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.

 

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

page: 54
175
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Is this the same Judy ?
I hope not as how can a serious scientist be associated with a unproffesional website?
Or is this a new add to discredit? A Bob Lazar event?


[edit on 6-5-2010 by DreamerOracle]




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
Good point but.......Imagine you've just picked up a signal your excited.........you tell a few friends.......story gets changed abit, I think its called Indian whisper effect.
So what started as I joe blow" I've just found a inteligent signal!"
First ear...."wow did you"!!!!
Second ear...."first ear just said a woman called joe blow working in a erm....RADIO telescope has found a signal from ET"!!!!!And so on and so on.


But in this case, it's sort of like by the time it gets to you, they're talking about ET talking out of the sink drains at Arecibo. A reasonable scientist would at that point go "WTF?" If Judy were an astronomer, it would not be possible for her to say that a RT was receiving UV light. And then it would also be impossible for her to try to smoke screen by claiming she had a super secret special modification to receive UV light on a RT because "UV reemits radio!"

Nuh-uh. Sorry. It doesn't. And if she had tried at that point instead to say no no I meant we used an orbiting asset to look at it in UV then trained the RT on it, maybe she'd have clouded it a bit, but instead she tried to save the RT angle with this bogus "all EM reemits EM". Fail.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam


But in this case, it's sort of like by the time it gets to you, they're talking about ET talking out of the sink drains at Arecibo. A reasonable scientist would at that point go "WTF?" If Judy were an astronomer, it would not be possible for her to say that a RT was receiving UV light. And then it would also be impossible for her to try to smoke screen by claiming she had a super secret special modification to receive UV light on a RT because "UV reemits radio!"

Nuh-uh. Sorry. It doesn't. And if she had tried at that point instead to say no no I meant we used an orbiting asset to look at it in UV then trained the RT on it, maybe she'd have clouded it a bit, but instead she tried to save the RT angle with this bogus "all EM reemits EM". Fail.


As I said it is my opinion that the said Astronomer could of been working through either Swift or HST data. I did'nt stipulate it had to be from a ground based optical scope as unless its on the equator of which the signals recieved would still be very limited. I stick with the processing HST or SWIFT data if this is real or not.
If this person is the same as the one above in my last post.....I'm airing on the side of hoax ....but until the Judy(jury) is out I'll wait and see...OR Bob Lazar discrediting tactics.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by DreamerOracle]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rleexray
I believe there may be more than meets the eye (or ear in this case) here. She spoke of a complex signal which certainly can be interpreted as more than one part. There lies the possibility that the discovery was indeed by radio telescope which picked up just the carrier wave. Other parts may be in the mix.


Bzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing.

Modulation results in generation of a complex set of sidebands that are propagated along with a carrier (in some cases). If I modulate a UV carrier at 211 nm, I will end up with a sort of spectral blur of UV wavelengths around 211nm. What I get depends on how I do the modulation (technical) and how modulated it is. But what you do NOT get is any of the original modulation. That is gone, except in the complex mathematical interactions of carrier and sidebands in the receiver's detector.

It's a common CT error to think that you can modulate a carrier and somehow you have "carried" the modulation as an intact thing to its destination. I see ELF fearers do this a lot - ooo, they can modulate microwaves with ELF and somehow ELF will be sent. No. What you get is a tiny handful of microwave frequencies closely spaced around the carrier, the ELF modulating signal no longer exists until recreated in the receiver.

It's also quite difficult to do a really bang-up job of modulating and demodulating light with a lot of different signals like that. You can DO it, but it's tough to receive when you don't have a lot of it to work with. A receiver for UV similar to a spectrum analyzer for RF would be very hard to build, and very specialized. It would help if you had a lot of signal to work with, but you wouldn't in this case. Nonetheless, it's a special design piece of equipment that I do not believe exists in that form. Yes, there are light modulating and demodulating devices, but a spectrum analyzer for vanishingly small levels of UV wouldn't be a stock item at Arecibo. Even if they had a UV telescope for that band, which frankly isn't likely, as it's absorbed by the atmosphere.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
As I said it is my opinion that the said Astronomer could of been working through either Swift or HST data. I did'nt stipulate it had to be from a ground based optical scope as unless its on the equator of which the signals recieved would still be very limited. I stick with the processing HST or SWIFT data if this is real or not.


