Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Wow! Signal


Back on August 15, 1977, a signal, thought to be of extraterrestrial origin, was detected at The Big Ear radio telescope at Ohio State University by Dr. Jerry Ehman, working in conjunction with SETI. He was so excited by the signal that on a computer printout of the data, he circled the short segment and wrote, "Wow!" next to it (seen here).

Although the configuration of the equipment and a delay between the reception of the signal and the discovery on the computer printout made finding the precise location difficult, it was determined that the source was in Sagittarius (seen here). More precisely, about 2.5 degrees south of the fifth-magnitude star, Chi Sagittarii. The signal lasted for 72 seconds, and was not repeated.


Naturally, as equipment improved and capabilities improved they searched for the signal again. In 1987 and in 1989, Robert Gray, searched, but didn’t find anything. Gray, using the Very Large Array (which I sometimes call the Whopping Huge Array and is seen here), tried again in 1995 and 1996, with no results. And in 1999, Gray, with Dr. Simon Ellingsen, used the University of Tasmania’s Hobart 26m radio telescope in six 14-hour observations and detected nothing.

On the 30th anniversary of finding the signal, Ehman updated the findings and his opinions on the Wow! signal. He wrote:
Thus, since all of the possibilities of a terrestrial origin have been either ruled out or seem improbable, and since the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin has not been able to be ruled out, I must conclude that an ETI (ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) might have sent the signal that we received as the Wow! source. The fact that we saw the signal in only one beam could be due to an ETI sending a beacon signal in our direction and then sending it in another direction that we couldn't detect. Of course, being a scientist, I await the reception of additional signals like the Wow! source that are able to be received and analyzed by many observatories. Thus, I must state that the origin of the Wow! signal is still an open question for me. There is simply too little
data to draw many conclusions. In other words, as I stated above, I choose not to "draw vast conclusions from 'half-vast' data".

But even if the source was an extraterrestrial intelligence, which by itself would be an astounding discovery, that does not translate into a capability to travel interstellar distances. We have been radiating radio signals for more than 100 years, which means, of course, that none of our signals could have reached any of the stars in the small cluster around Chi Sagittarii. That means they wouldn’t be looking for us and wouldn’t know about us. And even if they had discovered our radio signals, we cannot reach them and that might mean they can’t reach us... Yet.

34 comments:

steve sawyer said...

I have read that the collective radio, television, and most other EM signals emitted from humanity's broadcast technologies fade into ambient interstellar static about one or two light years out, with the exception of certain high-powered over-the-horizon military radars and intentional signals emitted sporadically in the past as part of METI (Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence, aka Active SETI) efforts.

This would mean that generally the EM radiation we emit would not reach even the nearest star system, and unless there's some equivalent of a Bracewell probe somewhere in the "neighborhood," civilization's technological emissions would likely go undetected by other non-human entities.

And yet, we have had a lengthy history of quite a bit of genuine ufo activity since WWII and intermittently before for hundreds if not more years. This would suggest alternative means for detecting "living" planets, similar to how we are beginning to detect exoplanets relative size and orbital characteristics when they cross the plane of their suns.

It has been contemplated we will develop orbiting or other exo-orbital platforms that can also potentially spectroscopically parse the atmospheric characteristics of exoplanets to detect possible signs of life such as certain combinations of gaseous emissions. If so, if we did detect such an earth-like exoplanet, should we transmit a signal?

Frankly, considering much of SETI's neutral or positive stance toward sending METI signals, this is an issue that should be seriously considered. I for one am against broadcasting METI signals, based largely on David Brin's expressed concerns, that it would be like a child yelling out into the darkness of the jungle, among other issues. In 60+ years of SETI listening, we have received not a single authentic indication of an intelligent, extra-solar signal, and I include the "WOW!" signal.

Perhaps there might be some good reasons not to transmit, if it seems no one else out there apparently is. What do others think?

Frank Stalter said...

442 extrasolar planets and counting . . .

