“Baffling” “signal” “from HD 164595” is probably none of the above

The comment I found most useful:<p><i>We believe a signal when<p>It is persistent. It appears at the same spot in the sky in multiple observations.<p>It only comes from one spot in the sky.<p>If we reobserve the target, the signal is still there.<p>Things that add to believability<p>Its frequency&#x2F;period&#x2F;delay does not correspond to known interference.<p>Its Doppler Drift rate indicates that it is exactly frequency stable in the frame of the center of mass of the solar system<p>Its properties (bandwidth, chirp rate, encoding) indicate intelligent origin.<p>Unfortunately the observing method used by the Russian team does not permit many of these things to be determine. 1. The signal was not persistent. 2. The signal was gone when the target was reobserved. 3. The signal frequency&#x2F;period&#x2F;delay cannot be determined. 4. The signal Doppler drift rate is unknown. 5. Many sources of interference, including satellites, are present in the observing band.</i>

[decoded alien signal from HD 164595] &quot;...must be willing to relocate to San Francisco.&quot;

I find myself frustrated at researchers who get frustrated at non-researchers being interested at all in their work. It&#x27;s the same as the hypothetical megastructure; all the news is quite clear: no satisfying explanation is available. That&#x27;s the news! That&#x27;s interesting, even to people who decided not to devote their lives to astronomy!<p>People jump to the alien angle because it&#x27;s interesting. The few left with that impression that aliens really are involved are likely not going to be dissuaded by more technical reporting

Here&#x27;s more coherent article.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seti.org&#x2F;seti-institute&#x2F;a-seti-signal" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seti.org&#x2F;seti-institute&#x2F;a-seti-signal</a>

What is the user &quot;bluestar&quot; writing about in this thread?<p>I don&#x27;t even understand the intent of the message.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;setiathome.berkeley.edu&#x2F;forum_thread.php?id=80193&amp;postid=1813586" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;setiathome.berkeley.edu&#x2F;forum_thread.php?id=80193&amp;po...</a>

&gt; There&#x27;s also nothing that could distinguish it from a satellite passing through the telescope field of view<p>There is no tool that automatically rules this in or out as a possibility? I would have thought it would be nearly trivial to build such a thing. Am I missing something?

What is the table with numbers they have in their signatures?

history_channel_aliens_guy.jpg?caption=Dyson%20Sphere

<p><pre><code> ... decoding, please wait ... ... analysing ... ... complete ... ... message content follows ... +++ U N S U B S C R I B E +++ </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1675&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1675&#x2F;</a>

Assuming there is really a signal.... The sum of the numbers 164595 is 30. The traditional 30th wedding anniversary gift is a pearl. I hereby name this planet Pearl.

TL;DR:<p>Nothing to see here, move along.

I somehow hate that he used the word &quot;probably&quot;<p>Takes the sting out of the piece.