No, SETI Has Not Detected Alien Signals From Space

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, SETI Has Not Detected Alien Signals From Space

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 6, 2012 @07:36AM from the feel-free-to-panic-anyway-though dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "Rumors are going around that SETI astronomers have detected possible alien signals from space. Bottom line: signals were detected when the Green Bank Telescope was pointed at target planets discovered by Kepler, but the signals are almost certainly interference from man-made satellites orbiting the Earth. This happens pretty often, so we need to be aware that these kinds of false positives pop up."

107 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"almost certainly" by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-06 07:37 · Score: 5, Funny

So, theres still a chance of aliens
1. Re:"almost certainly" by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sure. It could very well be the original broadcasts of 'I Love Kleeg' and 'Zaxak's Island'. It might be quite good, if we could figure out their modulation scheme.
  Perhaps if we recklessly go about reverse engineering it and violating their intellectual property rights they'll send their lawyers to us with a C & D letter.
  I'm not quite certain that could be viewed as a positive development ... imagine making contact with a civilization where they'd excell at legal thinking and came here to practice law? could be a scary thing.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:"almost certainly" by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-06 07:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's a smegging garbage pod!
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:"almost certainly" by ch-chuck · 2012-01-06 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine the aliens decoded NTSC only to find Star Trek TOS and ROFLTAOing.
  
  --
  try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
4. Re:"almost certainly" by Columcille · 2012-01-06 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I trust you said it like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
  
  --
  I love my sig.
5. Re:"almost certainly" by Ofloo · 2012-01-06 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean chance, .. are you all claiming that live only exists on this planet in all those universes ? I mean they might not be intelligent, but life will find a way no matter what, thinking life only exists here is just plain stupid. I'm not claiming they came here to abduct people and shit like that, just suggesting out of all the solar systems out there, do any of you really believe that life only exists here ? To me that's just being naive.
6. Re:"almost certainly" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, we have no idea how common life is. So far there is no indication is exists anywhere but here.
  Now if we could just find something, anything that shows life is or was on another planet (even within this solar system) then that changes things.
  We need to be putting more money into exploring Mars.
7. Re:"almost certainly" by Synerg1y · 2012-01-06 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just list your address using the Galactic Coordinate System.
8. Re:"almost certainly" by phrostie · 2012-01-06 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  all efforts for find intelligent life are out bound.
  no one is looking here.
  wait,,,,.
9. Re:"almost certainly" by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying it's aliens, but, It's aliens.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
10. Re:"almost certainly" by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From those of is with speech issues, "Fuck You"
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
11. Re:"almost certainly" by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
12. Re:"almost certainly" by fusiongyro · 2012-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not pessimism, it's just acknowledging that one example isn't a pattern. To take away from it that the universe is teeming with life is reading just as much into the tiny scrap of evidence we have as saying there is no life. In general, when you can use the same evidence to make two equally strong yet completely contradictory arguments, you're better off just shutting up.
  So with Brent as my witness, let's leave it at "well, dude, we just don't know."
13. Re:"almost certainly" by sempir · 2012-01-06 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but if mankind is the best the universe has come up with so far, it's a pretty piss poor example! We are certainly not the "pinnacle of civilization".
  We are what we are because we were what we were. This is our pinnacle! Maybe it will get better maybe not.I think we will get better and survive despite ourselves for many an eon to come. Lets face it there is still lots of whisky to be drunk and I will be dead before it runs out so you young buggers better get your finger out (extractus digitus for you toffee nosed bastards) and keep mankind focused on looking after this wee sphere of yours.Methinks it's all you will have. Oh yes...I am naive.
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
14. Re:"almost certainly" by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-01-06 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  To me that's just being naive.
  Asserting certainty for a fact for which you have zero evidence and you're calling other people naive.
  Slashdot never ceases to amuse.
15. Re:"almost certainly" by FingerDemon · 2012-01-06 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  "For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos, for dark is the suede that mows like a harvest. "
  