It's only a matter of time.

starman said...

steve sawyer: if or since UFO activity is genuine, they're already here. We shouldn't send an METI signal, not because it's potentially dangerous but because it's irrelevant.

steve sawyer said...

@starman:

Irrelevant? Not necessarily. If some ufo activity here represents some form of non-human extraterrestrial intelligence, it could still be potentially dangerous to transmit METI signals since, regardless of what form(s) of non-human intelligence, as suggested by some ufo cases, may have been or could currently be here already, it's possible there might be others "out there" who may not be aware of our presence here who could otherwise be alerted to our presence by METI, and since we have no idea of the nature, purpose, or potential intent, if any, of any possible ET's, it would seem wise to be discreet rather than possibly inviting the unknown into our midst. Why take the existential risk?

starman said...

Lol, I don't think there'd be any additional danger. Judging by the great variety of humanoid types reported, it appears that every alien civilization in the galaxy is already aware of us. Even if only a few have representatives here, news could get around. I doubt we could keep our existence a secret to any advanced race.

cda said...

I am trying to fathom Starman's logic. He has said on other blog topics that ET presence on earth is known to certain people at the top, but that we, the public, are not in a fit state to be told about it. (A bit reminiscent of Keyhoe).

OK, so now suppose that we, after years of searching with SETI, finally discover an intelligent radio source that is determined by scientists to be from an advanced ET civilisation. Can the public safely be told about this or not? And how many scientists would be "in the know"? It would take a long time to verify these signals and be certain they emanated from an ET source, and quite a few would be involved in the analysis. Presumably such scientists will have to sign an oath of secrecy. At some point, can the public then be told about these signals, and can they then be told the long kept secret about UFOs?

If the public cannot be told even about the ET signals, is there any point in SETI at all, since whatever is discovered the public, and this includes the rest of the scientific world, will never be informed?

starman said...

cda:

There's a big difference between announcing discovery of an ET radio signal, and announcing ETs here. Radio ETs would presumably be at our technical level, hence incapable of traversing the vast interstellar gulf. Bottom line: radio ETs probably wouldn't represent a danger. UFO ETs are quite a different matter.

Randel Smith said...

Hm. I thought the wow signal had a known source, like a passing airliner. ?

Randel Smith said...

Hm. I thought the wow signal had a known source, like a passing airliner. ?

steve sawyer said...

Passing airliner? No, quite doubtful, given the nature and duration of the siganl.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_signal

David Rudiak said...

It is ironic that a few of the SETI folk, who also argue that UFOs can't be real because they can't get here, because the distances are too vast, etc., also argue that it is dangerous to beam radio messages to ET, because what if they do come here and they aren't nice? Which is it guys: they can't get here or they can?

Carl Sagan was also all over the place. Originally he argued that not only can they get here, they have in the past, many times, but, of course, can't be here now. Then as he became better known, he backed off this stance to they can't get here, because "space is a really, really big place," but we might be able to get there, I guess because we're so damn much smarter than they are.

This was one of the "we're much smarter than the aliens" arguments, used to dismiss UFOs in other ways, such as "How could they possibly find us?" Why, the same way SETI and space sciences is looking for them, through remote sensing. There are some other debunking arguments along these lines that also make no logical sense. We can do it but they can't.

At least people like Shostak and Drake are logically consistent in both their dismissal of UFOs and the dangers of METI. But, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

David Rudiak said...

In Kevin's article he wrote:
On the 30th anniversary of finding the signal, Ehman updated the findings and his opinions on the Wow! signal. He wrote:

"Thus, since all of the possibilities of a terrestrial origin have been either ruled out or seem improbable, and since the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin has not been able to be ruled out, I must conclude that an ETI (ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) might have sent the signal that we received as the Wow! source."


I don't know Ehman's personal opinions concerning UFOs, but there is another obvious SETI irony here. Ehman considers only one short radio signal from over 30 years ago as possible evidence of ETI existence and contact, but hundreds if not thousands of very well-documented and truly unexplained UFO sightings going on now and for at least 7 decades before are not considered possible evidence of ETI contact.

