Alien signal or voice caught on Nasa tape from Saturn!, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 03:21 PM by menguard

reply to post by zorgon

If that wasn't an S.O.S FROM E.T. I WOULD BE SURPRISED.

I am going to implement that into my next new latest music video.

S.M.S.A (S)AVE (M)Y (S)ORRY (A)SS, LOL, ET CALLS OUT.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by menguard]

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 04:10 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

Not really, at the time of their posts 13th_disciple had been a member for six months, 67daniel for one year and porschedrifter for almost four years, not really newbies.

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 04:15 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by zorgon

Not really, at the time of their posts 13th_disciple had been a member for six months, 67daniel for one year and porschedrifter for almost four years, not really newbies.

Yup I know but as I recently pointed out to another I go by point count and contribution to determine "newbie"

Just like U2U privilege has a minimum so is 'release from newbie status

So sue me

Now how about ON TOPIC Herr ArMaP...

what do YOU think of the Ganymede signal

[edit on 23-5-2008 by zorgon]

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 04:17 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by Localjoe3
First off , the three "Sweeps" towards the end are a signal generator of some kind sweeping through the audible range imho.

Not the audible range, those were radio signals, so they changed the frequency to make them audible.

Time on this recording has been compressed such that 13 seconds corresponds to 27 seconds. Since the frequencies of these emissions are well above the audio frequency range, we have shifted them downward by a factor of 260.

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 04:43 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaPNot the audible range, those were radio signals, so they changed the frequency to make them audible.

Much like we do with any 'standard' radio transmission? Hence the Radio we all own and listen to?

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 04:56 PM by BRITWARRIOR

could be a storm could be anything, anything apart from aliens imo

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 05:57 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

Sorry, I was once more carried away by the thought that words have precise meanings.

The signal is interesting, and to me it looks like three different things that I will try to show in the following images by turning the rest of the image to grey.

1 - Background "noise".

2 - A signal that changes frequency slowly.

3 - A more or less rhythmic signal that changes frequency abruptly.

I don't have any idea of what made those radio emissions (it's extremely easy to make radio transmissions, any electrical discharge produces radio waves), but that transmission sure is interesting.

It would be useful if someone could find known natural radio transmissions to use as a comparison.

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:18 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

No, radio communications do not work that way, the signal is not the same as the carrier with a change of frequency.

In AM radio, the amplitude of the sound is used to change amplitude of the radio signal, in FM the frequency of the sound is used to change the frequency of the sound, but if you receive a FM transmission and just change the frequency to the audible range you will only ear the carrier, the frequencies used to modulated the carrier were reduced to inaudible frequencies.

Maybe this image from Wikipedia (found here) will explain it better.

In this image you can see the sound wave at the top being used to modulate a signal in amplitude (AM) or in frequency (FM).

As you can see, although the signals are obviously related, just reducing the frequency of the radio signal to audible frequencies would not make the original sound audible.

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:32 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
It would be useful if someone could find known natural radio transmissions to use as a comparison.

Yes it would, but no one has yet, hence the 'unexplained' part

But hey at least I am finding things lately that YOU find 'interesting' one step closer to getting you to say 'you were right'

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 06:35 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
As you can see, although the signals are obviously related, just reducing the frequency of the radio signal to audible frequencies would not make the original sound audible.

Well a better comparison would be to use the method they use in radio telescopes to translate what they hear into audio... after all we are dealing with signals from space

reply posted on 23-5-2008 @ 07:01 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

That would have been a better comparison, since the other comparison was flawed.

And it's natural that they translate the radio signals to sound, we are very sensitive to changes in frequency, so we can "see" better a wave by hearing it than by seeing it on a graph.

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 01:01 PM by Localjoe3

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by zorgon

That would have been a better comparison, since the other comparison was flawed.

And it's natural that they translate the radio signals to sound, we are very sensitive to changes in frequency, so we can "see" better a wave by hearing it than by seeing it on a graph.

@armap

I don't think you understood my original point, i know the audio was down sampled but the point is that there's gotta be some device that sweeps like that so precisely and 3 times over .. Thats not natural any way you slice it. And the beginning could be noise but it sure sounds like modulated data.
Joe

Try to be patient here with me if you think my observations are flawed.. = I understand im a newbie to you folks because of my points or whatever, but im a cisco network tech, a computer network engineer and ive run a dj business and live audio for 7 years so i do know what im talking about im not just some 14 year old to bicker with i really think this deserves some attention.

