group to
design and implement an experiment which gives scientific weight to
whichever theory is accepted as most current.

All of you could get your names in a scientific journal - I'm sure a
radio / electronics journal would print an article on 'Effects of
solar-originated plasma clouds on long-wave radio'.

I just thought it might be worthwhile - whether the result is
confirmation of the most likely theory or not.

>We can only speculate. One thing I have found, is you can't
>easily convince very many people that things that they personally
>have never seen really exist.. Most folks are like me and have
>that old ' Seeing is believing' MO..

But you don't get to see unless you look!
>
>Due to a few strange events in my own life, It's no leap of 'faith'
>for me to know that these things exists. One has to believe in
>his own powers of observation. (most especially if there were
>1500 other people there too). But without more data, I'll have to
>reserve judgement on what these things are.
>
>Don't be disheartened by the low response level.. I read your LDE
>stuff and it got me thinking about an approach to the problem
>that may not be too hard to execute.
>
>And don't think for one second that looking for probes is a
>back-burner project. La grange point & asteroid scanning
>have been done and will most likely be done repeatedly with
>better & better technology. There are researchers that
>think that probes are possibly here now or have been here in
>the past.

Yes, I'm aware of this. And thank you for your open-mindedness - all of
you. It is always a pleasure to correspond with people from this group.
Long may it continue.

Richard