UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 7

Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:21:54 +0100
Archived: Wed, 07 May 2008 06:28:10 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?


>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 17:26:21 +0100
>Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

>>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:38:18 +0100
>>Subject: Re: SETI's Real Objectives?

>>You seem to be suggesting a conspiratorial element to the manner
>>in which SETI works. Could you clarify that for me? I'm not
>>trying to nail you here Rod but I would appreciate a clear
>>explanation of your views on this, without external links to
>>what others have said or what you've written elsewhere.

>OK Stuart - it boils down to two or three points (with added
>bits) - first, that an efficient radio signal, like those in
>wider use now, is virtually indistinguishable from noise.

I disagree. An efficient signal would consist of a repeated pattern at
timed intervals with characteristics that would stand out to a
listener who knew what he was doing.

>A long while ago I used 'spread spectrum' satellite signalling.
>Looking at such a signal, SETI would only see a slightly noisier
>band, over the whole width of their screen. If they're looking
>at a narrow frequency range they'd probably never notice it. If,
>by some remote chance, someone checked that 'noise' they _might_
>detect a fifty or eighty or 120 Meg rhythm but, as it's almost
>certainly a pseudo-random code (maybe several _days_ long, or
>more), that's all they'd see - and probably put it down to
>natural causes in the background.

>That was the technology a decade or two ago. There's probably
>more layers today, so now, or soon, those signals will be
>absolutely indistinguishable from noise - unless you're in-synch
>with that long pseudo-random code _and_ have the various
>integrating or differentiating demodulators to exactly match the
>modulators used in the transmission.

>>From reports, SETI is looking for fairly simply modulated
>signals on or around the hydrogen frequency - in a narrow range.

As you know, there are specific reasons why radio astronomy uses that
frequency, one of them being that it is a prohibited frequency and
fairly free of noise.

>That's why I think SETI is _not_ looking for an advanced or even
>a contemporary human-like technology (no use thinking about non-
>human-like technology - we probably wouldn't recognize it).

I think it would be fair to say that what they are looking for is
either a civilisation which, in broad terms, is on a par with ours
technologically speaking, or one that is "trading down".

>Then, from protocols being set in place now and likely to be
>firmer in future, to control or ban ad hoc radio signalling to
>'anyone out there' - we can expect that others slightly ahead of
>us will _not_ be signalling by loose-mouth radio. Unless as
>bait.

There isn't a cat in hell's chance of this ever happening because,
besides being unenforceable, imagine how groups of people like us
would milk it for all it would be worth. It would be tantamount to
declaring an awareness of an alien presence.


>So it seems logical that SETI must be looking for folk like we
>were until very recently - slightly backward compared to us and
>careless about radio security.

OK, you took your time getting there:)

>Also, looking at the military 'dis-info' imperatives imposed on
>NASA personnel, presumably by another agency, we can realize
>that the same has almost certainly been applied to SETI. There
>_is_ a certain similarity in the knee-jerk responses from both
>in recent years, have you noticed?

I'm not being deleberately awkward when I say that no, I haven't. I
would apply that to NASA as well. I think SETI are untouched by disnfo
imperatives ( so far) and believe me, I'd be shouting if I thought
otherwise.

>Have to rely on the professors and Sagan for the further
>conclusion that more advanced folk won't be using radio at all.
>It looks logical though - you must anticipate progress.

No argument there.


>Fitting all that together (glad you forced me to this exercise -
> it needed describing for us laymen) puts the SETI operation in
>a different perspective.

But what perspective? They're looking for aliens and doing the
best they can with the facilities they have and the money at
their disposal. The point is, I don't see a conspiracy.

>Above all, we shouldn't underestimate
>the intelligence of the people in charge - and they've known all
>this a lot longer than we've been thinking about it.

>Extra last bit, just now thought - if SETI knows what NASA
>knows, they've probably established that the present visitors to
>our atmosphere are _not_ using radio to communicate with each
>other - which they seem to do fairly well, and very fast.

I think the American government agency that almost certainly
knows more than NASA about "what's going on" will be NORAD. They
tend to get overlooked but I strongly suspect they would have
many an interesting tale to tell. Why do we give NASA a hard time
and let that lot off scot free?

And from todays news at Alien Worlds

UFO No Longer Unidentified
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html



Stuart Miller
Alien Worlds magazine
http://www.alienworldsmag.com




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com