It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Alleged NASA -Affiliated Astronomer Deciphers 'Intelligence' Signal From Nearby Stars

page: 30
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:28 AM
Alas it seems you didnt hear me,any of you trying to find out more about this or you just going to continue to bait each other for the rest of the thread?

regards to you all

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Probability of what has happened right now in my opinion:

60% - she is victim of an ugly prank by her piers
30% - the signals are real and she has been stopped
10% - she would risk her NASA career and credibility and make it all up.''

My problem with it, is that it's not even my focus and I know it's crap, just from general physics and being a comm theory EE.

It's not credible that a 'theoretical quantum physicist' AND an astrophysicist would not know that radio telescopes do not see in UV. It's not VERY credible that someone of that education in that sort of job could make the other mistakes I see in her posts regarding modulation, sub-carriers and the like - a radio astronomer would not.

So the "victim of an ugly prank" hypothesis is not very believable, IMHO. It's also not possible that the signals are real. I mean, there could be real signals, but not that you would be picking up on a radio telescope. So the whole story she posted is crap, and couldn't possibly be her being deceived.

Let's explore option 3 a bit. I don't know Wayne from Adam's housecat, although given the books he's written and the content of his website, let's say that like a lot of people who embrace the...ahem...more exotic possibilities of things, he really would LIKE to find that stories about aliens, abductions, Aelstrea etc are true. Really REALLY like it. So, along comes Judy. She tells him that she's working for NASA, ESA, etc, that she's got two doctorates, and that she herself has been abducted, and she gives him a stirring tale or two of boogers in the dark, mysteries of the radio telescope world and so on. Wayne gets little UFOs in his eyes, and he's in LUV. At least, platonically.

Now, it's pretty apparent that ol' Wayne bit into this signal story right from the start. He was all gung-ho. And it doesn't seem to have struck him that there were glaring technical gaps in it. So, I'd like to forward the opinion that Wayne might not be ABLE to tell if Judy is having him on from a technical viewpoint. And maybe he can't tell if Judy really knows what she's talking about when she tells him her tales of her quantum physics days, or the times she's gotten messages from her little Space Brothers. Not because Wayne's a scoundrel, but because he's not technically apt and he WANTS to believe it, so his willing suspension of disbelief is running a tad high.

Maybe, like some of you, that SETI@Home team listing showing her on the NASA Ames team sold him. But most of those teams are open membership - I'm on the NASA Ames team as of yesterday, and I'll confess - I've done some designs for NASA, but I never worked there as an employee. (That's me, newest member Tom O'Bedlam if you want to go check) If it took someone vouching for your legitimacy to join, I'd be able to join NASA MSFC, if that exists, but not Ames.

So here's my version of possibility 3:

a) Wayne's a dupe. He's not technically literate enough to spot the issues with this story, and he wasn't with her previous tales either. They sounded sciencey, and he didn't know the difference, so he bought in.

b) He wants these things to be true, because that's the way he rolls. So he's not inclined to question her veracity as long as she's feeding him what he wants to hear

c) Part of the tale he bought was this dual doctorate at Berkeley. Which I'm going out on a limb and say she doesn't have, based on a decided lack of published works, even her doctoral work doesn't show anywhere. And based on that webpage which didn't show her living at Berkeley, and also so far I can't establish a residence in California for her. She'd have taken years to get those UCB doctorates, few people can do that without leaving SOME sort of footprint I'd find. No California drivers' license, for example. No phone bills, No utilities. I did find one that matched her webpage map. And I've got pretty good resources at finding that sort of thing. Don't ask.

d) I can't find where she ever was listed on a phone listing for NASA either.

so my current belief is in possibility 3, with the addition that she never had any doctorate at all, and never worked for NASA or ESA. She made all that up and fed it to Wayne. Who wasn't willing or able to sort out the wheat from the chaff. And now she's made up this story (did it before with this Aelstrea thing, eh?) and put it out, only she didn't do enough research to make it plausible, and it's got more gaps than the Jesse MacBeth story. As soon as it starts to crumble, she takes down her web presence and skedaddles. Not because the CIA has silenced her, just that she got caught.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:32 AM
The SALT Telescope in SA IS fitted with a new RSS - NIR (Robert Stobie Spectrograph - Near Infra red) unfortunately it is unable to "see" into the wavelengths as described in the initial claim "212.55 nm peaking at 400.11nm"