Instead, the usual dismissive statement from SETI spokespeople is that there isn't a "shred of evidence" supporting the ET reality of UFOs.

So one isolated, unexplained, non-repeated radio signal is a "shred of evidence", but thousands of sightings backed by instrumentation such as radar, photos, and various other indirect physical trace evidence is not.

In fact, the list of UFO physical evidence DOES include various unexplained radio wave receptions, such as the classic 1957 RB-47 UFO case, where two microwave monitoring stations on the plane picked up transmissions pacing and circling the plane simultaneous with visual sightings by the pilots and radar contact from the ground.

Also in 1957, unexplained radio signals were reported by newspapers as being picked up from some unknown object that seemed to be following the just-launched Russian Sputnik 2 satellite.

There are also numerous EM interference cases, such as the classic Levelland, TX, and other car-stalling cases, again immediately following Sputnik 2.

But none of this is considered a "shred of evidence" that ET might already be here. The mind continues to boggle at the logical inconsistency of the SETI folk.

steve sawyer said...

Here's an article by David Brin that is most pertinent:

"SHOUTING AT THE COSMOS...Or How SETI has Taken a Worrisome Turn Into Dangerous Territory"**

http://bit.ly/gqKaq

For some additional insight into Brin's concerns about Active SETI or METI, also see the following, entitled "The Dangers of First Contact":

http://bit.ly/aLKDd4

As for Carl Sagan's later retreat from his early endorsement of the possibility of ET visitation, see:

"Carl and Me" by Michael Swords

http://bit.ly/b9Zimh

Swords argues that, as in the case of Sagan, SETI advocates dismissal of ET visitation and ufos is most likely based on peer pressure and potential lack of grants and mainstream astronomical community acceptance of anyone who suggests such is either possible or actually occurring. Just ask Vallee--he has noted similar personal examples from his early career in astronomy.

Shostak, et al, have to reject ET visitation and ufos--their vested financial, reputational, and identity-based mainstream SETI interests are involved, thus their illogical inconsistency and contradictory stance of rejection, which aberrantly flys in the face of relatively strong evidence for such.

**It seems, according to Brin, that although the SETI Institute, and its leaders Shostak and Tarter, initially endorsed restrictions on METI, when something called the "Second SETI protocol" and a section of it referring to METI came up for discussion, Shostak and others at the SETI Institute, perhaps out of long-term frustration with the negligible results of SETI, back-pedaled and would not accept either restrictions on METI for alleged "free speech" reasons, or opening the issue up to other concerned interest groups, despite the obvious contradiction.

Although even military OTH radars fade out into cosmic background noise within a few light years, METI, using powerful, narrow-beam technologies, can send coherent signals that might be able to be picked up hundreds or thousands of light years distant.

Since the existential risk is not zero, I think it's foolish to let a small group of advocates with access to the radio-telescope and other tech required to blithely transmit METI signals (its already been done at least a dozen times so far) or implement plans to do so without a wider discussion and proper protocols and international agreements to decide these issues, regardless of whether there may have been or are some indications of one or more forms of non-human intelligence visiting us in the past or present.

It would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to assume no harm could come from effectively "ringing the dinner bell" into the depths of the cosmos without knowing what's out there.

I am reminded of the famous Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man," which was the title of a stolen ET book, and that when belatedly (far too late) was translated, turned out to be a cookbook!

See: http://bit.ly/b7KGhy

8^}

David Rudiak said...

Steve Sawyer wrote:

Swords argues that, as in the case of Sagan, SETI advocates dismissal of ET visitation and ufos is most likely based on peer pressure and potential lack of grants and mainstream astronomical community acceptance of anyone who suggests such is either possible or actually occurring. Just ask Vallee--he has noted similar personal examples from his early career in astronomy.

Shostak, et al, have to reject ET visitation and ufos--their vested financial, reputational, and identity-based mainstream SETI interests are involved, thus their illogical inconsistency and contradictory stance of rejection, which aberrantly flys in the face of relatively strong evidence for such.


