Slashdot Mirror


Alien 'Wow!' Signal Could Be Explained After Almost 40 Years (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader cites a report on The Guardian: A former analyst with the US Department of Defence is on the trail of a 'cold case' -- an unexplained signal that some believe could have come from extraterrestrials. Way back in 1977 something amazing happened. Astronomer Jerry Ehman was using the Ohio State University's Big Ear radio telescope to sweep the sky for possible signals from extraterrestrial civilisations. He found something. While pointing towards a grouping of stars called Chi Sagittarii on 15 August, he received a powerful blast of radio waves that lasted for 72 seconds. He circled it on the readout and wrote: "Wow!" Analysis of the signal showed that it displayed all the hallmarks of coming from interstellar space, and it became something of a cause celebre for those involved in SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The trouble is that despite numerous attempts, the signal has never been observed again and so remains unexplained. Until now perhaps, thanks to the work of Professor Antonio Paris of St Petersburg College, Florida. Known as 266P/Christensen and 335P/Gibbs, they have never been investigated before because they were only discovered in 2006 and 2008 respectively. Paris found that they were both in the vicinity of Chi Sagittarii on the day that the 'Wow!' signal was detected. This could be significant because comets are surrounded by clouds of hydrogen gas that are millions of kilometres in diameter. Comet 266P/Christensen will pass the Chi Sagittarii star group again on 25 January 2017, while 335P/Gibbs will make its passage on 7 January 2018. Paris plans to observe these events to look for a recurrence of the mystery signal.In some other news, cosmologist and theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking says he doesn't expect the humanity to find intelligent alien life for at least another 20 years.

96 comments

  1. what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or we just posting things that could happen? like... slashdot could actually have a good article, the sky could fall, aliens could exist etc...

    1. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The answer is actually in the article, so you'll have to go read it to find out. LOL.

    2. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy idea. You could try RTFA.

    3. Re:what's the explaination? by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      TLDR; They think it was two comets in that region of the sky with lots of hydrogen gas around them, The hz range matches what you would expect from hydrogen gas. The 2 comets were undiscovered until now.

      Sounds like a swamp gas explanation but probably the most probable seeing as we have never found a signal like the "wow!" signal.

    4. Re:what's the explaination? by Coisiche · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not the done thing to read the articles I know.

      Essentially, it's been suggested that the event was caused by two comets that were undiscovered at the time. Their next passes are due soon and proposer of the hypothesis is requesting funds to buy radio telescope time during the passes. If he gets the funding and finds nothing then we won't have any explanation and can still say it might be aliens.

    5. Re:what's the explaination? by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Informative

      He can't buy time because none is available. He's looking for money to build his own.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:what's the explaination? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Buy his own, actually. But assembly is required!

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it helps prove that the earlier communication definitely didn't come from Aliens, then maybe the Catholic Church might want to fund him?

    8. Re:what's the explaination? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      No radio telescope time available at all? Even at the old ones run by amateurs these days (e.g. Bochum and Dwingeloo)?

    9. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or we just posting things that could happen? like... slashdot could actually have a good article, the sky could fall, aliens could exist etc...

      You don't RTFAs anyway, so who are you to judge a good one?

    10. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to summarize the comments section: "What the hell? You're making us actually RTFA? You can't do that!"

    11. Re:what's the explaination? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Batteries not Included.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    12. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT'S A TRAP!
      Well, another gofundme scheme anyway.

    13. Re:what's the explaination? by wardrich86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      TL;DR:
      "He didn’t find aliens but he did find two suspicious looking comets.

      Known as 266P/Christensen and 335P/Gibbs, they have never been investigated before because they were only discovered in 2006 and 2008 respectively. Paris found that they were both in the vicinity of Chi Sagittarii on the day that the ‘Wow!’ signal was detected.

      This could be significant because comets are surrounded by clouds of hydrogen gas that are millions of kilometres in diameter. The ‘Wow!’ signal itself was detected by Ehman at 1420MHz, which is a radio frequency that hydrogen naturally emits. He published his idea at the beginning of this year."

      Still TL;DR: It's probably a comet

      Even still TL;DR comet

    14. Re:what's the explaination? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Beats me. I'm not the one running the project. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    15. Re:what's the explaination? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Yep, very same as the 'Who killed JFK?' case.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    16. Re:what's the explaination? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You must be new here

    17. Re:what's the explaination? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I believe I've seen more than one documentary that affirmatively stated that the cause was known. I don't remember they said it was a pulsar or a binary system or what. I seem to recall them stating, affirmatively, that it was due to something spinning. Assuming this is the famous WOW signal where they wrote WOW on the printed paper. There's a host of documentaries on the subject or that cover it.

