I don't know what to say. Do you not see what's wrong with all of this? Am I getting dragged into a troll-trap?
Most of your citations have been from crackpot (or crackpot-associated) websites. When you put a link to "ufocasebook.com" on the PhysicsForums, just so you know, no one looks at that link
. I did, however, open up "disclosureproject" because I was unaware of it. Let me provide a quote directly from the site; it's the first thing I saw:
Another site dangerously close to crackpottery. They are starting
with the presumption that there are facts to be known about extraterrestrial intelligence. Not a good way to start an investigation, is it?
Then you go on to use the word "hypothesis" to describe your experiment. You're all over the place! Organize your thoughts.
oh my god
What don't you get about the fact that it does not matter what the content of the message is?! If an alien received the message how could it possibly understand any of the content? Have you ever seen an analog video transmission? Would you know how to decode it? Even if you could decode it, how could you guarantee the result was what was intended by the receiver?
Any radio transmission from earth (dating back over a hundred years now) would be sufficient evidence of life on earth. Have you read about the first pulsar discovered? They dubbed it "LGM" for "little green men" because it's pulsed output was so regular that it defied known cosmological physics.
Here is an analog video signal as measured on an oscilloscope. Find the content. Go!
Okay, I've proven my point. Please stop talking about broadcasting a video "message." It's a stupid idea. Sorry. There. I said it. You might be smart, but that idea is stupid.
So we can agree that it doesn't matter what the content of a video signal is.
However, you could send a much much much much more basic signal. One with the simplest data encoded in it. And this was done... exactly as you've asked... back in 1974. It was called the Aricebo message, and Carl Sagan himself helped design the message.
Here's what it looks like if you mess up the decoding (color added):
But here's what it looks like if you decode it properly (color added):
I got all of that information directly from Wikipedia. You can get it there, too. But, before you go to the Wikipedia website, see if you can decode the meaning in the message. It was designed, specifically, to be readable by any species and does not require base-10 math, or any knowledge of any language.
It is the simplest message possible. MUCH simpler than a CNN broadcast.
Your experiment was done more than 35 years ago. You can now write your paper. Are they ignoring us? Or are we alone?