However, reading verbatim what she wrote in the first few pages, it seems impossible to read her posts that way. She clearly states that "radio telescopes were locking on to the data" not that they were downloading and analyzing Hubble data at those observatories.

She later follows up with the UV reemission to detect it with a radio telescope secret equipment lie.

I can't imagine how to interpret her comments any other way. Her attempt to salvage the story with the UV-radio tale sort of drives the stake in.

ps - I'm out of here to do some paying work. Will try to peek again tomorrow night if the wi-fi gods are with me.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
Guys,

That's not Wayne Herschel. It's a fake. You'd think a writer would be a bit more conscience of typo errors, grammar, basic sentence structure, etc.

You've been had!


Love,

Hivethink


Your wrong about that. I read his posts very carefully, and all of the 'typos', syntax, everything, is in perfect agreement with the way he posted on facebook.

As a specific example, his consistent use of "piers" for "peers" was demonstrated in both places.

Also, writers are not immune to such things. I write a little here and there (mostly here, I'd say) and ALWAYS have to go over every post at least 3 times checking for errors before I'm satisfied that I've caught them all. Even then, the odd one sneaks through.

That's why publishers employ proofreaders.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
_______________________________________
I hope to be able to verify her credentials from family members soon that she is a doctor of astronomy.
________________________________________


Good ol' Wayne. Pestering a family about credentials whilst she is missing.

Good to see he has his priorities in order.

-m0r



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taikun
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


Thanks Rich.

There are actually a few debates in this thread. One being Judy's credentials and other other about the scientific validation of her claims. Imo, firstly we have to find out whether this whole thing is a hoax, and afterward dispute the claim put forth. I'm just sitting back and waiting until something substantial shows up. Otherwise, this whole back and forth scientific jabber is fruitless in proving the validity of the claim itself.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Taikun]


If the initial claim can be demonstrated to have been premised on faulty scientific concepts, then of course the initial claim can't stand. In the absence of a reasonable explanation for the egregious faux pas concerning reception of light waves on radio wave reception equipment, the initial claim is considerably weakened.

I'd call that fairly fruitful in establishing the validity of the claim.

I don't think Wayne's explanation of "well, it could have been received on optical telescopes in a far reaching network comprised of all sorts of telescopes, then they went to check it out on radio telescopes too" will bear close scrutiny, either. I can see how someone would try to make that leap, but I think on closer inspection it won't hold water. I'm not going to do that inspection until I finish catching up on this thread.

A better explanation might have been "she just may have gotten confused, and meant that satellite tracking stations were picking up info retrieved from orbital telescopes", but if she were indeed a professional radio astronomer, she's unlikely to have made such a mistake. That, however, would at least have been a more arguable point.

The credential issue you mention is a dead horse to me. I've been able to uncover ANY verification of her doctorate, nor has anyone else that I've seen. I did Wayne's suggested Google search of "her name and doctorate". I got something over 22,000 hits, but only went through the first 3 pages. A few references were to "Judy Faltskog", but they all led directly to this story, mentioning her doctorate in connection with her claim. No independent references to her having any sort of doctorate. The vast majority returned results for Agnetha Faltskog, of Abba.

I don't think Agnetha has a doctorate either.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Bzzt. I think you missed my whole point. You are speaking of our technology. By the nature of the supposed signal it would not be our technology. I agree optical data would require a receiver much more specialized than I know of and capable of amplifying the remaining bits without distortion. Is it possible with current technology? I don't work in the field so I wouldn't know. However, if its possible within the laws of physics it is likely an advanced species could. We ourselves may someday as well. As I said before, the field is in its infancy. Instead of bashing it, try thinking of a way to do it.