Which can be found here

Table 3-2. RSS-NIR instrument parameters.
Telescope Aperture 11 meters
Telescope focal ratio f/4.18
Collimator Focal Length 302 mm
Camera Focal Length 220 mm
Image space F/# 1.4289
Efl 15718.39 mm
Plate scale 76.205 μm/arcsec
Plate scale 4.233 pixels per arcsec (18 μm pixels)
Image Quality Pixel limited in all modes , 2 pixels =0.5 arcsec
Field of View 8 arcmin dia (imaging), 8 x 8 arcmin
Wavelength Coverage 0.9 – 1.7 μm, Δλ = 0.8 μm
Gratings 4 articulated VPHGs, 1 conventional low R grating
Spectral Resolution 800, 2000-7000 (1arcsec slit)
Free Spectral Range (FSR) in one grating setting FSR ~ 0.13 μm @ R ~ 2000
FSR ~ 0.11 μm @ R ~ 4000
FSR ~ 0.09 μm @ R ~ 7000
R~800 conventional grating to cover entire range,
FSR = 0.8 μm
Pixel Scale 0.24
Field of View 8 x 8 arcmin
Multiplex laser-cut MOS masks, up to 40 slits per mask
Throughput 45%, not including telescope
Detector 2048 x 2048 Teledyne Hawaii 2RG and ASIC, 18
μm pixels, long-wavelength cutoff @1.7 μm
Fabry-Perot Imaging
Spectral Resolution 2500
Field of View 8 arcmin dia
Etalon Finesse 50
Order Blocking Filters R ~ 50, 12 filters covering discrete atmospheric
windows in J and H bands
Polarization Measurements linear, circular, all stokes
Instrument Modes imaging, spectroscopy
Field of View 4 x 8 arcmin
Field of View 8 arcmin dia
Broadband Filters Y, J, H

Was very interested to learn that all this new technology was under development and due to be online January 2010.

Interesting reading but I don't think it is capable of gathering the alleged data. I could most certainly be wrong, as this is not my field, but maybe someone with experience in this field could review and inform us?

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
What saddens me, and baffles me, the most about this thread
is the fact that ATS is supposedly a place for open-minded seekers
of truth and reality- however surreal that reality may be, or however
unbelievable the truth is.

So far, we have:

1) No definitive info about Judy

2) No data to analyze ourselves

3) Nothing concrete at all.

You are wrong on two counts of of three. True, we don't have data. But we also don't have a scrap of info on Judy being a scientist, which is a pure impossibility -- anyone with a PhD has left a trace of publications, presentations and other artifacts of career in science. It's a relatively small community, you can't be so incredibly obscure -- and if you were, you wouldn't be hired by any science organization except to clean toilets.

As to being concrete, and if you followed the thread... Those of us with training in sciences spot quite a load of BS in the messages supposedly relayed from Judy. I definitely do.

So for me- this is not a hoax or the truth- it is an evolving information packet that may be one or the other- the jury is not only out- the trial has yet to even begin!

Before a trial begins, there is a grand jury that decides whether it merits a trial, and in this case this is being tossed out.

ATS-Deny Ignorance?


What a joke this community has become- we are all ignorant, and I come to this site to try and eradicate some of that ignorance

Sorry but you aren't doing a very good job of it so far.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by cosmicpixie

sorry, haven't gotten this quote business figured out quite yet, but here's from cosmicpixie earlier:

"Heck this is as abnormal Naturally and Naturally Intelligent as it comes. Better than the "Wow" signal and then to top it all in the deep Ultraviolet Frequency. No wonder no one found anything before, they were looking in the wrong Frequency range. We opened up a bag of Bees! Let´s try not to get stung!"...

this is great, if true! I wonder what those arrogant twits at SETI are thinking right now, particularly Dr. Seth 'I now where I'm looking and for what!' Shostak. they've said for years that they're the only guys who can figure this stuff out. how rich!!

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by darkmaninperth

Wayne Herschel- Latest update - Dr JUDY FULTSKOG: ... just received an email... Judy writes: ... Dont worry about what people say. Every part of the EM spectrum gives off radio emmisions.(sic)

She's alive!!!!

Sniff Sniff! Horse, pig? Sheep? No, definitely bull.

