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

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Well, I figured it all out its : Project Serpo Release #34 - "Operation TANGO-SIERRA".

AHHHHHHHHHHH!

Nother scotch please..

I'd make it more of either Operation Bravo Sierra, or maybe Project Tango Uniform, myself.

Although reading it, the thing sounds more like Exercise Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

This is from Wayen's FB now.. Posted some time ago..

'' ◄◄◄BREAKING NEWS►►►

update#4 -

11 minutes ago from Judy at NASA...

"Wayne, it would seem as if this signal is not perse directed at us as a
Species, but that we are now listening in on a Interstellar
communication between civilisations on the Target stars I had
mentioned.

Only +- 1% of the signal seems modulated and the... rest seems
to be an advance Binary code of sorts.

There are so many subcarriers
bundled into this signal.

I dont think we have the
technology on our planet at present to do this form of communication at
this frequencies.

We have still not reached any results, far from it.

However I can say with confidence it is not Local, but definitely an
Intelligence from beyond our Solar System. Wonder why SETI USA has not
commented on anything yet. We are going to Stealth mode from now on,
however I will keep you posted.''

reply to post by Atlantican

In my younger years on-line searching for the things that ultimately lead me here, such skepticism was rare. I wasted ridiculous numbers of hours reading only the perpetual "pro-x" positions and with unlimited suspension of disbelief. I remember the heaven's gate thing and many others all too well. Even when I first came here I believed 90% (easily) more conspiracies than I do now. I've grown a good bit thanks to skepticism.

Absolutly agree with you on that Atlantican. If it weren't for our skeptics,
the people who describe us as," a bunch of conspiracy nuts". Would be
correct. As it stands because of our skeptics, they are wrong and we are
truth seekers. I applaued our skeptics.



[edit on 4-5-2010 by randyvs]

There are so many pages in this thread - was the question answered of how/why radio telescopes not capable of receiving signals that originate in the deep UV frequency are focusing on this region of space?

To me that's kind of an important piece of information. I really want this to be true, but I want it to be provable and genuine as well.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by sos37]

NO earthbased radio telescope capable of receiving UV wavelenghts?...hmmm.....

"An extremely large telescope (ELT) is a class of telescope with an aperture of more than 20 m diameter when discussing reflecting telescopes of optical wavelengths including UV, Visible, and Near infrared wavelengths. Telescopes for other wavelengths can be much larger such as the 100 meter (109 yards) aperture on the Green Bank Telescope for radio wavelengths. ELTs are planned to increase the chance of finding earth-like planets around other stars."

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, the Optical Telescope in South Africa doesn't exits.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
NO earthbased radio telescope capable of receiving UV wavelenghts?...hmmm.....

"An extremely large telescope (ELT) is a class of telescope with an aperture of more than 20 m diameter when discussing reflecting telescopes of optical wavelengths including UV, Visible, and Near infrared wavelengths. Telescopes for other wavelengths can be much larger such as the 100 meter (109 yards) aperture on the Green Bank Telescope for radio wavelengths. ELTs are planned to increase the chance of finding earth-like planets around other stars."

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, the Optical Telescope in South Africa doesn't exits.
en.wikipedia.org...

Hey Seeker, just finally decided to drop by this thread and see what's going on. Skimmed through most ok, all after I read radio telescopes can't see UV. I"m glad I caught your post showing otherwise. Nice way to stir the pot.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
NO earthbased radio telescope capable of receiving UV wavelenghts?...hmmm.....

"An extremely large telescope (ELT) is a class of telescope with an aperture of more than 20 m diameter when discussing reflecting telescopes of optical wavelengths including UV, Visible, and Near infrared wavelengths. Telescopes for other wavelengths can be much larger such as the 100 meter (109 yards) aperture on the Green Bank Telescope for radio wavelengths. ELTs are planned to increase the chance of finding earth-like planets around other stars."

en.wikipedia.org...

You actually have to read it with understanding. Let's parse it out.