      I'm damned near certain that I've been told that they *knew* what the reason was. I took them at face value, it not being something I'm really all that interested in, and never looked into it further. I doubt that I'd have gleaned more than anyone else if I had looked into it. I'd have said it was probably a big alien kid playing with one of those things you spin and it has a fan like thing on it. Between the fan and the handle are an abrasive surface and flint so that it sparks. The wheel's usually got cut-outs and colored thing plastic windows so you get multiple colored sparks flashing really quickly and I'm sure they're giving off some sort of signal - albeit small, in the electro magnetic field.

      Which is probably why they didn't ask me and is probably why I'm not an expert in the field. I'm still disappointed that I've been told it was a solved issue if it isn't, in fact, a solved issue at all. It's already hard enough, they don't need to make it more confusing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg your pardon, but the articles are not too long. They are normal articles, not long reads. But then what can I expect in the age of 140 characters...

    19. Re:what's the explaination? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1
      No radio telescope time available at all?

      I can loan him a couple of satellite dishes. That worked in The Arrival.

    20. Re:what's the explaination? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Informative

      No he can't get any telescope time, so he's buying his own. You can't get time for anything even tangentially related to extraterrestrials, it's easier to get a grant to disprove global warming. What he is attempting to do is buy his own radio telescope, then allow other astronomers to use it after he is done with his investigation.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:what's the explaination? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Thanks, man!

    22. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking as a professional radio astronomer, who applies for time on major telescopes a few times a year - yeah, you can get time for SETI. A guy in my office did a few months ago. You just need some hook, some reason why your particular project represents an improvement on previous efforts: some new signal-processing hardware you've built, a new localisation technique you want to try, some object that's displayed anomalous (potentially ETI) behaviour that you'd like to look at specifically. You can't just say that you want to spend a few hundred hours of telescope time repeating previous searches.

      A project like the one in this article sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would get some telescope time. The article specifies that the comets transit this background star group on specific days, so presumably the total observing time is a few tens of hours, which is a typical small project. The transits are well into the future - the first one is in January 2017 - so there's plenty of time to submit proposals, which typically run on a 6-month application cycle. (The article says that existing radio telescopes are "all booked out" on these dates, which is absolute nonsense: schedules aren't set that far in advance.)

      With a well-written four-page proposal, you could get a few tens of hours, sufficient for this project, on a 60+-metre-class single-dish radio telescope - far, far more radio telescope than you could build for the $13,000 budget mentioned in the article.

      This really, really doesn't add up. Maybe the gofundme campaign is for money to assemble a bit of extra signal-processing hardware to use with an existing radio telescope? Or maybe it's a scam?

    23. Re:what's the explaination? by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Why would the Catholic Church be interested in that? The Church has openly stated that the concept of alien life is not inconsistent with Catholic theology.

    24. Re:what's the explaination? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      No prob!

      tl;dr: NP!

    25. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually fyi, the article has changed and is a lot longer than when the 1st post was made

    26. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An anonymous reader cites a report on The Guardian: A former analyst with the US Department of Defence is on the trail of a 'cold case' -- an unexplained signal that some believe could have come from extraterrestrials. Way back in 1977 something amazing happened. Astronomer Jerry Ehman was using the Ohio State University's Big Ear radio telescope to sweep the sky for possible signals from extraterrestrial civilisations. He found something. While pointing towards a grouping of stars called Chi Sagittarii on 15 August, he received a powerful blast of radio waves that lasted for 72 seconds.
      In some other news, cosmologist and theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking says he doesn't expect the humanity to find intelligent alien life for at least another 20 years. He circled it on the readout and wrote: "Wow!" Analysis of the signal showed that it displayed all the hallmarks of coming from interstellar space, and it became something of a cause celebre for those involved in SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The trouble is that despite numerous attempts, the signal has never been observed again and so remains unexplained

      this was the actual article as it 1st appeared

    27. Re:what's the explaination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copy and paste mistake but it was missing the "Until now perhaps, thanks to the work of Professor Antonio Paris of St Petersburg College, Florida. Known as 266P/Christensen and 335P/Gibbs, they have never been investigated before because they were only discovered in 2006 and 2008 respectively. Paris found that they were both in the vicinity of Chi Sagittarii on the day that the 'Wow!' signal was detected. This could be significant because comets are surrounded by clouds of hydrogen gas that are millions of kilometres in diameter. Comet 266P/Christensen will pass the Chi Sagittarii star group again on 25 January 2017, while 335P/Gibbs will make its passage on 7 January 2018. Paris plans to observe these events to look for a recurrence of the mystery signal."
      the submitter updated the article, making it longer and now has the reference to the cause. being the forst poster, i read it more than once before posting.