This remands me of what documentary film-maker David Cherniak told me a few years ago, after interviewing some of the SETI people, including, I believe Shostak. They are actually far more interested in the UFO question than they let on publicly.

What I don't understand, if come of them are closet UFO "believers", is why they would bother listening for or sending out messages when some ETs are already right here, unless SETI is nothing but employment and money to them.

SETI originally had government funding, so perhaps the purpose originally was not to find out if ET was out there, but how prevalent they were and where their home planets might be. If this was what was going on, government funding dried up with three decades of negative results, since apparently they were getting nowhere with this approach.

Probably the "real" SETI operation is done by intelligence agencies like the NSA that are more interested in where they are what they are up to inside our own solar system rather than many light years away.

Could SETI have originally been more of the public face of such an operation, much like Blue Book was for UFO investigation (while the serious investigation was secretly done elsewhere), underfunded for the purported mission, but perhaps there to suggest the idea of ET was being taken somewhat seriously, and also as a possible conduit for the release of such information to the public in a more palatable way? "They're out there all right, but too far away to be dangerous to us."

cda said...

I see that David Rudiak is back on the conspiracy tack when he suggests that SETI was actually a cover for a deeper research into UFO origins (and repeats the myth that Blue Book was a cover for something much more serious being done at the top).

There have indeed been occasional astronomers who took UFOs seriously, one being Lincoln La Paz. Another was Hynek. Tombaugh took a passing interest as well. They were not too concerned over their government funding either. I am only talking about professionals here. Also, people seem to forget the huge publicity over the Mars meteorite in August 1996 that emanated from NASA HQ, which some took as an attempt to generate increased funding for NASA (i.e. the exact opposite to the supposed withdrawal of federal funding that would ensue should any astronomer break ranks and announce his belief in UFOs as ET craft).

You see conspiracy ideas can work both ways, can't they?

On another topic: does anyone know exactly when Enrico Fermi uttered (or wrote) his famous phrase "Where are they?" Who else was present when he said it, or in what journal did it appear? Was it before the UFO era?

starman said...

I tend to doubt there is a real SETI trying to determine what ET is doing in our solar system--at least not based on radio emissions. SETI may exist because few are privy to proof of ET here, and it helps the coverup if scientists are still looking for aliens. People would assume the existence of a search rules out proof of ET.
I recall in one of his books Sagan mentioned some old legend of a half-fish creature arising from the waters and imparting his knowledge to humans. Amazingly, he was willing to consider a "fishy" story evidence of an alien visit, but scoffed at UFO and grey reports. Basically I think the problem was that for all the fascination he professed for exobiology, Sagan had little stomach for it. Aliens were OK as long as they were in the distant past or future, not here and now.

David Rudiak said...

Starman wrote:
I tend to doubt there is a real SETI trying to determine what ET is doing in our solar system--at least not based on radio emissions.

Ron Regehr, who was an aerospace engineer at Douglas Aircraft and Aerojet ElectroSystems working in space and space surveillance systems, claims we have far more sensors pointed outward than towards Earth, watching what THEY are up to. If so, then this would be the "real" SETI.

Sensors would include not only for radio waves, but also infrared and maybe other optical bands (looking for lasers communications?), maybe gravimeter sensors for gravity distortion, high energy radiation sensors for gamma rays, neutrons, etc. We can only guess as to the full gamut of detectors that might be employed.

SETI may exist because few are privy to proof of ET here, and it helps the coverup if scientists are still looking for aliens. People would assume the existence of a search rules out proof of ET.

Yes, that might make sense. Guys like Shostek, however, seem pretty clueless, so it is hard to believe he has any inside information. Drake might. None other than Lloyd Berkner of MJ-12 and Robertson Panel infamy helped him establish Project OZMA in 1960, the original SETI.

Incidentally Starman, be warned, any tiny act of idle speculation will automatically get you branded as wild-eyed conspiracy theorist by the likes of cda.