I have worked with ionizing and non-ionizing radiation for most of my life, first in nuclear power and of late medical imaging. I learned a long time ago not to say "its impossible". Game changing breakthroughs occur all the time in this field.

Finally, I did not even intimate that Arecibo or any other radio telescope was used for more than the initial discovery. Once the carrier signal was stripped away its only common sense that other instruments would be brought to bear to find the data. Even without the capability of amplifying and reading said data we would still know of its existence. That itself may be the biggest hurdle in deciphering something of this nature.

By your standard, we should stop all research now because we already know everything. Open your mind and conceptualize. You'll do yourself a great service.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne Herschel
 


Hi Wayne, thanks for showing up here on ATS! We've spoke on FB several times, (Ken here) thank you for promptly sending updates for me and others to share on here.


First, I think you're well intentioned and I'm at the very least entertained by this info that you have brought to the table. I'm on the fence about the whole thing, but not completely sold on the "hoax" label. I have absolutely NO reason to think you have directly brought upon any "hoaxes" here.

I have no questions to ask at this time other than a request to please give us updates on the familys' statements when possible. If Judy *is missing, this would be an overwhelming time for the family and may take a LOT of time for them to divulge info to you for a message board on the internet and FB.

Thanks again for addressing this thread here at ATS.
I'll be looking forward to seeing the conclusion on this whether it's a "hoax", or not. Hopefully, *you* can be the most valuable asset in figuring it out, along with the many very intelligent individuals that exsist on this site.

PS: Please don't let the severe skeptics discourage you here on ATS. There are a lot of them who often jump the gun and attack the messenger. At times, it can become an epidemic on here. Many thread-starters get too intimidated by their sometimes aggressive tone (not so much the knowledge they may possess, just the TONE can and has been known to be very childish on here sometimes), and decide to never post *anything* which is unfortunate.

With that said, many things have been debunked or proven on this website, it's a GREAT place (if not the very BEST on the internet) to get to the bottom of things, if we can see past some of the rediculous posts that appear from time to time.

Thanks again for your time here!

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Wookiep]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


Everything Wookiep said is true about sceptics. However since you are a shill for your own poorly written books please do take some of the sceptical 'jostling' with a good spirit as they may see you as a complete shyster who is incapable of free thinking or scientific methodology and will put in efforts to show you as such.

Obviously if you you are not then you have nothing to worry about.

But if you know you are...

-m0r



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan
Can someone explain how a Radio Telescope can pick up UV "excess" but not a UV Signal? I'm not very knowledgeable in this field but I was reading about it here. SOURCE
Same Source, another article

[edit on 5/6/10 by ElijahWan]


The articles linked indicated that they were observing galaxies previously documented to have UV excesses, but were 'observing' in radio frequencies to see if they also had excessive radio flux densities. It appears that the goal was to see if excess in one part of the spectrum correlated to high flux densities in other parts of the spectrum for these particular galaxies. Note that the paper doesn't say that they were observing the UV excesses with radio telescopes. It specifically states the wavelengths observations were made in.

[edit on 2010/5/7 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by cosmicpixie
 


I know wayne...and he's a very stand up guy... a great researcher himself as well as writer... people should check out his work if they don't know him...he's done some incredible stuff!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Thanks for your valuable contribution here!
/end sarcasm.

For the record, I have no problems with skeptics. Actually, it's the skeptics here who often play a huge role in getting to the bottom of things. It's the sometimes aggressive/hostile tone that can turn new members away. Wayne has had the balls at least to get on here and post his contributions, and that says a lot to me at least. If you'd like to drive him and others like him away, then I speak for myself when I say your contribution here is meaningless, if that's your primary goal.