  --
  
  "Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
16. Re:"almost certainly" by thygate · 2012-01-06 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Broadcast on all frequencies and all known languages, including Welsh.
17. Re:"almost certainly" by jackbird · 2012-01-06 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Well that's easy for you to say.
18. Re:"almost certainly" by KingMotley · 2012-01-06 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  More like to get the location of the planet with the blue girls.
19. Re:"almost certainly" by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-06 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  We know that intelligent life not very common, or if it is then it's very shy. Life began on this planet well over a billion years ago and we're in orbit around a second-generation star. Anyone evolving around a first-generation star would have a few billion years head start, although a shortage of heavy elements would make technology difficult. We are less than a thousand years away from being able to build self-replicating probes that can explore the entire galaxy within a million years. Compared with the time that's elapsed since complex life evolved on this planet and now, a million years is basically nothing, yet that's all that it would take for a species to put a big 'Hi there!' sign in every star system in this galaxy - something that would be easily detectable by any species to evolve on any planet.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
20. Re:"almost certainly" by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2012-01-06 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  shy is another word for developed-efficient-point-to-point comms and gave up on radio a long time ago. Then again, i suppose you'd have a peep or two... if we were in the right 100,000 years or so. You never know what civilization might pop up to radio intelligence out there... or when.
  
  --
  CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
21. Re:"almost certainly" by macromorgan · 2012-01-06 10:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Broadcast on all frequencies and all known languages, including Welsh.
  I thought you said known languages?
22. Re:"almost certainly" by Grishnakh · 2012-01-06 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A few problems with your ideas:
  1) Maybe intelligent, star-faring species don't want to disturb others. After all, if your intention is to observe, you don't want your presence to be known or else your observations won't be useful. When we observe the behavior of, say, dolphins when they're mating, we don't go down there and swim around with them and annoy them as they're having their orgies. We watch with cameras, undetected, so we can see what their normal, natural behavior is, not what their behavior is when some strange alien land-dwelling creature is attempting to swim with them.
  1b) Highly advanced races might not have any interest in communicating directly with us, and prefer to simply observe, the same we observe ants rather than attempting to communicate with them. They might have a Prime Directive and know from past experience that contacting pre-spaceflight species doesn't go over very well. Such races might also prevent other races (which disagree with their PD) from contacting those within their sphere of influence. We might be within a United Federation of Planets quadrant where contact with primitive species is strictly prohibited, rather than a Ferengi-controlled quadrant where the opposite is true (primitive species are pushed to use high technology ASAP so they can become consumers). Too bad since our species (esp. Americans) are very Ferengi-like.
  1c) There might already be a big "Hi there!" sign, just sitting on the far side of the Moon waiting for us to uncover it, or perhaps on Pluto. But to get there, we have to have sufficient development to go find it; we're not that developed yet, and it's questionable whether we ever will be. After all, we got bored after we took a couple short trips to the moon and hit some golf balls, so we never went back as we found it much more worthwhile to engage in wars and fight each other over one-click patents.
  2) Intelligent races that actually survive long enough to achieve starflight and send out interplanetary probes might be very rare; maybe most of them destroy themselves shortly after they invent nuclear weapons.
23. Re:"almost certainly" by slick7 · 2012-01-06 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  So, theres still a chance of aliens
  Considering what humans do to other humans in the name of :god, king, money, family, tradition, just for shits and giggles, is it any wonder why the don't respond to our calls.
  If they do respond, it'll probably be "We're the new sheriff in this quadrant, and we're gonna clean this place up once and for all. Decent peaceable folks here deserve this much."
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
24. Re:"almost certainly" by Xyrus · 2012-01-06 14:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
  You know, that is a deeply depressing thought.
  
  --
  ~X~
25. Re:"almost certainly" by Existential+Wombat · 2012-01-06 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite certain that could be viewed as a positive development ... imagine making contact with a civilization where they'd excell at legal thinking and came here to practice law? could be a scary thing.
  Maybe that's already happened?
26. Re:"almost certainly" by cshark · 2012-01-06 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  If there were aliens, why on earth would they use as slow , dirty and brutally inefficient a medium as radio waves?
  