Aliens were OK as long as they were in the distant past or future, not here and now.

Or a thousand light years away. Nearby bacterial aliens on Mars or Europa are OK too, and may show up at State of the Union addresses to illustrate what a non-prejudice society we are. But we don't like them TOO close. Anything that might show up for dinner and marry your daughter is not OK.

Close encounter III or occupant cases in the here and now were also largely taboo to civilian organizations like NICAP, perhaps wary of the credibility problems of the 1950s contactees. The Lonnie Zamora Socorro CEIII case, and then Betty and Barney Hill abduction case began to break through that prejudice in the 1960s.

cda said...

I referred to the Mars meteorite (catalogued as ALH84001). What is the latest knowledge about this, after all the furore in 1996? Or is it still under debate, as is so much in the SETI/Life elsewhere/UFO field?

starman said...

Last I heard, the evidence for life in the Mars meteorite is no longer considered good. IIRC some of it was attributed to contamination by Antarctic water.
Btw I think the credibility of 1950s contactees didn't really take a dive until better astronomical knowledge showed how phony the claims of their putative contacts were. Much of this knowledge regarding e.g. the uninhabitability of Venus, didn't come until after the '50s. Don't you guys remember at the start of the 1953 War of the Worlds, when the "Martians" had to reject certain planets as unsuitable for colonization (Mercury for example was too hot)Venus wasn't even mentioned? That's because scientists had yet to acertain the nature of its environment. So the 1950s "Venusians" didn't seem impossible yet. It seems a bit odd that occupant reports were less believable at the time than later, when the imposibility of certain claims became obvious.

Paul Kimball said...

Incidentally Starman, be warned, any tiny act of idle speculation will automatically get you branded as wild-eyed conspiracy theorist by the likes of cda.

If only you engaged in idle acts of speculation, you would be fine with CDA, I suspect. It's the fact that your "speculation" is anything but idle that leads to the wild-eyed conspiracist tag.

Paul Kimball said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry said...

CDA, Starman:

Actually, the case for Martian meteorite ALH84001 containing fossilized microbial life is as strong as or stronger than ever. While some amount of terrestrial contamination of Martian meteorites is inevitable, the possibility that all the observed lines of evidence is due to such contamination is negligible. For a good discussion of the evidence, you can read Dave McKay’s latest paper at
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/403089main_7441-1.pdf

In some ways, the argument surrounding ALH84001 has been a reasonably good analogue for the UFO debate. First, ALH84001 represented the serendipitous discovery of a set of data not predicted by theory. Next, the data was ambiguous and admitted to multiple possible interpretations. Further, the most straightforward interpretation of the data (i.e., that it was exobiological in origin) contradicted the prevailing, conventional, and “conservative” wisdom (i.e., that life elsewhere is unlikely). All this has created a huge amount of acrimony around this topic in the astrobiology community—individual personalities on opposite sides of the argument think their opponents are idiots, and charlatans, etc. Much of the debate revolves around the interpretation of images; if the images are blurry and indistinct, they are not good enough to support the exobiology hypothesis; if the images are clear and distinct, then they must be indicative of contamination, and so on. Does this sound familiar?

This is why the argument that UFOs must be nonsense because not all scientists accept them as real, is empty. Science is full of data that can be interpreted in multiple ways, but it’s not justified to arbitrarily choose one particular interpretation over another unless and until all the competing explanations can be conclusively eliminated as not being possible. If there is not enough evidence to make a conclusive statement, then you live with the uncertainty until there is. This is exactly what is happening with the ALH84001 debate, right now and, I would argue, the UFO debate.

The main difference is that the ALH84001 debate is probably resolvable in the foreseeable future since it and other Martian meteorites are in the possession of various laboratories and analytical techniques are getting better all the time. Privately, Dave McKay predicts that he will be able to conclusively prove the biological origin of the ALH84001 evidence, within the year, due to improvements in the precision of ion microprobe technology.

