Or is part of a progression to check the state of technology? You need optical telescopes to see that far, you need FFT to see the the narrow pulses & bandwidths, you need ???? to see the modulation, you need ??? to decode it........ RP On 13 October 2016 at 07:53, Jean-Paul Louis wrote: > I agree with David, > > A narrow pulse cause is unknown today, but that does not prove ETI. > If those pulses had any kind of varying modulation, that would be a diffe= rent story. > > Waiting for better news, > Jean-Paul > N1JPL > > >> On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:29 AM, RussellMc wrote: >> >> On 13 October 2016 at 02:17, Van Horn, David < >> david.vanhorn@backcountryaccess.com> wrote: >> >>> As the papers said, there is no known process in nature which sends suc= h >>> narrow pulses (time and wavelength) at the appropriate power levels >> >> >> I think that should read something like >> >> " ... until now there was no known process in nature which sends such >> narrow pulses (time and wavelength) at the appropriate power levels ... = ". >> >> Now we know there is one. Just not what it is. Yet. >> (Escape clause: LGM are "in nature" :-).) >> >> >> R >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .