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

reply to post by Bedlam


That sounds plausible but I'm still keeping an open mind. I'd put it to Wayne but I think I've P'd him off enough for one day, maybe someone else can.

I would just say according to Wayne she did not approach HIM, he spotted some excited comment she left on her FB page and contacted her about it asking if he could put it on his own FB page and she said OK but at the same time you could presume she was banking on that . He also said English isn't her 1st language some of what she was saying may have come out inadequately .....?

Buddha


I beg your pardon?

I come here to eradicate MY OWN ignorance,
which I admit knows no limits...

How can you say I am not doing a good job in that regard?

You think I meant something as pretentious and arrogant as
saying I am here to eradicate OTHERS ignorance?

None of us is worthy to do that.

And no- we do NOT have data about Judy- only conjecture-
as you yourself PRESUME--- "all PhDs have evidence (thesis or dissertation) online" or some such nonsense.

I have a PhD...

Good luck finding it online- not everyone honks their Dr. horn...


T.

----/-/-/-/-///\\\\

Most radio observatories have websites.

Most radio observatory websites post up details of where the dish is looking at.

Now, frankly, I haven't got the time to pile through a load of radio observatory websites, but someone may be more tenacious and less time deprived than me, and if that certain person happened to find that a large portion of telescopes were observing the same place, then we'd have something to go on, don't you think?

Logic is required here, and research. We have very little info but we can actually derive some if we look carefully for it.

Anyone game enough to try?

Edit to add

Knock off the personal ego driven stuff and concentrate on the actual topic

[edit on 4/5/10 by neformore]

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Ok...I will join you in inventing reasons behind Judy's involvement that do not implicate her in fraud.

Maybe aliens possessed her mind and body and forced her to post on Facebook?

Or

Maybe the CIA made her do it?

Or

Maybe 4chan is behind it all?

Odd that you mention 4chan. Did you notice that she looks sort of like Boxxy? Maybe Judy is Boxxy's mom...

reply to post by sotp


I appreciate your logical response and I agree it is a possible answer to all of this.

Sure, yes, why not? Hackers or thieves can be trying to ruin her life or just playing a joke on her by screwing with her phone or computer...If that turned out to be the case I wouldn't have a heart attack over the truth behind it all.

But, any search on Dr Judy doesn't yield anything proving that she exists as "who Wayne says she is", and I find it much more likely that Wayne is a liar/cheat/hoaxer then just the innocent pawn in some hacker's prank.

I could be wrong...yup...all involved can be innocent victims of an "intended lie".

But...make no mistake about it, this story is a lie.

And it began somewhere...

And whoever began this story is also a liar.

That is the bottom line.

I know, I know...a lot of UFO-ers are going to get all uppity in defense of the possible disclosure of it all. Heck, a few of them may even claim to be related to the very aliens sending the signals.

Fact remains...the story is a hoax (I leave my signature on that and if wrong- I will leave ATS forever out of respect for the UFO-ers) and those who can not see that for themselves are in critical danger of having an inability to Deny Ignorance.

I hear you...I agree with you...I even see how what you say is possible.

I simply think it is much more plausible that Judy and Wayne are working together on this, or are simply the same people.

I guess we will all see soon?

Can't wait...

Man, a lot of folks are going to hate hearing me sing about how right I was...maybe I'll tell them I had an unfair advantage because aliens sent me a message from the future telling me all about it.




[edit on 4-5-2010 by Mr Mask]

reply to post by sotp


I can't edit it anymore as it's too old now else I would

Maybe this helps.

on this page:
setiathome.berkeley.edu...

Last updated 1 May 2010 21:43:18 UTC

We find:
setiathome.berkeley.edu...

Dr. Judy Faltskog ("Radio Astronomer working on government based projects in Europe, South America and the USA....")

Even a little one of these:




Although when you click on ANY profile:

Project down for maintenance
Please check back in a few hours.

Which corroborates a story on the main page:

Weekly Outage
Every Tuesday morning (Pacific time) we have a 3-4 hour outage for database maintenance. The upload/download servers and some web pages are offline during this time. 21 Apr 2010 16:52:10 UTC

Originally posted by neformore
Most radio observatories have websites.