By the way, the Enrico Fermi quote “Where is everybody?” has been reliably traced to a lunchtime conversation he had with Ed Teller, Herb York, and Emil Konopinski at Los Alamos, in 1950.

cda said...

Re conspiracy theorists, I did mention an instance of a 'conspiracy-in-reverse' theory that was alleged re the Mars meteorite ALH84001. This was the idea, advanced in a highly regarded science journal, the NEW SCIENTIST, in a column entitled "Martian fantasies and sliced salmon" (Aug 31, 1996).

The writer, Andreas Frew, told how NASA, having had its budget cut by Congress and the Clinton administration, seized upon the claimed discovery of life on the meteorite and plugged it for all its worth, saying in effect "This is it folks; we desperately need more & more money for space research and the search for ET life".

But at the same time we have the UFO cover-up brigade telling us that for decades past we have already discovered the said ET life (as intelligent life, no less) but that a few privileged guys 'at the top' are sitting on all this information and alien hardware.

Take your pick.

David Rudiak said...

I originally wrote:
Incidentally Starman, be warned, any tiny act of idle speculation will automatically get you branded as wild-eyed conspiracy theorist by the likes of cda.

Paul Kimball charmingly responded:
If only you engaged in idle acts of speculation, you would be fine with CDA, I suspect. It's the fact that your "speculation" is anything but idle that leads to the wild-eyed conspiracist tag.

Thanks for sharing Paul. Perhaps you are thinking of that wild-eyed conspiracy theory concerning Dr. Robert Sarbacher being used as a patsy by U.S. counterintelligence, feeding Wilbert Smith crazy ideas about crashed saucers and MJ-12 notions of Dr. Vannevar Bush heading a super-secret group looking into the modus operandi of the saucers.

This was done, you see, so that the gullible and not-so-smart Smith would go back and infect the Canadian government and research and development crowd with these crazy notions, they, being Canadians, equally gullible.

Ultimately the purpose of this clever scheme would be to plant these notions in the minds of Soviet spies overrunning Canada (Canadian security being so shoddy), so that the Rooskies would think the U.S. had crashed saucers, but we didn't. It was all a big con.

The only "evidence" provided for this conspiracy, as I remember, was superior intellect and logical reasoning, because Vannevar Bush could never possibly be involved, just because, and why else would a dolt, not to mention a Canadian, like Wilbert Smith ever be told anything?

Wait, that was YOUR crazy-assed conspiracy theory, wasn't it?

Maybe the pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black Paul.

David Rudiak said...

Actually, the case for Martian meteorite ALH84001 containing fossilized microbial life is as strong as or stronger than ever.

...In some ways, the argument surrounding ALH84001 has been a reasonably good analogue for the UFO debate.


Thanks again Larry for your usual intelligent post.

The idea of Martian bacteria has also been recently bolstered by the Martian rovers discovering evidence of free water in the Martian past, orbiters detecting water ice at the poles, permafrost under the soil, and the recent discovery of free methane in the atmosphere.

As in the Martian bacteria controversy, there are also currently warring scientific camps in those believing in the ancient warm, wet Mars theory, and those arguing Mars has always been cold and dry.

One of the original Viking lander life experiments was also positive, a 35-year result that remains hotly debated to this day.

Scientific results are rarely black and white; some degree of ambiguity is the norm. What usually breaks these interpretation bottlenecks is the advent of better data that supports some hypotheses while enabling you to eliminate others.

SETI and UFOs are not somehow exceptions. Unambiguous data is typically very hard to come by.

David Rudiak said...

