Can These Sensors Scientifically Prove UFOs Exist?

[Creepy Green Light]

(from today's news)

Can These Sensors Scientifically Prove UFOs Exist?

Anybody want to share their thoughts and/or opinions regarding this? Thanks

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Sounds great. I'm off to bed but I do want to comment more on this.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Sounds great. I'm off to bed but I do want to comment more on this.

Great, looking forward to hearing from you Goggs. Goodnight

 

[Randall]

(from today's news)

Can These Sensors Scientifically Prove UFOs Exist?

Anybody want to share their thoughts and/or opinions regarding this? Thanks

A bit of a discussion on this over here already: The Truth is Not Out There, It's Right Here...

To sum up my opinion so far:

Somebody in the big PTB tracking systems knows alien visitation is real, and many of us out here in the public know alien visitation is real. So what is the point of yet another UFO tracking system project ( YAUFOTP )? I'm not opposed to private tracking systems, but who do we hope to convince? Why? And what's the end-game? Fame? Fortune? Does someone get to go on TV and say, "Hey everybody look at me. I've got the evidence that UFOs are real?" I can certainly see Kean being keen on that idea. But my point is that even if that happens, hats off to whomever gets to wave the evidence in the faces of the skeptics, but since we already know that alien visitation is real, what further questions would such a project hope to answer? Would some video backed by yet another generation of imaging experts really get us much further than we are now?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

A bit of a discussion on this over here already: The Truth is Not Out There, It's Right Here...

To sum up my opinion so far:

Somebody in the big PTB tracking systems knows alien visitation is real, and many of us out here in the public know alien visitation is real. So what is the point of yet another UFO tracking system project ( YAUFOTP )? I'm not opposed to private tracking systems, but who do we hope to convince? Why? And what's the end-game? Fame? Fortune? Does someone get to go on TV and say, "Hey everybody look at me. I've got the evidence that UFOs are real?" I can certainly see Kean being keen on that idea. But my point is that even if that happens, hats off to whomever gets to wave the evidence in the faces of the skeptics, but since we already know that alien visitation is real, what further questions would such a project hope to answer? Would some video backed by yet another generation of imaging experts really get us much further than we are now?

I understand your viewpoint but I suppose there are many for whom the reality is not yet proven - I know there are skeptics out there who dance around the line of acceptance, although yes, for those of us well into Ufology, there is really no question of craft being flown/operated that do not seem to have any human source.

I think that there probably is still work to do in tracking UFOs - perhaps that work will not make someone accept/not accept ufo reality but it could still provide some worthwhile data. I personally would be very interested in answers to the following:

1. maximum speed in atmosphere/above atmosphere (space).
2. Acceleration/deceleration values.
3. Average duration of flights.
4. Geographical distribution.
5. Any regular/common flightpaths.
6. Correlation with human activities/sites on ground.
7. Possible differences in propulsion methods if feasible to differentiate.
8. Craft/object sizes.
9. Differing modes of flight - e.g forgetting whether Lazar story is real or not but he mentioned modes of a saucer moving like a helicopter in as much as its aspect relative to the ground, and a further mode in which it would 'turn on it's side' (Omicron I think it was called).

These are just off the top of my head and while they might not convince anyone who is not already convinced, I think our ability to classify and define craft and flight characteristics can be improved immeasurably because frankly, we don't have any accepted reference material/data on much of this, even though regional groups like GEIPAN may have gone some way along these lines.

I think even though there must be literally thousands upon thousands of scientists worldwide with an interest in the topic of UFOs, it still is not an accepted area of study in the main scientific literature and I doubt many universities teach anything about UFOs, certainly not in engineering or aerospace disciplines. I personally believe there is ample evidence for UFO reality and it may be other factors that have led to the current situation but regardless, Ufology is not an 'accepted' pursuit of 'real science' in most of the world. It may just be the case that the kind of effort stated above, is what is needed to bring the field properly out into the open and leave the curtain of laughter and giggles firmly in the 6-O'clock News cutting room floor for evermore! Phew!

 

[stonehart]

A bit of a discussion on this over here already: The Truth is Not Out There, It's Right Here...

To sum up my opinion so far:

Somebody in the big PTB tracking systems knows alien visitation is real, and many of us out here in the public know alien visitation is real. So what is the point of yet another UFO tracking system project ( YAUFOTP )? I'm not opposed to private tracking systems, but who do we hope to convince? Why? And what's the end-game? Fame? Fortune? Does someone get to go on TV and say, "Hey everybody look at me. I've got the evidence that UFOs are real?" I can certainly see Kean being keen on that idea. But my point is that even if that happens, hats off to whomever gets to wave the evidence in the faces of the skeptics, but since we already know that alien visitation is real, what further questions would such a project hope to answer? Would some video backed by yet another generation of imaging experts really get us much further than we are now?

Hey Ufology .. long time no chat
Anyway I have to agree with Goggs on this:

I understand your viewpoint but I suppose there are many for whom the reality is not yet proven - I know there are skeptics out there who dance around the line of acceptance, although yes, for those of us well into Ufology, there is really no question of craft being flown/operated that do not seem to have any human source.

I think that there probably is still work to do in tracking UFOs - perhaps that work will not make someone accept/not accept ufo reality but it could still provide some worthwhile data. I personally would be very interested in answers to the following:

1. maximum speed in atmosphere/above atmosphere (space).
2. Acceleration/deceleration values.
3. Average duration of flights.
4. Geographical distribution.
5. Any regular/common flightpaths.
6. Correlation with human activities/sites on ground.
7. Possible differences in propulsion methods if feasible to differentiate.
8. Craft/object sizes.
9. Differing modes of flight - e.g forgetting whether Lazar story is real or not but he mentioned modes of a saucer moving like a helicopter in as much as its aspect relative to the ground, and a further mode in which it would 'turn on it's side' (Omicron I think it was called).