Most radio observatory websites post up details of where the dish is looking at.

Now, frankly, I haven't got the time to pile through a load of radio observatory websites, but someone may be more tenacious and less time deprived than me, and if that certain person happened to find that a large portion of telescopes were observing the same place, then we'd have something to go on, don't you think?

Logic is required here, and research. We have very little info but we can actually derive some if we look carefully for it.

Anyone game enough to try?

Edit to add

Knock off the personal ego driven stuff and concentrate on the actual topic

[edit on 4/5/10 by neformore]

Excellent idea. If someone could find a list of observatories worth looking at perhaps a few of us could liase and agree on who looks where, pool our energies and time for faster results .....? If nothing else it is fun to sleuth !

Originally posted by Jay-morris


Sorry i miss-read what you said in the post before,

It is ok...no need to be sorry. I often do the same.

but that still does not change the fact that i think you are just a de-bunker.

Another one-word title to sum up my entire exsitence as an indivual entity in the universe?

I do not approve...

I am not "just" a debunker...heck I am not even a "good" debunker.

And yes, most scientists will use logic to solve, or explanations on ufo cases. Go look at some cases for yourself

I "think", to the best of my knowledge, that I have researched and examined every single investigation into UFOs ever published to the public.

I do not understand when people try to say you "do not understand something" and then quickly assume it is because you never looked anything up.

I have been strongly studying the UFO phenomena (along with every avenue of conspiracy that I can get my hands on), every day since 1991.

In other words...I disagree that that most cases of UFO sightings are approached by "logical scientists".

Most are only given press by tabloids and hucksters selling fantasies they have invented.

Logic is not running into a field with a stick and saying you feel "space energies".

Logic is not going on a mountain with a bunch of people who paid 9000 dollars to see "light beings" that can only be seen as large blobs on "bad film".

Logic is not claiming to have spent 3 years on a space ship with your space brothers.

AND

logic sure isn't "facebook posts by an uncredited source" being taken seriously when attached to something as large as "first contact".

Logically, I assume you will not get what I am laying down here.

Anyways, I've decided to take absent leave of this thread until it crashes on the hard, cold floor of "logic" only to reveal itself for what it really is.

Then I will return, beat my chest (or something equally as pointless) as I dance on the dwarf of ignorance with my many-handed lady of truth.

Good day.

See you all "real" soon.




[edit on 4-5-2010 by Mr Mask]

Originally posted by butcherguy to me this post seems to fly in the face of Deny Ignorance.
To believe without a shred of evidence is ignorant, IMO.

I think you are slightly confused as are many people about what constitutes evidence.

For example when someone like Edgar Mitchell, a former astronaut and trained observer makes a statement about what he saw. Thats evidence acceptable in any court of law.

Its the kind of evidence that puts people behind bars and even sentenced to death. However for some reason when it comes to being acceptable as proof of life "off Earth", it descends to the level of gossip. You cannot have it both ways. Either the testimony of experts on a subject is acceptable as evidence or its not.

Did the lady really say what the OP related about the communications signals? My sense is that she did, and if she is who it seems she is, what she said raises reasonable suspicion on my part that she spoke what she believes to be true from her research. She probably had no idea it would hit the internet and raise such a fuss and its why she dropped off the radar. It very well could turn out to one of those wonderful slip-ups that gives us an insight into what is really going on instead of the lies and obfuscation we normally see.

I too am so tired of seeing so many on here be so quick to attack posters, and declare HOAX at first glance.

Just too much "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality in my humble opinion.

And bam, the ideas are gone..When a valid way of finding the truth comes along..

Everyone dissapears..


OOOPS...

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Miccey]

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
I come here to eradicate MY OWN ignorance,
which I admit knows no limits...

Or maybe it does... If you apply a tiny quantity of common sense.

And no- we do NOT have data about Judy- only conjecture-
as you yourself PRESUME--- "all PhDs have evidence (thesis or dissertation) online" or some such nonsense.

I have a PhD...