Here's someone else writing about a possible ulterior motive to SETI, as part of a deception campaign. Notice numerous historical examples given by author (not directly UFO related) of extraordinary measures undertaken by various government intelligence and counterintelligence agencies to deceive the public and protect big secrets:

http://www.auforn.com/Simon_Harvey-Wilson_9.htm

Simon Harvey Wilson
UFOs, Disinformation, and Deception

"...Could SETI have a covert purpose apart from listening for aliens? ...While keeping a few computer engineers, software engineers, and astronomers in gainful employment, perhaps SETI actually serves the more important purposes of introducing the public to the idea that there are certainly aliens out there somewhere. Rather than listening for aliens, SETI's main function may be to send a non-threatening message about aliens to the public here on Earth, as a prelude to informing them that the aliens are already here. Most SETI scientists might be unaware of this covert motive, which would make the whole project a masterpiece of deception."

Obviously another conspiratorial nutcase.

Penny said...

I'm totally having the Wow signal, UFOs and the Crop Circles and major government cover up. I'm about to try and blog about the Wow signal, if I can get a grip of it, being female and not so technical minded but fascinated by it, all the same!

wash98052 said...

A prominent pprofessional astronomer who was CONVINCED of alien presence in the solar system and beyond, the late Tom Van Flandern, came out immediately AGAINST ALH84001 as being of Martian origin based on both atmospheric gas properties inherent in the rock and the unsuitable mechanics needed to get it here.

So whatever ALH84001 is, it could not be alien life from Mars, was his (and some others')contention, despite the popular impression of Antarctica as a gold mine of alien microbes.

As happened before (when he postulated on math grounds that many/most asteroids would have tiny satellites--proven with th Eros mission et al, Van Flandern was ignored in that manner Carl Sagan had of dismissing others: "You're not even in the conversation."

Understand, Sagan to my knowledge never said such a thing to Van Flandern. But who/what is in and out of favor blinds the science media to notions of the non-standard. Who's ever read a popular piece on galactic astronomer Halton Arp and his evidence that The Red Shift is not what it should be?

JohnFThielking said...

The latest revelations about ftl neutrinos being detected at CERN (including the claim that they do not produce the expected weak current analog of Cerenkov radiation) fits very nicely with the idea that there is such a thing as an anti-grav field on ufos that reduces rest mass, increases c and increases the speed of time on board the crafts. The craft operators percieve themselves to be flying at the speed of a biplane while we see hypersonic (and no sonic boom because c and v of t is increased near the craft) type of movements. e=mc^2 still applies, but m and c are variables instead of constants. We probably have this tech already on the shelf in Area 51, but for some reason we are choosing to make elementary ftl tech public knowledge at this time.

chip said...

Irrelevant? Not necessarily. If some ufo activity here represents some form of non-human extraterrestrial intelligence, it could still be potentially dangerous to transmit METI signals since, regardless of what form(s) of non-human intelligence, as suggested by some ufo cases, may have been or could currently be here already, it's possible there might be others "out there" who may not be aware of our presence here who could otherwise be alerted to our presence by METI, and since we have no idea of the nature, purpose, or potential intent, if any, of any possible ET's, it would seem wise to be discreet rather than possibly inviting the unknown into our midst. Why take the existential risk?

qwadro_fx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Blackstone said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Frank Blackstone said...

Prehaps one day the signal will return , Maby a slow rotation of universal matter and alignment with our tiney planet listening . intelegant beings trying to reach out and another Simi intelegant being trying to comunicate over great distances where the reply or return signal will take Time and loss of alignment and Interest in a specific area of search . It was Jules Vern I beleive wrote of the trip to the moon in his Moon Cannon that when his Travelers reachd the moon they used the very last of there energy to send one last signal to let earth know they had made it ..Prehaps a dying planet would send such a signal to let others know they were there . Signal between Planatary ships is another thaught out posability . Interesting posibality and the U F Ologists that have seen many interesting phenomonons in the night sky . It is the never ending hope that one day we will Know the truth and See the Intelegant Gods frome the Sky or Intelegant beings from another world . We can only Hope that If they ever show up that they will be friendly and compatable with our exestance ..We certainly Hope to live to see the truth ....Frank Blackstone

Andrew Flambaum said...

ETs are mind-made, their intentions are mind-made and so is everything relating to them. They exist because they are interesting, but that does not mean they are real.