Joe

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Localjoe3]

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 01:21 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by Localjoe3
I don't think you understood my original point, i know the audio was down sampled but the point is that there's gotta be some device that sweeps like that so precisely and 3 times over ..

OK, but as you said "sweeping through the audible range" I thought you thought that this was originally in the audible range, you would not be the first (and I suppose not the last) to think that this was really and recording from Jupiter.

Thats not natural any way you slice it. And the beginning could be noise but it sure sounds like modulated data.

I don't know if it's natural or not, I do not have any knowledge about natural radio emissions, but I never underestimate nature.

Try to be patient here with me if you think my observations are flawed.. =

I don't think your observations are flawed, I only think that your opinion that this is not natural is premature because we do not have any data to support or contradict any possibility.

I understand im a newbie to you folks because of my points or whatever, but im a cisco network tech, a computer network engineer and ive run a dj business and live audio for 7 years so i do know what im talking about im not just some 14 year old to bicker with i really think this deserves some attention.

Even if you were just a 14 year old you would get my attention, I never dismiss any opinion because of the people behind it.

The only thing I will say to you because you are a newbie is that sometimes I do not understand what other people write and other times I do not make myself clear because I never learnt how to write in English, so even if the words are the right ones (I use a spell-checker) I sometimes put them in the wrong order and the sentences become mixed up.

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 01:37 PM by Localjoe3

reply to post by ArMaP

armap,
Thanks i see there are other humans out there

Im talking about the Saturn recording from the nasa page not the Jupiter one or the moons.

Joe

PS.. Before we would que the transmitter up for a live tv broadcast we would sweep the signal gen at least a few times to see how it showed up back at the station. Then we did the same with the ifb system. So if you were to check out live tv broadcast you might see somethign similar of a singnal gen sweeping through a freq range and then modulated data before and after. The histogram clearly shows the encoded data at the begining before the sweeps and there is a second level of intensity half way up the graph across the center all green.. That may be something different in it self.
Joe

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Localjoe3]

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Localjoe3]

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 02:30 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by Localjoe3

Oops, I should have said Saturn instead of Jupiter.

Thanks for pointing it.

And I understand what you are saying about the signal and the similarity between it and an human generated signal, I only think that we must rule out natural sources before considering it artificial.

PS: you are putting an extra "p" in my screen name, it's just ArMaP.

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 04:16 PM by zorgon

ArMaP Human?

interesting concept

Originally posted by ArMaPI don't know if it's natural or not, I do not have any knowledge about natural radio emissions, but I never underestimate nature.

So then based on this admission, anything you say on the matter is purely speculation... saying as you do that you "do not have any knowledge"

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 04:32 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by zorgon
So then based on this admission, anything you say on the matter is purely speculation... saying as you do that you "do not have any knowledge"

Yes, pure speculation.

The only difference is that I admit it.

reply posted on 25-5-2008 @ 06:28 PM by Localjoe3

@armap

Sorry about the name typo.. Mind block who knows

Anyways i do have experience in the field of rf broadcasting and data communication. And my opinion says this is not natural. If you were trying to get one's attention... It would be extremely logical to place a freq sweep and repeat it a few times to grab another's attention.

Take this for instance your on earth broadcasting to a distant planet , you want to get their attention and they may have no clue of your language or computer base . It would be logical and smart to do a few sweeps through the ranges you were going to transmit on to let the folks know where to look for the data.

Joe

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 01:24 AM by BlasteR

reply to post by Localjoe3

I was just looking at the video on youtube and searched for existing material on this at ATS and found this thread..

The end of that audio clip on Ganymede does sound extremely odd but, honestly, all of this is processed and amplified for audible listening.

When I was a teenager i used to buy these CD's from Wal-Mart of amplified space noise from VoyagerI and Voyager II. Some of this space noise almost sounds intentionally and musically put together. But that doesn't exactly mean it is. You can even hear what sound like voices at times in those CD's too but they are NOT and it is important for people to understand that. These are not recordings of audible sounds they are electromagnetic recordings that are amplified and processed for audible hearing.

Some of the most interesting space sounds I've ever heard were on these CD's in the form of amplified thunder from storms on Jupiter.. You can see an example of one of these CD's HERE .. They are called "symphonies of the planets" and I think there is a series of 5 CD's total.. Very amazing stuff and just thought I would share..

-ChriS

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 01:38 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by BlasteR These are not recordings of audible sounds they are electromagnetic recordings that are amplified and processed for audible hearing.

Like ummmm RADIO

www.spacesounds.com...

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^