Good luck finding it online- not everyone honks their Dr. horn...

Just out of curiosity, I googled PhD theses of three of my friends and they popped up with no problem, accompanied by a host of published papers. I know a few dozen PhDs and I have no doubt same will apply to every single one. You can't write a thesis that remains completely secret. Maybe you can, but then again you are obviously don't come from natural sciences background.

So no news ?

And the guy who called someone (who was hectic) ... any news ?
I just saw some words war between ATSer but nothing new...

reply to post by expat2368
I didn't realize that Edgar Mitchell had any evidence to provide in the case at hand, which is what I was speaking to.
If you can show me where I missed some speck of evidence regarding the case of the OP, please do. I haven't seen any yet.

reply to post by Bedlam


Boxxy is dead, Tabby is my queen...

On topic is this thread still alive with no information?
as i can't be bothered going through another 19 pages of the same stuff.

reply to post by neformore

Most radio observatories have websites.

Most radio observatory websites post up details of where the dish is looking at.

Now, frankly, I haven't got the time to pile through a load of radio observatory websites, but someone may be more tenacious and less time deprived than me, and if that certain person happened to find that a large portion of telescopes were observing the same place, then we'd have something to go on, don't you think?

Seems like a good idea to me. I don't have the time either...but I did a quick search to find some observatories...if anyone has time they can look into it...find it on the website, email them or give them a call.

Here is a link from NASA showing ground observatories. A lot of the links seem dead...but if you google the observatory names they seem to be coming up with valid websites.

NASA Ground Observatories Link


And this seems like a good place to start.

National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Buddha-


I would not engage you in your comments if it were not emblematic of the very problem I am speaking of... PRESUMPTIONS...

You say I obviously am not from a natural sciences background...

Um, just one simple question...

HOW ON EARTH would, could, should you know what education I have?

Or that "Judy" has?

Once again- you proved my point---

People here (some of them) prefer to "talk" instead of "listen"...

"Judge" instead of "debate"

"Stereotype" instead of "Individualize"...

This MAY INDEED be a hoax.

But you are (presumption) CLEARLY intelligent enough to know that
we have not the information available to make a determination- no?

Please try and disagree with that- that would make my day in a crazy way

Respectfully,

HDF
(By the way- is Chemical Engineering a Natural Science?)


----.-.-.-.-.-.

List of Observatories around the World

Are all of these worth checking out or are we meant to look only at certain types, I am clueless.
I'll take the A's.......who will take the B's

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I looked at Arecibo but there was no obvious link to view real time dish activity . I hope this is not going to be the case with all of them

PS) Judy mentioned 5 places -

EPSILOM ERIDANY
IZAR (EPSILOM BOOTES)
THUBAN(ALPHA DRACONIS)
PROXIMA CENTAURI
ALDEBARAN IN TAURUS

Excuse my ignorance but are these all in the same area of sky , I'm just wondering because if they are quite far apart it won't be the case that all dishes are pointing at the same place will it, so how will we know something is up ?

[edit on 4/5/10 by cosmicpixie]

Originally posted by Johnze

-Wayne Herschel- ◄◄◄BREAKING NEWS►►► update#4 - 11 minutes ago from Judy at NASA... "Wayne, it would seem as if this signal is not perse directed at us as a Species, but that we are now listening in on a Interstellar communication between civilisations on the Target stars I had mentioned. Only +- 1% of the signal seems modulated and the... rest seems to be an advance Binary code of sorts. There are so many subcarriers bundled into this signal. I dont think we have the technology on our planet at present to do this form of communication at this frequencies. We have still not reached any results, far from it. However I can say with confidence it is not Local, but definitely an Intelligence from beyond our Solar System. Wonder why SETI USA has not commented on anything yet. We are going to Stealth mode from now on, however I will keep you posted.

LOL

Dont have the technology on our planet to do this form of communication, but a small group of researchers at an undisclosed radio telescope have STEALTH MODE TECHNOLOGY???

Another bothersome point - if "we don't have the technology on this planet to do this form of communication", how is it then that we have the technology to pick it up? Listening is half of the conversation right there, isn't it?