  --
  This signature has Super Cow Powers
27. Re:"almost certainly" by Aighearach · 2012-01-06 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  When we observe the behavior of, say, dolphins when they're mating, we don't go down there and swim around with them and annoy them as they're having their orgies. We watch with cameras, undetected
  Dude, you should totally get youtube, you would be amazed at the things people videotape while actually holding the camera.
  The dolphins don't care. They actually don't even know you're filming most of the time. You're like a bird that can see in a human's window... not really a big deal to the human, and the human assumes the bird doesn't care.
28. Re:"almost certainly" by Grishnakh · 2012-01-06 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, maybe it was a bad example, as I'm not a dolphin expert; perhaps a better example is a bird, like you mention. Most of those seem to get spooked by humans and fly away unless you're good at staying still. Or how about deer? Every time I catch a glimpse of one while hiking, it takes off and all I see is a little white tail.
29. Re:"almost certainly" by Aighearach · 2012-01-06 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  out of all the solar systems out there, do any of you really believe that life only exists here? To me that's just being naive.
  How many stars can there be named Sol?
30. Re:"almost certainly" by RockDoctor · 2012-01-06 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Charlie Stross has written at least one book with interstellar predatory lawyers as a non-trivial plot element.
  And no, I'm not going to tell you which one : dip in ; you're likely to enjoy the experience (I've enjoyed all the Stross books I've brought).
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
31. Re:"almost certainly" by binkzz · 2012-01-06 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Slow? Do you know of anything faster than radio waves?
  
  --
  'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
32. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  From those of is with speech issues, "Fuck You"
  Right on, brother.
  Shut your mouth
  Just talkin' about "is"
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
33. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Laughing? Well, it could be worse.
  
  Keeerist, with Shatner again, and half TOS cast, and I mean the good ones, dead,? But, Takei might be good for a laugh.
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
34. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  You sir, have been watching far too many movies, and television shows.
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
35. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
  ~
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
36. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  To me that's just being naive.
  Asserting certainty for a fact for which you have zero evidence and you're calling other people naive.
  Slashdot never ceases to amuse.
  You forget, it is early on a Saturday morning, and he is at home, and posting on /.
  I've got an excuse, I have insomnia, and am married, therefore celibate by choice.
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
37. Re:"almost certainly" by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  out of all the solar systems out there, do any of you really believe that life only exists here? To me that's just being naive.
  How many stars can there be named Sol?
  Just one, and he's from the lower East side in Manhattan, or is that Saul? I forget.
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
38. Re:"almost certainly" by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2012-01-07 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  great post! I wanted to answer "why use self replication in propagation of civilization?" I hate to use the example, but stargate universe covers it and the idea is sound - robotic, autonomous discovery and establishment of forward bases is the only REAL logical choice for travel at all. I imagine us organics would only be interested in hanging out in gravity wells anyway, they are comfy and safe from technological collapse.
  in any case, a flotilla of tame berserkers (machines that self replicate to destroy all life, the standard technology out-of-control cliche) are actually an excellent idea. Perhaps the only thing worth doing, now, today.
  Tame ones, that is.
  
  --
  CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
39. Re:"almost certainly" by Aphoxema · 2012-01-09 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  SETI isn't necessarily looking for an intentional signal (though if one weren't intentional it would be unlikely to reach us), just anything that demonstrates artifice. It doesn't have to be something like an alien soap-opera perfectly displayed in NTSC format, but the kind of noise generated by that kind of broadcast is generally different than natural noise.
  For one, since we can't test every signal for every kind of imaginable modulation, format, encryption or whatever, we have to look instead for a pattern between what could be real information. Every IP broadcast has plainly readable headers and part of them always begin a certain way, no matter how the information they help deliver is formatted. Every NTSC signal has within them the defining characteristics of the 60 Hertz frequency the information carries.
  Whether digital or analog, there always has to be some kind of reliable pattern for the receiver to interpret, but all we can see is "Pattern-noise-pattern-noise". This is why SETI's problem is more of processing power than space to point telescopes at, they use Fourier transformations to attempt to find individual frequencies in a spectrum and then each of those frequencies need to be tested for potential data containers.
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Beh by Hognoxious · 2012-01-06 07:37 · Score: 2

It's the North Koreans. They're up to something, sure as eggs is eggs.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Beh by discord5 · 2012-01-06 07:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's the North Koreans. They're up to something, sure as eggs is eggs.
  It is space saying mourning the honorable half-god Kim Jong Il's departure. Spontaneous radio broadcasts from space are known to happen when the heavens weep.
2. Re:Beh by slashmydots · 2012-01-06 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  It might actually be the ghost of Kim Jong Il sending signals from the afterlife. I heard on a very respectable North Korean news network that he can do that.
3. Re:Beh by game+kid · 2012-01-06 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  How dare you call him a mere half-god. The Dear Leader will kick the shit out of that Jove guy in golf up in Heaven.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
4. Re:Beh by rubycodez · 2012-01-06 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, his dear son has the girth of two gods
Uh-huh by warrax_666 · 2012-01-06 07:38 · Score: 4, Funny

That's just what the aliens want us to believe!