An extremely large telescope has an aperture over 20 meters diameter, when you're talking about an optical telescope. See? Optical telescope. To wit, a reflecting telescope (uses mirrors) of optical wavelengths (uses light) including UF, visible, and near IR.

Ok. that describes an optical telescope, which is built for light. Light in the UV, visible, and near IR bands.

Watch the change carefully...

"Telescopes for other wavelengths can be much larger such as the 100 meter (109 yards) aperture on the Green Bank Telescope for radio wavelengths. "

Ok. Telescopes for other wavelengths (note we WERE talking about reflecting optical telescopes, for light. Now, it's changing to OTHER wavelengths) can be much larger, such as the 100 meter aperture on the Green Bank Telescope (watch carefully) for RADIO wavelengths.

Note that they're no longer referring to the reflecting optical telescope for visible light, they've casually switched to talking about telescopes for other wavelengths than visible light, notably radio wavelengths.

You missed the splice. No, sorry, radio telescopes use radio receivers. Light telescopes use cameras, spectroscopes and the like. You can't receive light with a radio telescope, not yours.

edit ps:

No one said that optical telescopes don't exist. Of course they do. I have one. There are lots of really nice ones, Palomar always comes to mind. However, these are optical telescopes. Optical telescopes are for light. Radio telescopes are for radio. They are not the same. You can't receive UV light with a radio telescope any more than you can receive radio stations with a pair of binoculars.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Bedlam]

reply to post by Bedlam


We ARE..still talking about the electromagnetic spectrum. aren't we?

Second line, cause it difficult to open minds....sigh

Some other info on Waynes FB:

''-Wayne Herschel- Who cares about lists right now when there is someone who is a decent person in a bad place right now, be it from action taken for what she released, or if she is in hiding or been the victim of a very destructive joke being played on her. I hope she is okay and I am sure we will know soon.

5 hours ago.-Wayne Herschel- This could be yet another destructive mark against my research trying to get scholars to comment on the 23 ancient star maps and the astronomical data proving the star maps. It doesn't look good at all.
5 hours ago ''

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by Bedlam

 

We ARE..still talking about the electromagnetic spectrum. aren't we?

Second line, cause it difficult to open minds....sigh

Yes, but you have to do things differently in different parts of the spectrum, when it comes to receiving and transmitting equipment.

You can't receive gamma rays with a LF radio receiver. It just doesn't work that way, despite them all being on the electromagnetic spectrum.

It's not being closed-minded, it's understanding how it works. A radio telescope just doesn't receive UV light. Hell, for that matter, a millimetric radar isn't plumbed anything like an HF radio transmitter, and they're a lot closer to each other than UV light and the normal EM window for a radio telescope.

edit: To expand on it, your eyes are pretty cleverly designed. Yet they can only see a tiny sliver of the EM spectrum. You can't see x-rays, nor can you see UHF radio waves. Why? They're all on the EM spectrum, as you say. Surely you could see anything from ELF to the highest frequency gammas, since they're all on the EM spectrum. But you can't. Because the design of your eye is only good for that window. So too, radio telescopes use reflecting surfaces that aren't optical reflectors (ever see a picture of one?), because at the frequencies they work in, an optically smooth surface isn't necessary. Because they only work with longer wavelengths than visible light. They use an array of antennas instead of optical lenses and a CCD. Why? Because at radio frequencies, glass optics don't work. Even though radio and light are both EM.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Bedlam]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Bedlam]

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
NO earthbased radio telescope capable of receiving UV wavelenghts?...hmmm.....

"An extremely large telescope (ELT) is a class of telescope with an aperture of more than 20 m diameter when discussing reflecting telescopes of optical wavelengths including UV, Visible, and Near infrared wavelengths. Telescopes for other wavelengths can be much larger such as the 100 meter (109 yards) aperture on the Green Bank Telescope for radio wavelengths. ELTs are planned to increase the chance of finding earth-like planets around other stars."

