Comments to the New Scientist article

New Scientist printed a feature about our study. We appreciate the author had tried to get to the bottom of the thing. Nonetheless, there are some points we feel we should comment on.

First, 37 is certainly not an answer to life and everything. It’s a mystery for us why it catches so much attention (not only by this author), while the most essential part is typically looked over. Also, after reading the feature one might have an impression that because the patterns are non-random, we argue that they are artificial. Non-randomness alone is by no means a sign of artificiality.

“It was clear right away that the code has a non-random structure,” says Makukov.

To clarify: as the code was cracked (in 1960s), it was clear right away that it has a non-random structure. It is not that everyone thought that the code is random until recently.

As to what – or who – planted the message, Makukov stresses that he doesn’t know. 

Little green men?  Pink fluffy fairies! 😉