--
HAND.
1. Re:Uh-huh by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's just what the aliens want us to believe!
  Yeah. Well, what do you think of aliens on other worlds deciding to believe we do not exist?
  such temerity!
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Uh-huh by nschubach · 2012-01-06 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  Deciding to believe we don't exist, or covering up that we exist so their populace won't be scared of us...
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
3. Re:Uh-huh by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, scared of a civilization that can't do anything to them.
  Now, some global cult hiding are existence because it would be against the religious doctrine..THAT'S plausible.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Uh-huh by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, scared of a civilization that can't do anything to them.
  Now, some global cult hiding are existence because it would be against the religious doctrine..THAT'S plausible.
  How about we sic Lady Gaga on them?
  or her fashion consultant!
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Uh-huh by Jappus · 2012-01-06 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Deciding to believe we don't exist, or covering up that we exist so their populace won't be scared of us...
  You know the drill: A Kzr'karch is smart. Many Krz'karch are dumb, panicky dangerous Sib'narch and you know it. Fifteen hundred yar'en ago everybody knew the Nar'karch was the center of the universe. Five hundred yar'en ago, everybody knew the Nar'karch was flat, and fifteen cent'ons ago, you knew that we Krz'karcha were alone on this Nar'net. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Please my alien brothers... by stevegee58 · 2012-01-06 07:43 · Score: 2

...pluck me from my miserable existence and take me to your glistening planet!
Oh. Never mind.
1. Re:Please my alien brothers... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, they are here to serve us.
  
  --
  Huh?
2. Re:Please my alien brothers... by dmbasso · 2012-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I only hope they are not here to "serve and protect" [and pepperspray] us.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
3. Re:Please my alien brothers... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-01-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Aliens: OK, here you are. Oh, that glistening? That's just what we spray on our food to make it brown up nicely. Here, step into this heat box and let us show you...
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
4. Re:Please my alien brothers... by laejoh · 2012-01-06 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  OB Simpsons: I only hope they are not here to "serve and protect" [and pepperspray] for forty of us. Damn space dust!
OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 07:44 · Score: 1

But that doesn't mean they do not exist.
Let's give SETI another 20 years! T'is better to hope for alien contact than to have no hope at all! =)

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by jellomizer · 2012-01-06 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  I remember seeing somewhere that although our radio signals reach on for long time. About when it leaves our solar system they become so intertwined with all the other sources of radio that it becomes unreadable.
  It will be like encrypting a message with using a true random message that you cannot find the seed.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they would. It would be stupid of them not to.
  I will set altruistic reasons a side.
  Lets see:
  A) You can control people who a afraid.
  B) You will get a whole new defence arm - So it's advantageous to the military to let it be known.
  C) Money - Someone has to build all the new toys the military will need - SO it's in the best interest to corporation to let it be known.
  D) Someone has to launch all these new toys - It's in NASAs best interest to let it be known.
  The more cynical you are the more reason there is for them to let us know.
  This is why a Roswell* cover up is a stupid idea. The military budget would have gone through the roof if it had actually been aliens.
  * Besides all the other facts, like children's tape, documents and witness that create the balloon.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by fusiongyro · 2012-01-06 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I love this idea. So there's some sort of government layer between scientists and their phones, email, blogs, and everything? That they have the infrastructure to cover this up successfully, but can't cover up when one of their own officials does one thing with one other person alone in a room in which they are the only two people? The people they'd be most interested in covering this up from are also the people who are the least likely to believe anything a scientist says anyway.
4. Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by ackthpt · 2012-01-06 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  I love this idea. So there's some sort of government layer between scientists and their phones, email, blogs, and everything? That they have the infrastructure to cover this up successfully, but can't cover up when one of their own officials does one thing with one other person alone in a room in which they are the only two people? The people they'd be most interested in covering this up from are also the people who are the least likely to believe anything a scientist says anyway.
  The NRA would be the first to reach out to them and preach Disintegrater Ray Rights.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:OK, so nobody has let us know abou them by Hartree · 2012-01-06 09:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So, you're saying:
  1. Find aliens.
  2. Announce to world.
  3. ...
  4. ...
  5. Profit!
off-topic by hoboroadie · 2012-01-06 07:44 · Score: 1

I sure hated when they deprecated my old SETI account, I was just about to earn a new (100,000 unit) certificate. bastards. see ifn I bother to install the new program.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
1. Re:off-topic by hoboroadie · 2012-01-07 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Right-oh. I couldn't remember that name when I posted.
  