Man, she's trying to brazen it out, isn't she? No, dear, every part of it does NOT give off radio emissions. Note that she's not trying to redirect and say that "no, we used a UV telescope, the radio telescope thing was a mistake", which she might be able to pull off, she's still trying to ride out the radio telescope story.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Hydroman
Why would beings on other planets use the same names we use for constellations and planets.....or speak english for that matter? Or am I looking at this wrong?

Matter of fact, they wouldn't have the same constellations we do because from their point of view the stars would be in different formations than what we see.

A name like "Taurus" mean "Bull" if I'm not mistaken. Do they have bulls where they're from?

Could someone answer these questions please?

Could we be looking at our colonizing selves in the distant future or past.

Relativity theory isn't exactly a done deal yet, so who knows!

Thanks for your response. That's pretty interesting.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:38 AM
Hello ATS users again,

After 6 hours of good sleep, I highly recommend everyone to do the same and come back to this thread with a refreshing attitude. There are too many petty arguments on ATS and not enough objective and subjective opinions without being personally judgemental.

Now it is not difficult to see how this situation has spiraled out of control with regards to identifying and verifying the sources background and the information being presented. That said what has happened in the last 24 hours gives me a wonderful insight as to how social networking sites such as facebook and ATS can be used for positive means and a way of thwarting THE POWERS THAT BE to censor information being released to the public.

I truly believe how this thread came to be, is nothing more than honest and sincere work by the OP, bringing about the information presented by Wayne Herschel and Dr Judy Fältskog with all good intentions.

I actually think (and I don't want to mislead anyone here) what has happened is very clever. If I were in the same situation, I too would release some information on my facebook or twitter account or create a new thread on ATS by-passing the mainstream media initially. Why? It is speculated scientists, researchers, people of academia get ridiculed or withdrawn from funding projects because they speak up against the interest of global corporate companies, religions, governments (because they of course know best).

Still keeping an open mind that this thread is not a hoax. Regardless, we have the power people and this is just an example of how the future can be won where truth is freely available albeit disclosure, global warming, religion, nwo, the purpose of life.

I end with one of my favourite inspiring quotes:

Henry Louis Mencken "I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."

Kindest regards,

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:40 AM
Has anyone tried to contact her and confirm the story, or ask for details? Maybe we should get a bit more pro-active on this. There's stuff posted like this all the time, but it seems to fade into background without any real investigation.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by mcrom901
-Wayne Herschel- Judy then wrote... From Far Infra Red to Deep ultra Violet Radiation gives of Radio Emissions. Even light from a candle will produce radio emissions on a sensitive receiver.
Here is a example on this :
... See More

We modified it to be sensitive to Radiation Emissions on the far scale of the EM spectrum and used it to test results on a radio telescope. Cant say more...

A lie. Light IS an EM phenomenon, it doesn't emit EM. The two examples from youtube have no bearing on what she's claiming. She's getting pretty desperate at this point.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Apologies. I was not commenting on the veracity of the good doctor, I was speaking to the notion that a radio telescope cannot pick up UV radiation. Now, whether the information was garbled somehow in transmission I can't say.

BINO telescopes have nothing to so with the matter. The crux of the situation is the type if collector and the type of sensor used by the telescope. Optical telescopes, which pick up visual portions of the E-M spectrum use glass, in the form of either lenses or mirrors to collect the E-M radiation. That's because glass is not suited to concentrate or focus radio waves. They commonly used CCD chips as sensors, in order to record what they 'see', instead of film and photographic plates as was the case formerly. LArger optical telescopes are exclusively reflectors, since the glass slab used to make the parabolic mirror can be supported by a framework mount, rather than just at the edges as is the case with a lens. Because of that, they can be made bigger, but because of mass constraints, they can't be made as big as radio telescopes can.

UV is in the 'light' portion of the E-M spectrum, just outside the visible range. Optical equipment is necessary to collect and record UV, with a specially tuned CCD to record it.

Radio telescopes, on the other hand, are used to collect and record E-M radiation in the radio portion of the spectrum. Radio telescopes can be made much larger than optical telescope, the parabolic reflector made of sheets or meshes of metal supported by a skeletal structural framework. This reflector for radio telescopes is parabolic, and concentrates the energy on an antenna, instead of an optical CCD, where it is processed and recorded by radio reception equipment.

