Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


RADAR alone cannot determine Intelligence


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#16    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:50 PM

In conclusion,

I have stated that I intended to prove that radar can determine an object to be intelligently controlled and present data and other evidence to back up my statement.

There are air intercept radars that provide near photo-quality image of a low flying aircraft, and those same radars can differentiate between a Ford truck and a Chevy van using near photo-quality imagery, and do so from many miles away. When coupled with artificial intelligence aboard autonomous attack weaponry, it can make intelligent decisions in regards to target recognition to determine which course of action to take. I’ve added capabilities to other intelligent weaponry because the same kind of advanced AI technology is also found in our most advanced radar systems.

In addition, such radars have target recognition capabilities that can differentiate between jet aircraft, helicopters, and even propeller-driven aircraft. A publication; “Introduction to Radar Target Recognition,” covers how radar differentiates between multiple types of airborne objects,. Radar can even differentiate between multiple models of jet engines. Our latest air intercept radar provides 3-D information on a particular target that can actually be compared to a photograph.

I have shown that:

* Radar-guided systems react autonomously to protect ships and other valuable assets with no human intervention whatsoever, as in one example, the fully autonomous Navy’s Phalanx radar-directed gun system.

* Radars do have target recognition capability and can differentiate between types of helicopters, jet and propeller-driven aircraft, trucks, cars, runways, buildings, and even tractors.

* Radar weapon systems can react autonomously to a threat and evaluate multiple threats and make intelligent judgments without human intervention to determine the nature of a threat and make assessments afterwards

I would like to add that radar can also differentiate between bird species in flight and a review of Britannica Online: Radar, will prove my point.

In the air-to-air mode, the F-15 Strike Eagle's radar can provide range, altitude, airspeed, and other information on aircraft at ranges exceeding 100 miles, which will prove the objects are under intelligent control. It's radar can also produce near photo quality images of the ground by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. In fact, the radar can even provide near photo-quality of a low flying aircraft, and do so against ground clutter.

When using such radar technology in autonomous weapon systems employing artificial intelligence (AI), a UAV can make its own judgment between hostile and non-hostile objects and make a determination as to the method of attack and conduct assessment afterwards. The fact of the matter is, we have had the technology for years.

In closing, it has been clearly demonstrated that radar does in fact, have the capability to determine whether an object is intelligently controlled or not as evident by its autonomous target recognizing capabilities. which has been in use for many years.

I have added such advanced technology in my own design of an autonomous triangular UAV, which I submitted years ago under an Air Force program for proposals for advanced aerial platforms and advanced technological weapons systems. Additionally, I have designed other equipment in use today by the Air Force and for a well-known defense contractor.

Thank you very much, and have a nice day.



Sky

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#17    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pangea, Ruling the Outback

  • Evangium doesn't have a personal statement currently.

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:44 PM

Over the course of this debate, we have been given examples of wonderous and deadly machines; whose sophistication creates the illusion that they are capable of distinguishing the type of abstract concepts that we humans apply to objects.

Essentially the simplist description for how these various systems do this can be found in Wikipeia's description of the Phalanx CIWS contact target identification Link -


The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS has only the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact has to meet multiple criteria for it to be considered a target; some of the criteria are listed below.
1.Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar will see contacts that are out-bound and discard them. The CIWS will only engage a target if it is approaching the ship.

2.Is the contact capable of making a maneuver to hit the ship? If a contact is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the contact can still perform a maneuver to hit the ship.

3.Is the contact traveling between the minimum and maximum velocities? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however it is not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum velocity limit; if a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS will not engage it. It also has a minimum target velocity, meaning any contact going below that velocity will not be engaged by the CIWS. The operator also has the option to adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system.

What is described above are the basics of how the CIWS works. There are many other subsystems that run in the background to ensure proper operation, such as environmental control, transmitter, mount movement control, power control and distribution and so on. It takes 6 to 8 months to train a technician to maintain, operate, and repair the CIWS.


This is basically true for all systems, the only differences being sophistication, range of functions performed, and types of targets that can be engaged.  As we have seen, certain UAVs are capable of conducting surveillience as well as attacking stationary or moving targets.  Some systems can make use of IFF to distinguish between friend and enemy, either to attack/defend or plot the appropriate symbol on the screen.

However, we have also seen that, no matter how remote or autonomous (in the robotics sense), all these systems still have the trained eyes of a human operator monitoring them, making adjustments to their operating parameters and making the determination for any situation that arises outside the machines capability to determine an appropriate course of action.  
As we have seen,either in the case of the Iraqi jet my opponent mentioned or Wikipedia's Phalanx Incidents in combat, the machine does not discriminate, nor apply moral judgement to, its actions whether they are against friend or foe.