  2. Comets by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the summary failed to state the new hypothesis, here goes:

    Professor Antonio Paris believes that the signal was generated by two comets which were discovered in 2006 and 2008. They were both in the vicinity of Chi Sagittarii when the Wow! signal was emitted. Both of these comets are surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen gas, which emits signals at a frequency of 1420MHz (the same as the Wow! signal).

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    1. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, because no one but you knows how to read an article? Summaries are called "summaries" for a reason. They don't contain every goddamned piece of information contained in the article.

    2. Re:Comets by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      True, they shouldn't contain every piece of information, however, they should endeavor to contain The Most Important Piece.

    3. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What energizes the Hydrogen? Is it pure H, H2, NH4, that produces such a signal. Would it be different in each of these cases? Do those same commits produce the same signal today? What are we, ancient philosophers? Aim the radio telescope at these commits and reproduce the effect.

    4. Re:Comets by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Aim the radio telescope at these commits and reproduce the effect.

      Yeah, I'm not sure what's stopping them from doing this now. Sure, it would have to be at Chi Sagittarii to replicate the Wow! signal, but if the comets don't produce that signal from where they are right now, seems like the whole experiment would be moot.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    5. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah because you know an general explanation of the new hypothesis would take up way to much room to be covered in a summary... oh wait...

    6. Re:Comets by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Magic. When the comets are in the right position, magic happens. Mumble mumble something about hydrogen and spectral lines. But the real truth is: I want a free telescope.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Comets by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      But the real truth is: I want a free telescope.

      LOL that's what I got from this as well. I also felt like the summary was clickbait without an explanation in it.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    8. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The AC above must be the only one who read the summary and did not think "Well, what is it ?! What is the hypothesis this whole #£$%@ story is about ?!".

      I guess he's a Slashdot "editor".

    9. Re:Comets by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

    10. Re:Comets by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      When the whole point of an article is explaining some observation and the summary doesn't even mention said explanation, then it is not a summary. More like an introduction.

    11. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but there is one thing every summary should have: a summary. Submitter forgot that part, though had tons of backstory.

    12. Re:Comets by chispito · · Score: 1

      Why, because no one but you knows how to read an article? Summaries are called "summaries" for a reason. They don't contain every goddamned piece of information contained in the article.

      No, because without at least a suggestion of the new theory, how are we to know if TFA is worth our time?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    13. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of this hypothesis.

      Let's say it's possible that a comet can produce enough hydrogen gas to produce such a signal, which isn't certain. Comets aren't exactly rare. Why isn't this observed more frequently?

      Also, comets generally don't move too much in the sky in a span of a day. The Big Ear telescope scanned a fixed portion of the sky, and that window moved as the Earth rotated. Why wasn't the signal observed again 24 hours later?

      It's an interesting hypothesis that fits many of the observations, but I'm far from convinced that this can explain the signal.

    14. Re:Comets by thermopile · · Score: 2
      The "Big Ear" which discovered the Wow! signal had two feed horn antennae. What's tough to explain is why the other horn didn't pick up the signal. I suppose if the comet were small enough, other horn might not pick it up as it scanned by a few minutes later. Ehman says he re-scanned the area fifty times, after the initial signal. Maybe the comets had moved far enough apart by then?

      Anyhow, the guy is looking for some additional funding so he can go build his own radiotelescope and test his hypothesis. I wish him luck, but not enough that I'm willing to donate to his cause.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    15. Re:Comets by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why, because no one but you knows how to read an article? Summaries are called "summaries" for a reason. They don't contain every goddamned piece of information contained in the article.

      So you'd prefer a title/summary of:

      40 years ago Jerry Ehman received a message from space that changed his life! Now a professor from Florida wants to show the world how true that message was - and that truth is stranger than fiction! Click here to see what happens next!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    16. Re:Comets by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In marketing, it's known as a "teaser", and on the Intarwebs they are used to generate click-throughs.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re: Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we have two individuals, with references to high rank in their user names, agreeing that the experiment is bunk. That proves the truth is close at hand!

    18. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That didn't summarize shit and you know it. It was damn near clickbait.