  --
  They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
okay soooo....... by KingPin27 · 2012-01-06 07:45 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new alien communication overlords.

--
"i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
1. Re:okay soooo....... by Sfing_ter · 2012-01-06 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, welcome and stop by the gift shop on your way out!
  
  --
  A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Warning. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Phil Plait is the official PR person for the Illuminati's Extra Terrestrial Embassy Group. The goal is to keep the occupation of Earth quiet until such a time that Their footsoldiers are placed at strategic positions around the world. Bodyguards for high ranking politicians and diplomats, military personnel, etc.

He is NOT to be trusted.
Oblig by should_be_linear · 2012-01-06 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new satellite-interference-simulating-before-landing-and-raping-us overlords.

--
839*929
1. Re:Oblig by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, they can take some of the water too if that's what they want. We can use some more landmass around here.
  Just leave us some of those cool looking walking missile launchers.
  
  --
  Huh?
2. Re:Oblig by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2012-01-06 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Our overlords don't rape, they probe.
On the plus side by kiehlster · 2012-01-06 07:55 · Score: 1

It does go to prove that the system is working. If it can't detect terrestrial signals, then it certainly isn't going to detect extraterrestrial signals.
Call me an idiot ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you’re pointed at an alien transmitter, then moving the telescope will point you in a different direction, and the signal should go away. On the other hand, strong satellite signals can be detected by radio telescopes even when they point in another direction; the signal can leak into the telescopes even when you’re pointed well away.
If you move a thousand miles and the source is a thousand light years away, the angular deviation is almost precisely zero.
But if you move a thousand miles and the source is ten miles away, you're basically moving out of the source's way.
So wouldn't you expect the signal to go away for a man-made satellite, and stay for an alien signal? That's the precise opposite of what they're saying.
And if telescopes in any location, pointing to some specific direction, pick up the same satellite, surely they also pick it up when pointing to other stars? So this satellite that magically interferes with two different telescopes must be a real problem for those telescopes.
Something smells fishy to me.
1. Re:Call me an idiot ... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  >>Something smells fishy to me.
  I agree. A coverup must be in the works.
  
  --
  Huh?
2. Re:Call me an idiot ... by methamorph · 2012-01-06 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Idiot. :) They don't suggest that the telescope moves from one place on the earth to another (while keeping the same angle) but rather change the angle of the telescope that will cause the signal from a remote source to disappear.
3. Re:Call me an idiot ... by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-06 08:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you move a thousand miles and the source is a thousand light years away, the angular deviation is almost precisely zero.
  But if you move a thousand miles and the source is ten miles away, you're basically moving out of the source's way.
  So wouldn't you expect the signal to go away for a man-made satellite, and stay for an alien signal? That's the precise opposite of what they're saying.
  Side lobes. Radio transmitter antennas typically do not radiate in a perfectly spherical, cow shaped arrangement. There are strong lobes and weak (side lobes). If you track the signal through space, you should get a pretty good idea what the shape really is. You can compare that to the generalized, known shapes of the antenna radiation patterns are on various spacecrafts and get a pretty good idea if it's either a satellite or the most godawful giant radio transmitter the universe has ever seen.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:Call me an idiot ... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Are we pointing at Epsilon Erindi? Could we be reading the Great Machine?
  
  --
  Huh?
5. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Achra · 2012-01-06 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. People that don't understand radio shouldn't comment about radio.
  