Radio telescopes - pick up radio waves.
Optical telescopes - pick up optical waves.
BINO telescopes - binocular OPTICAL telescopes, two telescopes mounted side-by-side, a type of optical interferometer.

Radio interferometers consist of arrays of several radio telescopes.

Interferometry is used to increase the effective 'aperture' of a telescope, the area it uses to collect data, which increases the resolution of a 'scope, not the magnification of it.

My credentials: Physics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1993. Concentration in Astronomy and Interstellar Mapping. I also studied Electronics Tech in trade school when I was in high school, and Electronics Engineering at SVCC, graduating in 1983. I hold a Radiotelephone Operators permit from the FCC. I'm not unaware of the differences, although I AM a bit rusty on them these days. I have never heard of a device capable of picking up and processing the full E-M spectrum, and would be appreciative of a link that indicates such is possible these days. I'm always up to being educated.

With all that said, I do find it strange that, as of the time I went to sleep at 5 am this morning, at least 3 of Ms. Faltskog's webpages which were available late yesterday evening were gone from the internet. That's really all I can say about it, since I have no idea WHY they dissappeared. Some powerful organization forcing erasure, or an individual in over her head erasing tracks? No way for me to tell at this point.

BTW, if more UV is getting through the atmosphere, expect an increase in skin cancers and cataracts. I don't know that such are on the increase, but neither do I know they're not. I've not seen data supporting either conclusion.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:43 AM
Someone here earlier mentioned having some contact with Jodrell Observatory.....? According to Wayne he says he doesn't think they have anything to do with NASA research :

From Wayne's Facebook thread

Wayne Herschel- @Barbara - I will say it again and again... it was what it was and nothing was intended to be set in any official way that you demand needs to be presented. It appears to be an excited researcher letting something out prematurely in fear of it being covered up... or its a hoax... your judgement and you can pass it as you have passed.
But whether... See More you like it or not... we will need to wait and see.

@Vicky -
a) Jodrell Bank is not a part of the NASA research network I am certain... if you have a reference that shows it is then lets please put this up... its very important
b) Who are we to judge, and I keep repeating this, that Judy's NASA network were limited ONLY to a radio telescope???? UV detection with NASA probably involves satellite sensors for all we know??? Yes NASA is not limited to only a radio equipment. What am i missing here??? are you saying NASA do not have access to Hubble???... what are you saying??? For heavens sake if she were working for Jodrell Bank THEN one could run her claim down with this UV data reference.

The fact is we dont know what the level of status Judy had data links to... we have no option other than digging deeper which we are all doing already and waiting and seeing what follows from Judy or another lead.
33 minutes ago

Wayne's comments aside it sounds like she has contact within NASA itself so would maybe have gotten her info via someone on the inside rather than at the observatory she is working in or aswell as ?

Can anyone link Jodrell to NASA research ?

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
come to think of it
in all the images I've seen
of aliens, I have never seen ears.
So why would they use radiowaves
if they themselves cannot hear ??
Just a thought

but they do have eyes

Well, as a sort of aside here, you don't hear radio waves. You hear sound. Sound and radio waves are totally different from each other.

Actually, light and radio waves are just different aspects of the same thing, so having eyes would indicate that they at least sense PART of the EM spectrum.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Oxize

I didnt say believe with no evidence. We all want to know the truth, but we forgot what conspiracy all about. faceoff85 who posted after me, couldnt tell it better. thank for that.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Oxize]
#1- Dr.(?) Judy claims to know details of what would be the biggest story thus far in the history of humankind.

#2- Zero evidence presented on this thread.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
someone on FB posted this link and said : as i got it, UV light emits RADIO signals as well, so it can be tracked with radio telescope....

He also posted this link and another one here for clarification about UV and radio signals. I don't understand any of it myself but maybe someone here will

[edit on 4/5/10 by cosmicpixie]

It doesn't emit radio signals. And no, this guy doesn't understand about the difference between UV and radio either, or he wouldn't be espousing the "UV emits radio" theory.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by cosmicpixie

Also an apparant email from her to Wayne explaining :

-Wayne Herschel- Judy then wrote... From Far Infra Red to Deep ultra Violet Radiation gives of Radio Emissions. Even light from a candle will produce radio emissions on a sensitive receiver.
Here is a example on this :

That makes no sense at all. Candles do not emit/produce radio emissions.

