> I wonder if I provoked this discursion.
No, I think as much as anyone it was me reacting to Rich Tyndall' s
>If so, let me again state that my only interest is in the alleged LDE's
>recently noted by EME folks. My interest in LDE's was brief; led to a 1978
>publication; and left me with the general sense that documentation of VHF and
>UHF LDE's was not credible from hams.
Documentation is credible from anyone applying rigourous and repeatable
scientific method. It is only not credible from hams if remains
anecdotal - as it would be even from a scientist specialising int he
field. I know this is obvious, but...
>I see no connection whatsoever with ETI.
No one says there definitely is one. However, it *is* one hypothesis
that has been put forward to explain them - not the plausible hypothesis,
but a hypothesis nevertheless. My point was not that it is stronly
possible that ETI is involved - that's extremely unlikely. My point was
that no one had been coming up with *any* explanation.
(I haven't chased down the references supplied by Chris Boyce, so I don't
know how satisfactory they are. I suspect if *he* was satisfied, then
>I would be interested in some genuine evidence for EME LDE's, should it
Evidence is the product of scientific inquiry and experimentation. No
experiment, no evidence. That was all I was trying to say.