These are just off the top of my head and while they might not convince anyone who is not already convinced, I think our ability to classify and define craft and flight characteristics can be improved immeasurably because frankly, we don't have any accepted reference material/data on much of this, even though regional groups like GEIPAN may have gone some way along these lines.

I think even though there must be literally thousands upon thousands of scientists worldwide with an interest in the topic of UFOs, it still is not an accepted area of study in the main scientific literature and I doubt many universities teach anything about UFOs, certainly not in engineering or aerospace disciplines. I personally believe there is ample evidence for UFO reality and it may be other factors that have led to the current situation but regardless, Ufology is not an 'accepted' pursuit of 'real science' in most of the world. It may just be the case that the kind of effort stated above, is what is needed to bring the field properly out into the open and leave the curtain of laughter and giggles firmly in the 6-O'clock News cutting room floor for evermore! Phew!

Could not have laid it out any better Goggs.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

How great would it be for starters, to have irrifutible clear video footage of a disc shaped craft land someone where and at some point later, take off into the atmosphere? And then afterwards have scientific data gathered from the landing sight. Pretty much all the leg work Ted Phillips does but have the event captured on HD video.

I'd completely settle for that rather than try and argue with someone whether it's the Reptilians or Gray's that have their secret base under the Pacific Ocean or on the dark side of the moon.

 

[len1867]

If they are affected by our environment like we are - yes. If they manipulate our environment...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

With a blazed grating you can split/diffuse the light from the craft/object into its various wave lengths, etc. You can determine quite a bit of data w/ this optical approach.

 

[boomerang]

I hate to say it, but I don't think the phenomenon is amenable to photographic methods of analysis. Consider that many hundreds of thousands of cellphone cameras have failed to record many, if any, unimpeachable pics or videos of UFOs. The history of the UFO is that is has the ability to physically manifest at times and places of its own choosing, while at the same time remaining in virtually complete control of the degree to which, and to whom it presents, evidence of its own reality.

I do applaud such data gathering efforts and it would be great for amateurs to produce hard data impossible for the "establishment" to ignore. Its just that this is not what recorded history of the phenomenon suggests is likely. By all accounts, on those rare occasions when hard data is obtained, it has an uncanny way of vanishing down a societal black hole.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

With a blazed grating you can split/diffuse the light from the craft/object into its various wave lengths, etc. You can determine quite a bit of data w/ this optical approach.

And the Hessdalen phenomenon illustrated this brilliantly, and caused some puzzlement at the same time. The spectra of colours was continuous, not discreet, which is strange because if you look at the spectra from any of our artificial light sources, apart from lasers, you get characteristic lines which are individual to that light source.
So say a sodium vapour lamp has a different spectra to a fluorescent tube etc. It is this type of science that allows us to tell which gases are present in stars etc very far away. You look at the optical characteristics of whatever light comes your way and the Hessdalen lights in one very famous photo had extremely unusual characteristics.

The glow of some solid UFOs in flight, along with interesting lights in the night sky - all these would have much to reveal just from splitting the light as Chris mentions. It really is a fundamental and very worthwhile area of physics. An awful lot can be gleaned just from light emitted.

 

[stonehart]

With a blazed grating you can split/diffuse the light from the craft/object into its various wave lengths, etc. You can determine quite a bit of data w/ this optical approach.

And the Hessdalen phenomenon illustrated this brilliantly, and caused some puzzlement at the same time. The spectra of colours was continuous, not discreet, which is strange because if you look at the spectra from any of our artificial light sources, apart from lasers, you get characteristic lines which are individual to that light source.
So say a sodium vapour lamp has a different spectra to a fluorescent tube etc. It is this type of science that allows us to tell which gases are present in stars etc very far away. You look at the optical characteristics of whatever light comes your way and the Hessdalen lights in one very famous photo had extremely unusual characteristics.

The glow of some solid UFOs in flight, along with interesting lights in the night sky - all these would have much to reveal just from splitting the light as Chris mentions. It really is a fundamental and very worthwhile area of physics. An awful lot can be gleaned just from light emitted.

I did not think of this but yes of course you could do this sort of analysis.
I should have clicked as this is just like what we do for wave analysis in audio (fourier analysis), pure sound waves do not exist in nature but are instead made up of a harmonic sequence and that sequence of harmonics can tell you a huge amount about the source of the sound and the environment it is in.

Wave example pictured below made up of the harmonic series (simple multiplications of the Fundamental).

This gif explains the above quite well

As I said in nature we will not see a pure wave series but instead what one will see is a dominant series of harmonics, more resonance at certain frequencies if you will and of course this is no different with light.
I have no idea why I just posted all this as I suspect all of us here did high school math

 

[boomerang]

I did not think of this but yes of course you could do this sort of analysis.
I should have clicked as this is just like what we do for wave analysis in audio (fourier analysis), pure sound waves do not exist in nature but are instead made up of a harmonic sequence and that sequence of harmonics can tell you a huge amount about the source of the sound and the environment it is in.

Wave example pictured below made up of the harmonic series (simple multiplications of the Fundamental).

This gif explains the above quite well

As I said in nature we will not see a pure wave series but instead what one will see is a dominant series of harmonics, more resonance at certain frequencies if you will and of course this is no different with light.
I have no idea why I just posted all this as I suspect all of us here did high school math

I love the graphics. Helps the mathematically challenged like myself to better understand relationships between trigonometry and wave functions. What blows my mind is that all electromagnetic energy, from 60 cycle AC in your home power plug, to microwaves to light are essentially the same "stuff". Just at different frequencies in cycles per second. Nature is amazing.