    19. Re:Comets by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      You are probably right, no need for a radiotelescope to find out.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    20. Re:Comets by twdorris · · Score: 1

      I'm new to this thread. Did they update the summary or what? It seems pretty clear to me at this point in time.

    21. Re:Comets by twdorris · · Score: 2

      But the real truth is: I want a free telescope.

      I'm sure they'll gladly pay for it. They just want to use someone else's money.

    22. Re:Comets by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Well stated. Not that I blame, I too want a free telescope and dude has come up with a better excuse to buy him one than I ever will.

    23. Re:Comets by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Well really, if he thought he'd could prove it was E.T. I'd toss a couple bucks his way but why bother funding a debunking, no fun there.

    24. Re:Comets by shaitand · · Score: 1

      No, it says there was a signal and now we know about two objects. It lacks a couple critical pieces of information, that the objects are comets and that the comets are actually expected to emit a signal like the one he found!

      That isn't a blank you can expect a typical reader to just know off the top of their head as a given even on a site that is News for Nerds.

    25. Re:Comets by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oh I've no objection to this - more power to him. A fool and his money are soon parted, after all. But I won't hold my breath for any earth-shattering discovery.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    26. Re:Comets by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Since when did Slashdot generate revenue from CTR?

    27. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No link....

    28. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's how science works. We attempt to disprove theories.

    29. Re:Comets by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Sure enough but hardly inspiration for personal wallet opening.

    30. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should however summarize the content, not sensationalize it to try to get clicks. If you read a summary about a murder case, it should contain the outcome, not make you click on it to read the article to find out the verdict.

      Summaries on /. rarely summarize anything and are just trying to get clicks.

    31. Re:Comets by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If they didn't update the summary at some point, there's a lot of people sarcastically quoting lines out of the summary going on.

      Now it explains everything except how comets can generate a radio signal.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    32. Re:Comets by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Well IDK. There was a recent acquisition, though. Who knows?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    33. Re:Comets by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Would The Guardian even have anything like that to pay them?

    34. Re:Comets by dissy · · Score: 1

      Why, because no one but you knows how to read an article?

      Hundreds of anonymous cowards every day in every article ever posted to slashdot for over the last decade bitch and moan how the summary doesn't explain enough or define common everyday terms any technical person should already know.

      So in fact no, the vast majority of people on slashdot do not know how to read an article.

      Additionally a shockingly large amount of slashdot readers don't even know how to read the summary. No where near "most" like reading articles, but quite a large number none the less.

    35. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, much better. Slashdot needs a community, "better summary" tag.

    36. Re:Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, because no one but you knows how to read an article? Summaries are called "summaries" for a reason. They don't contain every goddamned piece of information contained in the article.

      So you'd prefer a title/summary of:

      40 years ago Jerry Ehman received a message from space that changed his life! Now a professor from Florida wants to show the world how true that message was - and that truth is stranger than fiction! Click here to see what happens next!

      How about this one:
      "Talk to space aliens with the one easy trick."
      "turn your speaker up for this video"

  3. It's probably a comet by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's probably a comet - signature matches a lot of hydrogen, and a couple of nearby comets fit the bill with their unusually massive clouds of it.

    1. Re:It's probably a comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And they want money to test their hypothesis, https://www.gofundme.com/wow-experiment

  4. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As they mentioned in the New Scientist article (from January) : if these comets were the source of the Wow signal, these events should happen all the time, since comets aren't exactly rare, and I'm pretty sure people have pointed radio telescopes at them before.

    1. Re:Nope by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      IANAAP, but i suspect the argument goes like this: if you're pointing a radio telescope at a comet you actually point it at the comet and take observations from the comet, you're not paying attention to any stars that happen to be near it because that's not what you're trying to observe. What is theorized to have happened in this case is that they were taking observations from the star as a comet passed in front of it, and the signal from the star was presumably modulated (or whatever the correct technical jargon is) by the comet's atmosphere, producing a signal you would not see when looking at either a comet or a star alone.

      The fact that it hasn't happened many other times despite there being a lot of comets around is that space is big. You just won't believe how etc, etc.

      It's a pretty simple theory and it's pretty easy to test, the only difficulty being actually getting telescope time. The only reason other astronomers are complaining is because they don't want to give up their own telescope time combined with the usual in-field competitiveness.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Nope by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      On another hand, if this hypothesis worth enough and there is any doubt about it, the scientific community would free some observation time on the existing radiotelescopes to find out. So, being not the case, I conclude either the scientific community believes it doesn't worth to verify because the strength of the signal can be computed for the two comets, the hypothesis can then be checked numerically and an observation will not add any thing new, either it believes this hypothesis is very unlikely and not a valid explanation. In both case, I will pass my turn and not fund this. I already fund the other radiotelescopes from my taxes.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:Nope by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      and the signal from the star was presumably modulated (or whatever the correct technical jargon is) by the comet's atmosphere, producing a signal you would not see when looking at either a comet or a star alone.

