Quite right, Chip. Perhaps worse than the concept of 'fake news' is the concept of those who automatically read 'fake' into every story. The information is presented in a clear manner with a wide consideration of possible causes, and more than enough humility and caution on understanding. J. MW1CFN
Excellent article from the Arecibo Radio Telescope people and the University of Puerto Rico. And no ads about lawyers! LOL
Hi Bob, No one here knows the history of JK searching for solar system based radio emissions, and I am sure they dont know about the false detection of Comet Arend-Roland by JK. The point is that it is exceedingly unlikely that this alleged comet detection is real given the absence of detectability of other comets with the same telescope. I am sure you will articulate the other reasons. 73 Chip W1YW
Thanks for joining the discussion Bob. Regarding the WOW! signal, it's interesting to see there could be an opinion that the "recurrent aliens hypothesis", while perhaps low on the list, may still be alive. Looking forward to the new publication. 73 de John - WØPV
Although far more scientific, there seems to be as much intrigue in SETI lately as with any ongoing Earhart investigations and alleged photo. I can imagine eager producers at cable docu-drama channels salivating to hype new material.
Here at the local net we have had our conversations with Bob, W8ERD, who was running the "big ear" antenna when the "WOW" signal came in. We always listen to Bob, regardless of what he is talking about. When he is talking about SETI, we listen more. So we know a lot more, but are not allowed to talk about it. Actually, I don't remember anything before the bright flash from the guy in the black suit. I'm sure that we will all be better off if we wait for Bob to get back to us here. 73, Mike
New data from last Sundays observations. BerkeleySETI didn't hear anything at Green Bank, although they admit the observed duration was short. They also looked into RFI from sats in that band and concluded that to be a likely source. http://seti.berkeley.edu/ross128.pdf 73, John, WØPV
Yup. Now called the "Weird!" signal, http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/theweirdsignal No Piña Colada this time.
The previous text stated that they were listening in the frequency range 4.5 to 4.8 GHz, kind of a broad range. This is an interesting frequency range. If it is a local source, it would not conform to any ITU standard. According to my ITU Table of Frequency Allocations, 3.6 to 4.2 GHz is heavily used by TVRO C band downlink satellites. (earth to space) These being basically bent pipe translators, surely this is not the source unless one is producing some serious spurs. (or a mobile uplink van trying to access a channel has spurs) This leaves 4.2 to 4.4 GHz which is assigned to Aeronautical Radio navigation worldwide. This too would be a highly structured emission and surely not the source. 4.4 to 4.5 GHz is assigned to Fixed and mobile services worldwide. (???) And finely 4.5 to 4.8 GHz is assigned to satellite UPLINKS (earth to space) One would assume that any emission from or to a satellite would have some kind of structure. Interesting indeed! Tom WA4ILH
FCC table says 4.5 to 4.8 GHz is for downlinks (space to earth). https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