The machine's detemination of an object is little more than image matching, be it shape or signature, or signal locating. It has no need to determine if the object is under intelligent control, as its programming determines how it is to handle the object that has matched its programmed criteria.  
Its human operator, on the other hand, looks at the images and other data and determines whether or not an object is under intelligent control or not.  Where the machine sees a moving vehicle or a building, the human operator infers that the vehicle is moving because another human is controlling it; or the location of the building, coupled with imagery of armed men moving in and around, it makes it a potential enemy strong point as opposed to a childcare centre.  
The human operator can make these specialised distinctions, because he is cabaple of comprehending abstact concepts and determining how they apply to the situation.  The machine only comprehends a match between image/signature and the criteria that determine its course of action (which may not neccessarily be appropriate for the acual situation).  

So if the machine, being a complex system of other machines and software, cannot detemine a concept such as intelligence, it stands to reason then that one individual part of the system (be it a radar transponder or a radar fire control system) cannot make that determination by itself either.

Throughout this debate it has been consistantly shown, in the references from both sides of the debate, that a human operator, using radar and other data, makes the determinations as to the precise nature of an object.  The machine's computer systems may be able to tell him what type of object he is looking at (right down to make and model), and what its speed, altitude and course is, but it can't tell him that it is under the direct control of a human pilot, or under remote control by a human operator.  
And if it is unable to make those determinations, then a an intangible quality such as intelligence is well out of reach of the machines sensors.

In conclusion, I say that the debate has shown that the determination of intelligent control is made not by the radar, but by the human interpretting the data alongside all other information available to him.  
The radar data merely shows that something, known or otherwise, is being detected.


I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent, Skyeagle, for accepting the challange and providing all of us with an informative and civilised debate.





上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#18    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,840 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:51 PM

This debate is now complete, thank you to Skyeagle and Evangium for taking part.

This thread is now open for other members to comment.


#19    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:53 PM

Radar, of all types is not infallible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-27-radar_x.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...tacradar10.html

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/119594.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...r_radar_errors/

The older it is, the worse it can be. The above examples are newer radar systems that experienced issues. Imagine the radar being used in the 50's and 60's. Now imagine much of that same technology being reworked and repaired, sold to third world countries, and used by inexperienced operators!

Some radar images and target data are compelling, but far from proof, much like EVP's and thermal images of "ghosts" are compelling, but still not quite proof. We need a bit more before we can definitively claim that there are ships of extraterrestrial origin flying in the earths atmosphere.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#20    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pangea, Ruling the Outback

  • Evangium doesn't have a personal statement currently.

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:35 AM

eqgumby on Nov 15 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

Radar, of all types is not infallible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-27-radar_x.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...tacradar10.html

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/119594.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...r_radar_errors/

The older it is, the worse it can be. The above examples are newer radar systems that experienced issues. Imagine the radar being used in the 50's and 60's. Now imagine much of that same technology being reworked and repaired, sold to third world countries, and used by inexperienced operators!

Apart from the Israel/Syria incident, those articles show the radar unit performing its function.  Obviously some software upgrades are required to overcome some of those 'errors', but the fact they were determined as errors by the humans shows the limitation of the machine

Quote

Some radar images and target data are compelling, but far from proof, much like EVP's and thermal images of "ghosts" are compelling, but still not quite proof. We need a bit more before we can definitively claim that there are ships of extraterrestrial origin flying in the earths atmosphere.

Very true, again it falls to human interpretation to make an assumption of what an unknown might be.

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#21    MasterPo

MasterPo

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,975 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, NY

  • So sue me....

Posted 13 December 2008 - 07:44 PM

There has been a lot of research into applying some AI to radar (and thermal) readings to try to identify specific kinds of targets. The idea is to seek out a specific target from amoung many possible targets. Or perhaps find the real target from a bunch of decoys.

But either way I don't think that radar itself can tell a whole lot about the kind of craft it's reflecting off.

Sonar is the same. I think you mean hydrophones more than sonar in terms of hearing what kind of engine and propulsion and determining from that what kind of ship it is.



The Po File - As told to MasterPo by MasterPo

Have the courage to read it.