      That would have to be a hydrogen laser, which is unlikely, but a Hydrogen fluoride laser seems possible.

  5. Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Finding aliens and the Second Coming of Jesus: two things that are equally likely to happen in the future.

    1. Re:Faith by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Finding aliens and the Second Coming of Jesus: two things that are equally likely to happen in the future.

      There is no theoretical objection to the prospect of finding extraterrestrial life, even if it is a needle-in-haystack sort of hunt. In contrast, the Jesus proposition requires an assumption that supernatural beings exist.

  6. Welcome to Slashdot, News from January by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Antonio Paris, a professor of astronomy at St Petersburg College in Florida, thinks the signal might have come from one or more passing comets. He points the finger at two suspects, called 266P/Christensen and P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs). “I came across the idea when I was in my car driving and wondered if a planetary body, moving fast enough, could be the source,” he says."

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28747-famous-wow-signal-might-have-been-from-comets-not-aliens/

  7. And? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Alien 'Wow!' Signal Could Be Explained After Almost 40 Years

    And? You've explained what the signal was, but could you not even give a hint as to the possible explanation?

    Okay, so I read up, and it's something to do with some comets. I don't get why the guy has to wait for them to be in the same patch of sky before testing his theory, though.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:And? by gtall · · Score: 1

      They are special comets.

    2. Re:And? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I would think that their distance from the sun and/or each other might be more important than whether they are in that patch of sky again.

  8. Space sharks with lasers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It's just a viral media build up for the next Sharkanado.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. The Graun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was anything other than pop-sci navel-gazing do you not think it would have been published elsewhere, in fact many elsewhere's, all of which with a better rep for science writing than a decrepit-print-rag-cum-mid-Atlantic-blogging-platform.

  10. An Interesting Hypothesis... by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting explanation, but the problem with the signal being of extraterrestrial (as in alien) still applies with it being a result of natural phenomenon: There was no repeat. The SETI procedure is take the dish off the signal and try to require. If these comets were moving through the vicinity it would have been possible to reacquire the signal, or at least find some trace of it in that area of the sky.

    I'm not saying that the hypothesis shouldn't be tested, but even if these comets are the source of the signal it is a bit strange that they emitted such a powerful signal once...and made no other indicators afterwards.

    Now, an important point that everyone else has already said but should be repeated: When you're writing the abstract for an article, be sure to include the major highlights of the article. That includes proposals, findings, etc. It's the exact opposite of the "Spoilers" system.

    1. Re:An Interesting Hypothesis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > even if these comets are the source of the signal it is a bit strange that they emitted such a powerful signal once..

      Maybe they crashed into something and that emitted the signal while they were being obliterated.

    2. Re:An Interesting Hypothesis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A comet would move at a different rate of speed through the sky than the stars. Stars move only by the earths rotation, the comet would move independantly of that. Maybe they thought to look at the same spot again, by calculating the rotation of the earth, but, the comet had moved away from that spot already.

    3. Re:An Interesting Hypothesis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying that the hypothesis shouldn't be tested, but even if these comets are the source of the signal it is a bit strange that they emitted such a powerful signal once...and made no other indicators afterwards.

      The alien base on one of the comets temporarily dropped shields for a moment, either by accident or to let an arriving/departing ship pass through. Ever since they've been careful to only do that when the comet has rotated such that the base is on the side away from Earth.

  11. Please fix summary by k.a.f. · · Score: 1
    Until now perhaps, thanks to the work of Professor Antonio Paris of St Petersburg College, Florida. Known as 266P/Christensen and 335P/Gibbs, they have never been investigated before

    What is missing here? Please fix the summary.

  12. another 20 years?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    forget about 'up there'.... we have yet to discover an abundance of intelligent life down here

  13. I am still waiting by climb_no_fear · · Score: 1

    for them to find intelligent life on this planet...

  14. Fart in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it was just a fart in space but strong enough a pattern to cause a false positive.

  15. Stephen Hawking is wrong; stick 2 science plz by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Stephen Hawking should stick to hard science because he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. Namely:

    * "He doesn't know what other people DO know."