I know it is not your fault as you are only posting what she is saying. But it is obvious that she makes no sense at all. I doubt she is an astrophysicist, or that she has even taken basic college physics.

At first i thought the discrepancies/errors could be because Wayne might not have interpreted well what she was saying. But it is obvious now that she has no idea of what she is talking about.

I would have loved if there was any truth to this, but this is a hoax.

[edited for errors]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:54 AM

Sorry i miss-read what you said in the post before, but that still does not change the fact that i think you are just a de-bunker. And yes, most scientists will use logic to solve, or explanations on ufo cases. Go look at some cases for yourself

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by Mr Mask

I wouldn't dismiss this as fantasy:

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Or maybe someone stole her iPhone and decided to play a joke on her that got out of hand? Facebook may have taken her account down as it was getting bombarded?

It could indeed be the reason why this story has come about. To be quite honest it's 100 times more likely to be the real story than discovering "UV Radio" transmissions or whatever. Some little chavs find or steal her iPhone and log into her Facebook page to have a little fun. If she truly is an astronomer then I wouldn't be surprised if she had some jargon-filled messages in her text message in/outbox which the little punks could glean some terms from, hence the "Contact-esque" nature of the info "Judy" posted.

Of course, Herschel could've created this whole thing in an attempt to gain sales for his books but surely even this guy isn't dumb enough to think that is a viable marketing strategy? It hardly lends any credibility to your own work if your are forever to be associated with a major hoax, does it? If he truly 'knows' her as he says then he should know that 'Dr. Judy' may be a little bit...eccentric (to be polite about it) due to her UFO and spiritual beliefs. If he is taking only her word on all of this then he is probably a fool and deserves the scorn that will be (and already has been) heaped upon him.

However, just because he may be an idiot does not mean you should tar all others with the same brush. I have seen CosmicPixie's posts around the forum and she has never struck me as the kind who would willingly participate in a hoax. It seems to me that she is being painted as a villain by some here when all she has done wrong is worded the thread title incorrectly*. You cast doubt upon her integrity when you allege she may be 'in on it' based on the possibility of her selling Herschel's books in the future but that is as bad of a 'jump to a conclusion' as those you accuse many posters on this thread of having on this 'signal'.

Let me put it another way. Say you owned an independent petrol station, and you had been negotiating with BP to become a franchise for them but no deal had yet been struck. Then a major drilling accident and oil spill occurs on a BP rig in the Gulf of Mexico and BP is blamed by many people for the incident and their lack of a solution. Would you be happy if people started boycotting you and insulting you purely based on a perceived and very tenuous association with BP?

I doubt it.

Anyway, yes this is all probably total bunkum, but lay off the personal accusations against members. Innocent until proven guilty, that's all I'm saying.

* CosmicPixie May I suggest you change the thread title to something akin to "Alleged NASA Affiliate Finds Possible 'Signal' From Nearby Stars"

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by john124

After some googling, I found some correlation between UV and radio emissions. After all, both are EM waves except different wavelengths and frequencies. Why not emissions of both that correlate?

Your example is of an astronomical event that gives off emissions up and down the EM spectrum. So you'd expect not only a radio emission spike, but variations in light output as well.

That's a far cry from "UV causes radio", which is not true.

Had Judy been a bit more technically apt, she might have tried muddying the water a bit by describing a microwave radiometer or something, or changed her story about the radio telescope, but instead she went for a save on the original RT story by using a Big Lie.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Oxize
Its the fact people reply here radical on a wrong way. Like some person stated earlier in this thread. ATS is going to be more and more over like an Debunkers or sceptic site.

That is what ATS is...a site to debunk and prove things one way or another.

It is a place to Deny ignorance and slay the lies that befall our daily lives.

If you are against such an effort, I do not know what to tell you.

But for starters- This site is run by a man named "Skeptic Overlord".

Get it? ATS is not interested in giving a breeding ground to is more interested in dissecting/destroying/debunking them.

As it should be.

If you seek a lighter form of conspiracy where you will not be confronted with yucky-poo-poo-logic, then I suggest doing a search for Icke's camp of lizard fearing folks.

They NEVER demand proof!

And yes...this story is a hoax and not even on par with Alex Collier's works of fiction.

Facebook famous baby! Watch the book sales roll in.

new topics

top topics

<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in