#22    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 16 December 2008 - 06:08 PM

I have been a more or less hobbie forum reader But I do enjoy the Post From Skyeagle and The others ITs all in good information faith we all post Mostly LoL.
    I also  like to keep it a Fun place to come too,And seems some get really set off by some peoples opinions,which are just that. But in Skys defence just a little reading into the Radar history book heres a very breif summary on what hes saying.The early 40`s and a man,Percy L Spencer w/just a grade school education,while working with the very early Ratheon co,as a enginer  showed the Brits how to mass produce the magnetron tube needed in the building of early radar systems,soon became the major manufacturing co of these wonders,80%  of the supply being used in this endevor. And later most of the Ship board  radar or,Standard Pulse Radar,by Ratheon all to help the war effort.Now we are still talking the late 40`s here and radar was the prime support reason for such success in that war.Move forward 60 years into the Space age and Ratheon builds the formost leading Radar systems around.Like APG-79 ,an AESA Radar system Active electronically scanned Array. These systems can almost tell you what color underwear you have or not on. To say that Man is the only decideing factor in a system or that Radar alone can tell wether or not a contact is intelligently controled is a mute case Man after all is the One that is the Factor in the situation,He take the information and crunches the info and decides what he wants to. Like the many readers of this Forum. My Hats still off for Skyeagle hes done only good for this place.ANd as For Aliens flying around getting Radar Hits ? Well You decide for your selfs Skyeagle is at no Fault in his approach and reporting method.Facts are Man made the Radar systems man interpits the info ,man has to dael with the Info! Debate is good for Man! By the way we sunk and sent many a fellow Human to there death  by the Info from Radar,Did that mean we didnt belive the contacts were Intelligent?

    This is a Work in Progress!

    #23    Evangium

    Evangium

      Heretic

    • Member
    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
    • 2,109 posts
    • Joined:08 Jan 2008
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Pangea, Ruling the Outback

    • Evangium doesn't have a personal statement currently.

    Posted 17 December 2008 - 10:44 AM

    DONTEATUS on Dec 17 2008, 04:08 AM, said:

    I have been a more or less hobbie forum reader But I do enjoy the Post From Skyeagle and The others ITs all in good information faith we all post Mostly LoL.
      I also  like to keep it a Fun place to come too,And seems some get really set off by some peoples opinions,which are just that. But in Skys defence just a little reading into the Radar history book heres a very breif summary on what hes saying.The early 40`s and a man,Percy L Spencer w/just a grade school education,while working with the very early Ratheon co,as a enginer  showed the Brits how to mass produce the magnetron tube needed in the building of early radar systems,soon became the major manufacturing co of these wonders,80%  of the supply being used in this endevor. And later most of the Ship board  radar or,Standard Pulse Radar,by Ratheon all to help the war effort.Now we are still talking the late 40`s here and radar was the prime support reason for such success in that war.Move forward 60 years into the Space age and Ratheon builds the formost leading Radar systems around.Like APG-79 ,an AESA Radar system Active electronically scanned Array. These systems can almost tell you what color underwear you have or not on. To say that Man is the only decideing factor in a system or that Radar alone can tell wether or not a contact is intelligently controled is a mute case Man after all is the One that is the Factor in the situation,He take the information and crunches the info and decides what he wants to. Like the many readers of this Forum. My Hats still off for Skyeagle hes done only good for this place.ANd as For Aliens flying around getting Radar Hits ? Well You decide for your selfs Skyeagle is at no Fault in his approach and reporting method.Facts are Man made the Radar systems man interpits the info ,man has to dael with the Info! Debate is good for Man! By the way we sunk and sent many a fellow Human to there death  by the Info from Radar,Did that mean we didnt belive the contacts were Intelligent?

      You've kind of answered your own question there, Donteatus.  Like you said, Man crunches the data and makes his own interpretation.  And the machine does as its told, without conscience or moral judgement in its actions.
      Personal differences aside, I'd say Sky and I have done reasonably well to  have as many views as we have.  Sure, we have hard hardly any replies, but I kind of expected that.  After all, the subject matter is hardly the kind that people on this forum like to get exited over, and yet this debate is still sitting in 3rd place in the viewing ranks.

      上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
      to saintly eyes
      they are bodhisattvas...
      cherry blossoms

      Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


      #24    DONTEATUS

      DONTEATUS

        Forum Divinity

      • Member
      • 19,031 posts
      • Joined:15 Feb 2008
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Planet TEXAS

      Posted 19 December 2008 - 06:51 PM

      I just have to belive that any creatures much more advanced than us would indeed have so far supeior senseing means than we do or may ever have at there claw,or finger tip maybe even methods of cloaking totally there presence here? So ITs fun just to imagine the possiblities. No need to get at each others throats,right?

      This is a Work in Progress!

      #25    Evangium

      Evangium

        Heretic

      • Member
      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
      • 2,109 posts
      • Joined:08 Jan 2008
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Pangea, Ruling the Outback

      • Evangium doesn't have a personal statement currently.

      Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:01 AM

      DONTEATUS on Dec 20 2008, 04:51 AM, said:

      I just have to belive that any creatures much more advanced than us would indeed have so far supeior senseing means than we do or may ever have at there claw,or finger tip maybe even methods of cloaking totally there presence here? So ITs fun just to imagine the possiblities. No need to get at each others throats,right?

      Imagination is a necessary tool for discovery.  What's to say that if Colombus and other explorers didn't dream and imagine, that we'd know as much of the geography of our planet today?  That if the generations that have gazed at the Moon and Mars had never wondered 'What if' that we'd ever have learnt to fly, let alone escape the bonds of Earth?

      And now with the advances we've made in robotics and computer science, I wonder how long before we'll see the first 'alien' intelligence evolve from our own creations.  Something that whilst we can recognise it as intelligent by our measure, doesn't think at all like us...

      上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
      to saintly eyes
      they are bodhisattvas...
      cherry blossoms

      Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


      #26    Repoman

      Repoman

        Psychic Spy

      • Member
      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
      • 1,519 posts
      • Joined:11 Jul 2007

      Posted 15 January 2009 - 07:12 PM

      I believe it has been shown that RADAR, although incredibly sophisticated, can do nothing but display information about the reflected EMF waves it produces. All of the other information about semi-autonomous drones and weapons systems have nothing to do with RADAR. Radar is nothing more than a device that displays data about (presumed) objects which reflected the radio waves emitted by the RADAR unit back to the RADAR unit.

      The software that accepts data from the RADAR unit is not RADAR. It is a heuristic look-up table that attempts to match RADAR reflections with its stock library of RADAR signatures.




      #27    Hazzard

      Hazzard

        Stellar Black Hole

      • Member
      • 11,762 posts
      • Joined:25 Aug 2005
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

      • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

      Posted 21 January 2009 - 01:53 PM

      Repoman on Jan 15 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

      Radar is nothing more than a device that displays data about (presumed) objects which reflected the radio waves emitted by the RADAR unit back to the RADAR unit......


      Thats my opinion aswell.

      If radar were 100% foolproof, and could indeed tell intelligent crafts from, lets say, plasma or ball lightning,etc, it would  be interesting. As this debate has clearly shown, radar, the machine, can not. Its all up to the human behind the screen to make the best "intelligent guess" he can.



      One more thing.. This is the place to continue the radar debate...not the Best Evidence thread. It has been done to death there..and as here, it ended the same way, everytime.  happy.gif



      Edited by hazzard, 21 January 2009 - 02:01 PM.

      I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      *The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

      #28    skyeagle409

      skyeagle409

        Forum Divinity

      • Member
      • 32,610 posts
      • Joined:14 Apr 2006
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:California

      • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

      Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:36 PM

      hazzard on Jan 21 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

      Thats my opinion aswell.

      If radar were 100% foolproof, and could indeed tell intelligent crafts from, lets say, plasma or ball lightning,etc, it would be interesting. As this debate has clearly shown, radar, the machine, can not. Its all up to the human behind the screen to make the best "intelligent guess" he can.



      One more thing.. This is the place to continue the radar debate...not the Best Evidence thread. It has been done to death there..and as here, it ended the same way, everytime. happy.gif


      Objects have their own unique signatures and that is how experienced radar controllers were able to throw our natural phenomena in many UFO case files.

      KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

      #29    psyche101

      psyche101

        The Customer.

      • Member
      • 38,309 posts
      • Joined:30 Nov 2005
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Oz

      • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

      Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:57 AM

      skyeagle409 on Jan 28 2009, 04:36 AM, said:

      Objects have their own unique signatures and that is how experienced radar controllers were able to throw our natural phenomena in many UFO case files.



      Radar controllers? Are you saying Radar alone cannot determine intelligence?

      Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

      #30    karl 12

      karl 12

        Government Agent

      • Member
      • 3,765 posts
      • Joined:08 Jun 2007
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Europe

      Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:30 PM

      Great thread -its refreshing to see such an intelligent and civilised debate about this subject (kudos to both debaters for some great posts).

      Not wanting to detract from the thread but theres some intriguing comments here about sonar confirmation made by trained professionals:

      Interview at 0:18
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoFjvUqh4d0

      Interesting examples of objects being plotted on multiple sonar.
      http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi...;num=1217341083
      http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=1088
      http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=174
      Cheers

      Edited by karl 12, 21 April 2009 - 12:34 PM.





      0 user(s) are reading this topic

      0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users