SETI Signal Hoax
On the 22nd of October,1998 an anonymous UK amateur
radio-astronomer claimed to have detected a radio signal from EQ
Pegasi, located about 22 light years from earth in the
constellation Pegasus. The frequency of this signal was given as
1453.827 Mhz. This anonymous amateur radio-astronomer (later
suspiciously identified as "Paul Dore" of Siemens
Plessey Systems in England) provided several "screen
dumps" of the signal from a shareware program called FFTDSP
written by amateur radioman AF9Y Mike Cook, and is available for
download at http://www.webcom.com/af9y/. Art Bell, Coast to Coast
late-night radio talk show host, jumped on the announcement of
the possible extraterrestrial signal detection with his usual
brand of sensationalist broadcasting. Author, Richard Hoagland, a
guest on Art's show, even went so far as to suggest that the
signal was coming from a spaceship traveling toward earth from
the Pegasus region — and was transmitting a
"radar" signal. A review of the material presented
suggests that there is something seriously wrong with this
scenario:
1. After Dore's detection of the signal, he anonymously sent
out information to other SETI astronomers and enthusiasts
associated with the international SETI League. He then stated,
"I sent [a message] to the executive director and the
"Hits" list without a response.(This may be due to me
not being a member of the SETI League) I am very excited about
this yet it seems no one at the SETI League leadership is
interested..." The reason he received no response is obvious
in that he didn't provide a valid email address to even receive a
response.
2. The nonprofit, membership-supported SETI League has been
analyzing this claim since October 23rd. None of its 63 active
observing stations around the world has been able to confirm it.
The signal was reported anonymously in a message hacked into a
closed (see http://www.setileague.org/admin/hitslist.htm) signal
verification email list.
See also: http://www.setileague.org/press/pres9811.htm
3. The major problem is that the first two screen dumps (these
can still be found at the present moment at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/) of the signals
were carbon copies on two separate days of data (Oct 22 and 23).
If one does a simple analysis of the noise data displayed by the
FFT program (shown in blue pixels which make up the background)
one will find an exact duplicate across the screen. Since the
background noise is truly random, how could one obtain the exact
same noise signature on two separate days? "Dore's"
response to this was, "This is absolutely not a hoax...I
will admit there were problems with the first two [GIF] images I
posted being in fact the same, with the wrong date stamp on one.
I was so excited I rushed onto the Internet to a CLOSED list to
get confirmation. Unfortunately I wasn't careful to check the two
images. I admit that was sloppy. However, the people alleging
that I made this all up have yet to refute any of the subsequent
screen dumps I posted..." This answer doesn't add up. This
is the most damning evidence of the whole scam. The actual GIF
screen dumps have the dates stamped on each image. In order to
get the dates wrong...one would have to alter them using an image
editing software program! Also, the object azimuth and elevation
(calculated for the moon) are different for each image suggesting
that they are obviously not the same image — unless, of
course, these too had been deceptively altered with an image
editor. Looking at the software's text file we read:
----------------------
o Time
- GMT is show in a box with identification of East
and West periods of EME operation.
* - Setup allows entry of Local Offset for use with
* computers not setup for GMT.
o Moon Az./El Position
- When Enabled and the user Grid Square or Lat/Long
has been set, this box show the current Moon Az and El.
- Computer time must be set to GMT for correct Az/El.
-----------------------
So, when looking at the 2 images, the time reads the same, but
the date, moon's position, and registration of the program are
all different. Still, the most conspicuous problem is that the
pixel data of the noise is an exact match. This leaves no doubt
that these images have been edited and/or altered. As for the
other images, he seems to have carefully omitted the object el/az
data, and the time stamps on the images do not even remotely
match the times he gives for acquiring them. The time stamp on
two of them reads the same, while he says the images were
acquired nearly an hour apart. See:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/5189/false.htm
4. "The main problem," says Professor Nathan Cohen
of Boston University, "was the signal lacked the channel
bandwidth required of a SETI signal. The signal loses a
tremendous amount of punch over cosmic distances and you have to
optimize the mode." Cohen showed in 1993 that distant SETI
signals would be spread out in frequency like teeth on a comb, in
what is now called "polychromatic SETI". "These
'sidebands' of the alleged signal do nothing for helping detect
it and are characteristic of an Earth-based modulation
method." Cohen probably doesn't realize that the program
"Dore" is using to display the signal is a simple one
that merely takes the audio output of a receiver and passes it to
the line input of a PC's Soundblaster audio card. The frequencies
represented in resolution on the software's video display are
only audio frequencies, and do not, and can not represent the
actual receiver's frequency!
5. While Dore gave the position close to that of a known star,
Cohen declares the star's position information lacked a vital
detail which negates it as a real one. Cohen suggests that the
'signal' is more than likely a fabricated one or a snip of a
terrestrial satellite's signal being passed off as otherwise.
BSRF has no alternative but conclude this whole affair as a
messy hoax, one that was poorly crafted, and probably done by
juveniles (owing to the numerous grammatical bungles). We will
keep you posted.
Site Designed by