6 ms·
A friend of mine mentioned the paper referenced in the article as as being super sketchy, and another astronomer said that it appeared to be a story constructed
by rimunroe 9y ago
A friend of mine mentioned the paper referenced in the article as as being super sketchy, and another astronomer said that it appeared to be a story constructed entirely of red flags. I'll summarize as best I can:
* The journal the author claims it was published in (the Washington Academy of Sciences) doesn't seem to a reputation to speak of, or even have anything to do with radio astronomy http://www.washacadsci.org/journal/ http://www.washacadsci.org/journal/. Additionally, they haven't updated their catalog since 2013, so there's no way to even tell if it was published.
* The author has been accused of exaggerating his credentials before. He is an adjunct professor teaching two introductory courses at St. Petersburg College. He got a position as the Manager of Planetarium and Space Science Studies at the Museum of Science & Industry in Tampa, FL, which he announced on his website as "[Museum of Science and Industry] MOSI Selects Prof. Antonio Paris to Lead Space Program" (http://planetary-science.org/mosi-selects-prof-antonio-paris-to-lead-space-program/ http://planetary-science.org/mosi-selects-prof-antonio-paris...). Additionally, his other credentials are suspect too. He claims to be the principal investigator at the site-B 10-meter radio telescope in central Florida. The "site-B 10-meter radio telescope" is his truck-mounted telescope.
> He also describes himself as an astronaut candidate with Project Possum, a four day suborbital flight program, and the director—and apparently also the sole employee—of the Center for Planetary Science, which he also founded. There's been a bit of disagreement as to Paris' education and the accuracy of his work, which Paris vehemently disputes. He claims that he was a former US Army Intelligence officer and as such, much of his life's work is classified. It's not exactly a clear-cut history
from http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a20128/a-researcher-is-crowdfunding-an-investigation-into-a-possible-alien-signal/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a20128/a-researcher-is...
* A year when there were stories about him running a Kickstarter to buy a new radio telescope because all the other ones were booked for the year. Others pointed out that this was not true https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2016/apr/14/alien-wow-signal-could-be-explained-after-almost-40-years#comment-72367743 https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2016... and super sketchy (read through the other comments too). It appears that he just wanted people to buy him stuff, not for any actual investigatory need.
* Everything on this story has been sourced from http://planetary-science.org/ http://planetary-science.org/. planetary-science.org appears to be run by the author and the author alone.
* The paper the article covers offers no actual comparison between the magnitude of the signal received and the original Wow! Signal. It only shows the raw signal on his own equipment, so there's no way to determine its magnitude relative to the original. The paper handwaves the question of magnitudes away as the original telescope being more sensitive, or the comet being older now.
[edit] https://xkcd.com/1847/ https://xkcd.com/1847/
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoI have seen him on the History channel also I think recently. He is the "it wasn't aliens" guy now.
- todd3834 9y agoI found these statements interesting at first but I got a little turned off after relizing they were mostly ad hominem. Except for the last one.
- rimunroe 9y agoI don't think bringing up someone's past behavior is at all irrelevant or a cheap tactic. The main issue I had wasn't that there is a paper that has holes in it, but that the sites that have been covering it clearly didn't do any referencing first. Even if the journalists and people covering this paper weren't scientists, they could & should have evaluated it for significance. I don't know what to say other than that there are a lot of things here that should stand out to non-experts as suspect. People who cover this should make even a cursory effort to find out if what they're reporting on is real. A part of that is determining if the source is legitimate, and a part of THAT is looking at their source's past behavior & claims. [edit] specifically, the personal-website-masquerading-as-real-organization-page, unheard of journal, and exaggerated credentials are all the hallmarks of people who come up with proofs for perpetual motion, ways to trisect an angle with a straightedge, and how time travel is possible. If you work publicly in science, or are just listed on the faculty page of a university department, your email gets bombarded with these papers constantly.
- macspoofing 9y agoGiven that most of us don't have the time nor expertise to validate his claim, it is perfectly reasonable to take into account the reputation of the author, the reputation of the journals that published his work, as well as obvious problems in his methodology. That doesn't disprove his claims but there are enough warning flags that should leave you highly skeptical of them.
- saalweachter 9y agoIf the claim being made is more in the category of testimony than logical argument, so questioning the credibility of the witness is fair.