Wow! Signal
6EQUJ5 Signals
▲ Cover of events — opening records
In 1977, Ohio State University's Big Year Radio Telescope recorded a very strong narrowband signal. Researcher Jerry Eman wrote 'Wow!' on the output sheet, but the signal was not repeated. The
Wow! signal is not evidence of alien civilization, but a single observation of unknown origin. In science, repetition is the most important second clue. The 6EQUJ5 in the
Prologue: A Record-Breaking Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and some times were entirely empty. People try to explain the whole incident by holding on to a clear scene, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between them is too far.
output is not a message, but a value that encodes the signal strength over time. The signal appeared for about 72 seconds, similar to the observation window of the telescope. The
I didn't see this event as a work to confirm a known ending. The records were arranged in chronological order, the routes of the objects were drawn separately, and the sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. Because if you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues appear to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| Number | Verified Records | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the hydrogen line frequency. Only one of the two receiving beams of the | High |
| 2 | Big Year was recorded. The same signal was not identified in the | High |
| 3 | repeated observations. | the middle |
| 4 | Several explanations have been reviewed, including astronomical, ground interference, and reflection, but there is no consensus cause. The exact celestial position of the | the middle |
signal, the reason it was not repeated, and the presence of natural or artificial interference remain.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Reconfiguring Scene: The Last Definite Point
I changed the place where the incident took place to a real route rather than a stage in my head. I divided the starting point, the last check point, and the place of discovery, and calculated the time required in the meantime. Several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing in the process. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The fictional atmosphere arose from the texture of that very fact. There was no need to add an unidentified secret passage or an unnamed accomplice.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I did not make up the character's mind. Fear, planning, error, and fatigue can cause the same behavior. So, I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. The events became less colorful but more specific thanks to this principle.
Clue 1. The signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If we separate this clue, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "Only one of the two receiving beams on the big ear was recorded." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question of "What is not visible in the second beam is a time change or a trace of interference?" Instead of explaining a single clue, the other record is ignored.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. Only one of the two receiving beams on the big ear was recorded.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If only this clue is separated, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "The same signal was not identified in repeated observations." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that does not pass the question of "How difficult will the narrowband characteristics make the natural origin?" turns a blind eye to the other record instead of explaining a single clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 2 — An mismatched piece
Clue 3. No same signal was found in repeated observations.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if only this clue is removed. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "A number of explanations such as astronomical, ground interference, and reflection have been reviewed, but there is no consensus cause." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question of "Did the follow-up observation sufficiently cover the original location uncertainty?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. Astronomy, ground interference, reflection, etc. have been reviewed, but there is no consensus cause.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if only this clue is removed. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "The signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question "What is not visible in the second beam is a time change or a sign of interference?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining a single clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Putting the three hypotheses on the same scale, the
hypothesis did not evaluate them in a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they can withstand opposite evidence were written down, respectively. A complete explanation of one clue is not a good hypothesis if the other three are discarded.
Hypothesis A. Rare astronomical phenomena or yet unknown radio sources
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "The signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-stated the time of the event from start to finish. I connected where and what the character saw, what kind of judgment he made, and then moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the same signal was not identified in repeated observations." If we continue to add exceptions to preserve the hypothesis, we can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B. Reflection and interference of Earth or satellite signals
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "Only one of the two receiving beams of the big ear has been recorded" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not adequately explain "a number of explanations have been examined, such as astronomical, ground interference, and reflection, but there is no consensus cause." Anything can be explained by continuing to add exceptions to the hypothesis, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis C. Intentional or accidental alien technology signals
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "repeated observations did not identify the same signal" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-staged the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
The conclusions I abandoned
I was also drawn to the most famous explanation at the beginning of the investigation. It organized the case in one sentence and gave everything intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required a new coincidence for each blank. Then I erased the conclusion and started again. Good reasoning was more about removing unnecessary assumptions than adding anything.
One strong signal makes a candidate, but the verification requires repetition. There is a great distance between the saying that extraterrestrial origin cannot be ruled out and the saying that it has been proven.
In particular, the details repeated on the Internet and later testimonies were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. The possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated was first confirmed. The size of the case decreased after this process, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Checks — The Conclusion I Abandoned
Final Reason: The Results I Reached
Wow! signal is not evidence of alien civilization, but a single observation of unknown origin. In science, repetition is the most important second clue. The 6EQUJ5 in the
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. It is a direction that requires the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It can be corrected when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that the conclusion changes when it comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable legal and scientific data, and independent evidence that directly connects objects and people are needed.
I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of the mystery is not that anything is possible. It is in finding out what can be thrown away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description that requires the least assumption
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the Timeline
At dawn, the event table was re-opened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record was, "The signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a rare astronomical phenomenon or an unknown source of radio waves." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "What is not visible in the second beam, is it a time change or a sign of interference?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation records 2. Missing links
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only one of the two receiving beams on the big ear was recorded. Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis, "reflection and interference of Earth or satellite signals." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "How difficult does narrowband characteristics make natural origin?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 3. Eyewitness Distance
At dawn, the event table was re-opened. This time, the conclusion was obscured, and only the record was left: "The same signal was not identified in repeated observations." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
I put the hypothesis on it that it was an "intentional or accidental alien technology signal." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Did subsequent observations sufficiently cover the original location uncertainty?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation record 4. The path through which the item passed
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was covered by a record that said, "Many explanations such as astronomical, ground interference, and reflection have been reviewed, but there is no agreed cause." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a rare astronomical phenomenon or an unknown source of radio waves." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "What is not visible in the second beam, is it a time change or a sign of interference?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 5. The Temptation of False Clues
At dawn, the event table was re-opened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record was, "The signal was strongly observed in a narrow band near the frequency of the hydrogen line." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis, "reflection and interference of Earth or satellite signals." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "How difficult does narrowband characteristics make natural origin?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only one of the two receiving beams on the big ear was recorded. Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
I put the hypothesis on it that it was an "intentional or accidental alien technology signal." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Did subsequent observations sufficiently cover the original location uncertainty?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
▲ End of investigative record — questions still to be asked
· Ohio State University Big Ear — Wow! Signal
· SETI Institute — Wow! Signal
※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal investigation records based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, the judgment is updated.
Image Source and Edit
We used Wikipedia Commons public license data cut, ratio adjustment, and color correction to fit the body flow. Circles with generated images are not included in the list below.
- Wow signal location.jpg — Benjamin Crowell, CC BY-SA 3.0
- Parkes Radio Telescope (1).jpg — Amanda Slater from Coventry, England, CC BY-SA 2.0
- Wow signal profile (2).png — Maxrossomachin, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory largest dish.jpg — Darren Kirby from Penticton, BC, Canada, CC BY-SA 2.0
- Wow signal location star field.jpg — Fashionslide ( talk ), CC BY-SA 3.0
- WARK30M01.JPG — Sdweston, CC BY-SA 3.0
- Miitary Secret by Robert David Graham page 306.jpg — Thebobweb, CC0
- Radio telescopes - geograph.org.uk - 1726868.jpg — Kevin Steinhardt, CC BY-SA 2.0
- Wow signal (large).jpg — Credit: Big Ear Radio Observatory and North American AstroPhysical Observatory (NAAPO)., Public domain
- MeerKAT prototype dish in 2014-2.jpg — Photograph by Mike Peel ( www.mikepeel.net )., CC BY-SA 4.0