  --
  Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
6. Re:Call me an idiot ... by dotancohen · 2012-01-06 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Radio transmitter antennas typically do not radiate in a perfectly spherical, cow shaped arrangement.
  At least the "in a vacuum" part is implicit, seeing how the transmissions are though space.
  Oh, and you might like this:
  http://abstrusegoose.com/406
  
  --
  It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
7. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Hamsterdan · 2012-01-06 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nice coincidence as I'm in a B5 watch marathon since yesterday.
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
8. Re:Call me an idiot ... by joebok · 2012-01-06 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  I think the original statement isn't as clear as it could be. It isn't talking about "moving" the telescope relative to the source, but rather just changing the point of aim - i'd swap "moving" out for "rotating" in the quoted blurb. A local, strong source will be detected regardless of the aim, but a distant, faint source can only be detected by precise aim.
  If you’re pointed at an alien transmitter, then rotating the telescope will point you in a different direction, and the signal should go away. On the other hand, strong satellite signals can be detected by radio telescopes even when they point in another direction; the signal can leak into the telescopes even when you’re pointed well away.
9. Re:Call me an idiot ... by formfeed · 2012-01-06 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  >>Something smells fishy to me.
  I agree. A coverup must be in the works.
  Most certainly. Only question is: why doesn't the government want us to know that the aliens invited us for to the transgalactic wejtkball game? - or that beginning at position 10^20 of pi there is an encrypted picture of Jodi Foster?
10. Re:Call me an idiot ... by wideBlueSkies · 2012-01-06 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  wideBlueSkies is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs.
  Is very sad life, will probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry.
  
  --
  Huh?
11. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Bob_Geldof · 2012-01-06 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Side lobes? Must be a Ferengi thing...
  
  --
  887321 = 337*2633
12. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Suddenly_Dead · 2012-01-06 22:05 · Score: 2
  
  I just watched that episode. I think you might be in my mind.
13. Re:Call me an idiot ... by Hamsterdan · 2012-01-07 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  He's probably using the Great Machine to do so :)
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
mega trojan! by slashmydots · 2012-01-06 08:04 · Score: 1

...or alien satellites orbiting Earth! BOOM, blew your mind right there.
Really bad article by mbone · 2012-01-06 08:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, I had to really dig through the Berkeley web site to figure out what they were actually claiming. It's no wonder people are confused.
It's as if I took pictures of some distant airplanes and posted a blog about taking pictures of UFOs, highlighting my pictures, and talked about how these pictures had all the confirming points I was looking for in a UFO picture, with a note at the bottom saying that, as I didn't have any actual UFO pictures, I substituted these.
It would be hard to claim sympathy if I was then ridiculed, which I suspect they will be.
Signal Partially Translated by knarfling · 2012-01-06 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I have managed to obtain a copy of the signals and have partially translated them. Some of the concepts are untranslatable and I am not completely sure about the things I was able to translate, but here is what I have so far.

My fellow [untranslatable]. It is [concept of time] for [choosing/electing] supreme [unknown concept]. My [friend/acquaintance/opponent] is a [feeble-minded/stupid] [weak/ineffective] [some sort of insect]. [Reminds me/makes me think] of a [not sure here, might be human]. I [pledge/promise] a [small animal] in [each/all/every] [cooking container]. I will [reduce/lower] [required payments/taxes]. [Elect/vote for] Kodos in [unknown time].

Hmmm .... seems like a political speech. No intelligent life out there after all.

--
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
1. Re:Signal Partially Translated by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-01-06 15:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I heard it was something like:
  
  Dear [Planetary Inhabitants], I am a [wealthy] [royalty] who is in need of your assistance in transferring a large amount of [monetary units] from my planet to yours. Please send me your [monetary management system]'s [identification schema] so that I may complete this transfer
2. Re:Signal Partially Translated by Phoghat · 2012-01-06 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  I have managed to obtain a copy of the signals and have partially translated them. Some of the concepts are untranslatable and I am not completely sure about the things I was able to translate, but here is what I have so far.
  
  My fellow [untranslatable]. It is [concept of time] for [choosing/electing] supreme [unknown concept]. My [friend/acquaintance/opponent] is a [feeble-minded/stupid] [weak/ineffective] [some sort of insect]. [Reminds me/makes me think] of a [not sure here, might be human]. I [pledge/promise] a [small animal] in [each/all/every] [cooking container]. I will [reduce/lower] [required payments/taxes]. [Elect/vote for] Kodos in [unknown time].
  Hmmm .... seems like a political speech. No intelligent life out there after all.
  No...it's... a ... COOKBOOK !
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Get Seth by geekoid · 2012-01-06 08:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

to do an interview on slashdot.
Also, get their podcast. It's lame puns and excellent science
http://radio.seti.org/

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Get Seth by electron+sponge · 2012-01-06 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  to do an interview on slashdot.
  Also, get their podcast. It's lame puns and excellent science
  http://radio.seti.org/
  Seconding the interview request for Seth Shostak. He's an incredibly bright, level-headed skeptic who looks up at those same stars we all do and thinks big thoughts.
  Also, I enjoy that podcast a great deal. Any podcast that gets Leonard Susskind as a guest (he's in the latest episode) is pretty cool in my opinion.
Signature of humanity by pclminion · 2012-01-06 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Humans should module some very low bit-rate, spread spectrum, wide band signal onto every single transmission we generate, which identifies that transmission as being human in origin. In the future, if we detect a signal we can just check if this signature is there. If it is, question answered. If not, something interesting is happening.
1. Re:Signature of humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement. It would be taken down by RIAA
2. Re:Signature of humanity by netsavior · 2012-01-06 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Good idea! That would make hoaxes way easier.
3. Re:Signature of humanity by pclminion · 2012-01-06 12:56 · Score: 2
  
  It does nothing of the sort. It would make it easier to rule out many signals as being extraterrestrial in origin. It has no effect on the difficulty of hoaxing.
A sense of scale by IWantMoreSpamPlease · 2012-01-06 08:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have photographed the Green Bank Radiotelescope a few times, that place is *massive*, pictures don't do it justice, I mean it's really friggin' big. Best I can show is this pic I took of the area http://plaguedbethyangel.blogspot.com/2011/10/closer.html I love it made the news (the GBR, not my pics) today

--
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
1. Re:A sense of scale by isorox · 2012-01-06 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I have photographed the Green Bank Radiotelescope a few times, that place is *massive*, pictures don't do it justice, I mean it's really friggin' big.
  You think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's peanuts compared to the GBR?
Do you really want to know? by na1led · 2012-01-06 09:04 · Score: 1

If we did find Aliens, the public would never find out.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
1. Re:Do you really want to know? by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-06 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because public panics historically have been so bad for governments and big corporations...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Message Decoded by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 09:49 · Score: 1

I have also decoded it:
Dear distant new friend,
I am Zoltag Sxrrfltz, with the Directorate of the New United Federation of Lesser Planets,
and represent the former ruler of the Sigma Tau confederacy, who even now is
illegally incarcerated by rebels. Because of my high position within our government,
I have access to certain secret storage areas which contain great wealth. At the moment I have
a large number of adamantine/polyvez transport modules (each containing over one hundred
million galactic credits) sitting in a storage unit, but due to the current political
climate have no way to deposit via our normal trade channels. If you would be
interested, I would teleport all 78 of these containers (via normal quantum foam channels)
directly to your coordinates. You would then manage this large amount of wealth (on my
behalf) on your planet. For your trouble I would be willing to grant you a 35% share of everything
I send you. All I need to begin is your Discover card.
Boys from air traffic res say skies are clear by isorox · 2012-01-06 10:28 · Score: 1

This better not be another damn Russian spy job
How is that not news? by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-06 10:32 · Score: 2

Man-made satellite circling around distant star.

--
Fandroids hate facts.
Re:News: Alien Signal was Missed by mcswell · 2012-01-06 13:27 · Score: 1

Not only that, the Aliens aren't going to try again. The first time ET called us, he got voicemail.
Re:Alone, we are by mcswell · 2012-01-06 13:30 · Score: 1

[womdering if this post too, along with dozens of others of mine, will to vanish in censorship.]
Some of us wish.
Microwave SETI a waste, ET won't use it by rubycodez · 2012-01-06 16:37 · Score: 1

Optical SETI has higher gain and better SNR due to higher EIRP. We will soon identify worlds likely to have life and within a few decades be able to target them with laser systems (of infrared or higher). We should assume some ET life has already done the same. We don't even have to worry about "magic frequencies" in the optical realm, can do observations of wide swaths of optical or higher frequency spectrum to first find signal, then later worry about decoding it.
How would we know? by SteveW928 · 2012-01-06 18:19 · Score: 1

Given the 'scientific' stance on Intelligent Design, apparently science is incapable of distinguishing intelligence (agency) from natural process. If that is the case, then no matter the signal, it would be an aliens-of-the-gap inference if SETI ever claimed we did find something.
So, was that judge in Dover possibly wrong about his (well, it was spoon-fed to him, actually) definition of science? Or, has SETI entering the territory of religion? I'll leave it up to the wise folks here on Slashdot to decide. ;)