    Gee, if only we had credible, witnesses,

    The problem with (official) "First Contact" is that will cause MORE problems then it will solve. :-/ Everything from Mathematics, Money, Religion, Science will need to be re-evaluated. Most people are not ready to have their false belief system blown apart.

    Proof will be given in ~2024 when we can end these stupid discussion once and for all and focus on the more important issues like why is most of life bipedal humanoid in the galaxy? Why were humans genetically engineered? Why is Earth one of the only few places with Free Will ?

    --
    If animals can live millions of years on Earth without money, why can't stupid humans?

    1. Re:Stephen Hawking is wrong; stick 2 science plz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Hawking should stick to hard science because he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. Namely:

      * "He doesn't know what other people DO know."

      Gee, if only we had credible, witnesses,

      The problem with (official) "First Contact" is that will cause MORE problems then it will solve. :-/ Everything from Mathematics, Money, Religion, Science will need to be re-evaluated. Most people are not ready to have their false belief system blown apart.

      Proof will be given in ~2024 when we can end these stupid discussion once and for all and focus on the more important issues like why is most of life bipedal humanoid in the galaxy? Why were humans genetically engineered? Why is Earth one of the only few places with Free Will ?

      --
      If animals can live millions of years on Earth without money, why can't stupid humans?

      Damn. Does anyone else have some dried frog pills for my friend here? I seem to have run out.

  16. Jerry Ehman by Jodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was about 7 years old Jerry Ehman rode down to Kentucky with us in the family station wagon from Powell, Ohio to Kentucky to go spelunking. We lived a few houses down the street from the assistant director of the Big Ear radio observatory who organized the trip and who invited along coworkers and friends. All the radio observatory guys on the trip were full-time radio geeks, including Jerry, who brought his own CB radio on the trip and installed it in our car before we left. This was so we could keep in touch with the other vehicles on the drive down. Jerry had temporarily disconnected our am/fm car radio antenna to wire in his CB. So he is explaining this to me as my father drives down the highway to Kentucky. Being 7, of course I asked "but what if we want to listen to the radio?". Jerry, who was riding in the center of the front bench seat of the station wagon, replies that he can switch back and forth between them. Then he immediately inverts himself in the car seat with his feet up in the air and his head pushed up under the dashboard holding a handful of tools. A few minutes later the car radio is working again.

    By the way, the radio observatory at which Jerry recorded the Wow! signal no longer exits. It was a joint project between Ohio State and Ohio Wesleyan universities. It was constructed and managed by the Ohio State University but located on land owned by Ohio Wesleyan University which sold it to developers to build a golf source. There was an international effort to preserve it, Nobel price winners and other notables campaigned for it. Wesleyan believed that a golf course was much more important than SETI. "Ignorant small-town hicks" would not go far enough to describe that school.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  17. See the "Wow" Signal Log Page in Berkeley by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    The "wow" signal log page is currently on exhibit at the The UC Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, across the street from the Berkeley campus. It's in an exhibit of modern art called "In Space". $12 admission.

  18. Subspace Signal by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was a subspace signal from a starship.

    The signal was at the far end of subspace radio range, and had fallen in energy state until it was readable in the RF spectrum.

    The starship was moving, and only in range for a few seconds.

    Duh.

    1. Re:Subspace Signal by RonTheHurler · · Score: 1

      I know it's a joke, but I essentially had the same thought when I heard about Hawkins and that Russian billionaire's plan to make marble sized starships and hurl them at Proxima Centauri. I couldn't help thinking how the Tau Cetians, et al, probably already did that to us. How would we ever detect a marble hurling through the solar system? Especially if it's a one-time event? Better yet, what if we caught just a glimpse of a signal it sent back home???

      The point is, if we are at the cusp of such capabilities, surely someone else has already done it. And surely our star system is a target-- as the knowledge about where habitable planets might exist and how to find them becomes better known...

  19. Hawking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who really cares what Hawking has to say on these matters? He has proven that he is more than willing to voice his quite uninformed opinion on topics he really knows nothing about.

    I would just as soon get my science from a sports celebrity. Please let him stick to math and physics.

  20. Re:what's the explanation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my favorite sci-fi stories is about the Catholic Church's reaction to the discovery of intelligent life on a planet of Alpha Centauri. The Sparrow (and its sequel, The Children of God). In the story, the Church sends missionaries. Things go badly, but not for the reasons you might expect. Good read.

  21. Re:what's the explanation? by mcswell · · Score: 1

    BTW, I wrote the above--stupidly, I wasn't logged in.