If you'd like for ATS to be un-balanced with a group of total skeptics that's your right, friend! ATS would not be very interesting in that case, however. Hell, you'd have no-one to argue with! AND visa versa. Makes me wonder why you even bother to read threads like this.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Wookiep]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I just Listened to Judy Faltskog on Blogradio. This is prior to the big news and she has a picture and bio on the broadcast page.

There is no mention of her having any skills in astronomy or sciences. There is a lengthy bio of abduction and Alien encounters. I will list some highlights:

Born in 1965 in Sweden. Lived and raised in Sweden, but now lives in Germany.

Saw a UFO at age 9 in Sweden. Abducted at age 11 and then again at age 15. She still has contact with the Aliens.

Age 15 she received a small optical telescope at Christmas and this is the only mention of a telescope that I heard. While using this telescope, she was abducted again and taken aboard a craft.

She met her mentor, A human Alien named " Carn " that welcomed her before she went through a medical exam.

Before she left the craft, Carn showed her a star map of Cyra (sp) in Andromeda and explained that it was where they were from.

She claims that astronomers and Nasa are aware of Nibiru (sp) and in 2012 we will pass through the galactic plane or the "hyper state of energy".

I'm new at posting links but I do have them.

Hope this helps.

DC



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I'm reading all these debunkers and their acrimonious attitudes. Does it not occur to anyone that the first UFO that "contacts us will result in our entire understanding of the physical universe being upended?

Phage you say so yeah, you know what you're talking about i'm told. But the mere existance of aliens contains a large amount of what we really DON'T know anything about. The first signal that we actually do intercept, well it's not going to be what we expected, at all IMHO. So just because i doesn't work the way we think it should, doesn't mean it's a hoax? IF aliens were to land/whatever, even you would be at sea with their tech, or no?

Or are the aliens pranking us? Giving us confused messages to freak us out? It's what humans would do.

Ok this has been several days now, Somebody must be getting worried, although from what i see of the responses here, well it doesn't matter what Judy says when she is found, people will crucify her just because they feel they have the right


Do people really comment just to insult people? I'm seeing it but i don't quite understand. If you don't like the guys book fine, but walking up to him and insulting him over it is childish.

Wayne, as much as i appreciate your input, it seems that many here would like nothing more than to see you fall. The circus part of Bread and Circuses.

Your reports are much appreciated, as well as your thoughts.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


Not sure if you noticed Wookiep but I actually said that everything you said was true - I only added the counter to it for a more balanced idea of what ATS is.

If your buddy Wayne has the cojones to step up to the plate and claim things that are extraordinary then when the charade is over, and all those who knew in advance that it was a flight on fancy and notch another one down to idiocy, still has the gaul to make further claims then expect me to be the first in line to ridicule him to the full extent I can.

I don't suffer fool lightly, and neither will history. Let's see who can make our children proud and who can be a child proudly.

-m0r



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 





Not sure if you noticed Wookiep but I actually said that everything you said was true - I only added the counter to it for a more balanced idea of what ATS is.



Actually, I did notice that. It's just that your "counter" argument could be taken in many ways and was quite accusitory. I don't know if those words were your official stance, but it seems to be a theme here for those skeptics with harsh words.

We should be a little nicer to the newcommers on here IMO. If that "hypothetical" statement was not your own stance then I apologize for the presumption!



[edit on 7-5-2010 by Wookiep]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1490
 


Yes I read about that yesterday.

Interesting - it is the same "alien" that the late Arthur Shuttleworth of early UFO Warminster claimed to have met with back in 1967. (He spelt it "Karne".)
From the same place - Aenstria.

- Hermit



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
No you are quite right Wookiep, I expect this, like every prior attempt at truth within the UFO circuit, to fall flat on its arse.

I would like some 'true' stuff to come to the front - but with people selling their thoughts in books and those thoughts not being worth the paper they're written on - well it just gets to my core how many people buy into it.

Sure it comes across as aggressive at my end but those with proof don't even notice it.

-m0r



new topics

top topics



 
175
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join