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, the Optical Telescope in South Africa doesn't exits.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4-5-2010 by discl0sur3]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by discl0sur3]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Daughter2]

Originally posted by Daughter2
Just a crazy suggestion -


Is there anyway to make the area near the hole cold enough to freeze the oil? Maybe just for a short time so it can be capped?

I really think firing some non -explosive torpedo directly into the hole would work too.

Wrong thread
But the short answer would be...not likely.

reply to post by Bedlam


Light is an electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength regardless if visible or not. But we are talking about UV light here.

Radio telescope picks up wavelenghts. Optical telescopes such your handheld binos only captures light only mainly of the visible spectrum. Spectrography is the study of electromagnetic spectra. And the Optical telescope in S. Africa is NOT a bino, but solely to study spectrography - electromagnetic spectra.

And it is such UV spectra info that the OP is releasing to the world.

Now, as to if it is genuine or not, it is still not clear as yet. No one is guilty unless he/she had been proven so.

Barking up the electromagnetic spectrum, or no ground base facillity recieving such data is possible as a smoking gun only makes a skeptic look utterly foolish. Try another!

And the beat go's on. But, what else has come? We wait.

www.youtube.com...

Hmmm...do people here realize light is actually electro-magnetic radiation? Even visible light is a form of EMR...visible light is just the part of the EM spectrum our eyes can see...radio telescopes have a broader detection range of the spectrum...and UV light is a type of electro-magnetic radiation.

It was pointed out that the only difference between radio waves, visible light, and gamma-rays is the energy of the photons. Radio waves have photons with low energies, microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves, infrared has still more, then visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma-rays.
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Radio telescopes, however, are restricted to the radio frequencies of the EM spectrum. But...I think the following Wikipedia quote makes it quite obvious no telescope within Earths atmosphere can detect and study UV radiation. I'm sure someone must have pointed this out already, but I'll point it out again:

Ultraviolet astronomy is generally used to refer to observations of electromagnetic radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths between approximately 10 and 320 nanometres; shorter wavelengths—higher energy photons—are studied by X-ray astronomy and gamma ray astronomy.[1] Light at these wavelengths is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, so observations at these wavelengths must be performed from the upper atmosphere or from space.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

Did she ever state what sort of telescope they were using to detect the signals? This whole things smells like a hoax to me...if the signal really is that prominent, we will know about it soon enough.

EDIT: Sorry Bedlam, I read your post wrong, you did know what you were talking about. Just ignore this if you have no idea what it means.

EDIT: Yep, I see Phage discussed, in depth, the problem with UV radiation, on the page before this. It seems it was mentioned long before Phage even. Nice work.

[edit on 4/5/10 by CHA0S]

-Wayne Herschel-
Thanks Andrew for the update on the Giza scandal... we saw the videos didnt look convincing either so that puts a lid on that. Yes obviously no connection to this.
6 minutes ago


-Wayne Herschel-
Judy is a missing person right now... I already confirmed the research by Judy on the stars in question was more than just Radio astronomy and typical Richard Hoagland has to be one better on that one too to take a stab at that!

From a guy that has many believe there are aliens on the moon????

I relayed only what seemed important and I am still very concerned on the situation with Judy more than this being real or not.... See More

All the data claimed is being discussed with astronomers and I will report later. I am just as angry about how this has turned ugly as most of you are.
4 minutes ago

Originally posted by Crakeur
..................
www.google.com...
she doesn't mention her employment here either. Should be noted that so far that she lives in Europe. do they have NASA offices in Stockholm?

twitter.com...

she's not found on the nasa goddard site either and she, apparently, is part of their team

A cousing of mine worked for NASA for two years from Spain. There are many jobs in NASA that you don't have to live in the U.S. as a requirement to get the job. But if it is true that she works for NASA a search of her name should come up saying she works for them.

I am going to wait on this. There are a few discrepancies, which could be some form of misunderstanding since she is not the one relating this, but rather it is being told by this Wayne guy, so it is possible that he made the discrepancies.

reply to post by Phage


Hi Phage, thanks for your input. I have to ask, have you read this whole thread??


[edit on 4-5-2010 by Wookiep]