It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mystery signal from Ross 128 is solved

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Well.. at least its not swamp gas this time
They played the satellite card
Bluff ?

phys.org...



Astronomers detected strange signals that seemed to be coming from a dwarf star about 11 light-years away, but have now determiend that the signals are interference from a distant geostationary satellite Read more at: phys.org...




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
Well.. at least its not swamp gas this time
They played the satellite card
Bluff ?

phys.org...



Astronomers detected strange signals that seemed to be coming from a dwarf star about 11 light-years away, but have now determiend that the signals are interference from a distant geostationary satellite Read more at: phys.org...




It very well could be but one would think that this is already on the list of things to check off BEFORE releasing anything to the public about not knowing what it is. Or maybe it's just part of "hey, we need to release something cool to the public so we can keep our funding"



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
Well.. at least its not swamp gas this time
They played the satellite card
Bluff ?

phys.org...



Astronomers detected strange signals that seemed to be coming from a dwarf star about 11 light-years away, but have now determined that the signals are interference from a distant geostationary satellite Read more at: phys.org...




As far as I can tell, they have not identified the specific geostationary satellite but that the signal was detected when the star was crossing the celestial equator where there are numbers of such satellites.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
So it should not be a problem for them to make the raw data public. And also the datastream they recorded to come to the sat conclusion.

I mean, it all sounds extremly vague. I´m not saying "aliens" here. But it´s certainly not the scientific method that made them say this.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
So it should not be a problem for them to make the raw data public. And also the datastream they recorded to come to the sat conclusion.

I mean, it all sounds extremly vague. I´m not saying "aliens" here. But it´s certainly not the scientific method that made them say this.


Not all satellite data is suitable for public disclosure. Due to it being military and/or intelligence material. Which could also explain why the astronomers weren't initially aware of such a satellite and couldn't decipher the signal. Pure speculation, but it makes perfect sense.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon
Thinking about it, why didn´t I think of this earlier! Thank you!

It makes sense. Satellites, at least most, range between frequencies 1-30 40 GHz (SHF). Mil-spec will probably be a exception, both on the low and high end of the range. This is where it get´s interesting. Radiotelescopes work in the ranges from I think 30-300GHz and more. Someone might correct me if this is outdated.

Interference is definitly possible. But the questions remain:

What kind of sensors/detectors/antennas were used? Are they suitable for receiving and processing those probably experimental military waveforms by accident? What timeframe are we speaking of, how long did those events take place? micro seconds? Minutes?




posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Oh, sure they are!!! A satellite? Really??

Good grief, I am far from a UFO buff, but I don't believe that!!



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Spacespider

Oh, sure they are!!! A satellite? Really??

Good grief, I am far from a UFO buff, but I don't believe that!!
Why is that so hard to believe?

When they first discovered it, they said "here are three things that could explain it:" and one of the three was a satellite.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

The military sats could be broadcasting on a wide spectrum encryptid data. So that the signals scattered across a wide swath but could be reput back together by the recieving military devices.

The detectors used by the science guys could have experienced their issues do to the small slivers of military data that were on their bandwidth.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Spacespider

Oh, sure they are!!! A satellite? Really??

Good grief, I am far from a UFO buff, but I don't believe that!!
Why is that so hard to believe?

When they first discovered it, they said "here are three things that could explain it:" and one of the three was a satellite.


Honestly, it just doesn't feel true. Not evidence, I know, but that's my take on it. As I stated, I am not a UFO buff, but I won't dismiss all claims. Seems like they'd be able to ell right off if something was from a satellite.

Just has that, "You saw swamp gas, or maybe Venus." feel to it.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
They also observed a dispersion-like phenomenon in the Ross 128 signal, wherein different radio frequencies are received at slightly earlier or later times. This is related to the frequency in a predictable and systematic way.

It seems very improbable that multiple, random reflections of radio waves from satellites could organize themselves in this manner. How would such reflections match up the appropriate frequency with the correct delay time, and do so consistently?

The Allen Telescope Array of the SETI Institute was observing Ross 128 again, yesterday. This confirms that the mystery of the Ross 128 signal has not been solved, despite claims to the contrary, because they are still gathering evidence.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I am somewhat skeptical about this being a satellite myself.

Below is a great update from a YouTube channel I follow. Outlines the oddities and findings. Worth a watch if you're interested in the subject. He produces several good videos on Science/Space related topics.

www.youtube.com...

~Winter



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
That summs up my post

I was more asking from the direction "is it even possible that the hardware from the science guys can pick up something like that?"

I mean, you can´t pick up radio waves with a optical sensor (for example), wrong side of the spectrum. Let alone the data processing of the raw data afterwards. Anyways, we´ll have to trust their word if it´s not known what type of equipment was utilized.

That´s something I always try to avoid when troubleshooting smth. "Tell me what changed, don´t suggest any causes or solutions". 90% it´s a cover story for their stupidy and it´s rude and an insult to my intelligence when they try that.

Of course, if military is involved, it´s easy to say "sorry, no specs because military". On the other hand, it certainly is necessary for the military to surpress anything that could challenge the integrity of their communication devices / medium.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Winterpain

Thanks for sharing, Winterpain. Mr. Godier is an excellent source of information on a number of scientific topics.

The weakness of the signal might indicate that it wasn't communicative in intent, but merely the outfall of some E T technology that uses radio waves. Space survey radar to detect dangerous asteroids, maybe, or even planetary weather control, come to mind. Neither of these would be at all likely to have its beam pointed our way.

Besides the problems with using one of our own satellites to explain dispersion-like phenomena, there is the way the signal declined sharply in frequency, in repeated cycles. That's not satellite-like behavior, either.

Glad that Godier confirmed that Prof. Mendez heard the signal again at Arecibo, this fact hadn't been made as clear as it should have been, nor were the details of this reacquisition of the signal widely shared.

I suspect that the Allen Telescope Array would be unlikely to detect a signal that was barely strong enough to be received by Arecibo. The latter is a much larger, and so, much more sensitive instrument. Still, one appreciates their effort. They might even get lucky and hear it. This is apparently their attitude, given their continued observation of Ross 128, even after Prof. Mendez issued his "explanation".

edit on 28-7-2017 by Ross 54 because: added word for emphasis




top topics



 
9

log in

join