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.


* * * * - 4 votes

How did they find us.!?


  • Please log in to reply
1669 replies to this topic

#271    the_UNKNOWN_DEAD

the_UNKNOWN_DEAD

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2006 - 03:13 PM

Quote


Seems they do not understand the nature of the data evidence as myself.


So mainstream scientists just don't understand how to evaluate the evidence?

Quote

J. Allen Hynek...snip...was convinced enough during the course of his investigations  to where he was no longer a skeptic.


True enough, however...

The following is a quote from Hynek...October, 1976:

Quote

I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home.


It was his contention the we were being visited by interdimensional beings, he also related UFO's to psychic phenomena. His ideas do not fill me with confidence as there is zero evidence for either of these "things".

Quote

...that J. Allen Hynek wasn't the only investigator whose mind was convinced that UFOs represented a real phenomenon, other scientist who have investigated the UFO enigma were also convinced that some UFOs are in fact, ET flying vehicles.


Do these "other scientists" have names?? Then kindly provide that information. From what I've read of Hynek, he didn't want to be tied down to any particular explanation...ie. are they vehicles?...or beings from another dimension?...of are they psychic apparitions??

It would have been nice (before he died) if he had chosen one explanation, and stuck with it.


Quote


I can understand to a certain extent so here is some data that I have posted before and I am doing so in case you've missed it. The following data was taken from the radar of an F-16 and supplied by the Belgian Air Force.


Is the source for your data on the web?? If so, kindly provide a link.


#272    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:16 PM

Quote

name='the_UNKNOWN_DEAD' date='Nov 12 2006, 03:13 PM' post='1424465']
So mainstream scientists just don't understand how to evaluate the evidence?


Oh, yes they can! Scientific investigations have verified UFO case files in the past. Even E. U. Condon's highly controversal Colorado Study responded to the 1956 Lakenhealth UFO incident as saying that at least one 'UFO' was possibly "geniune." The  Airspeeds ranged from 4000 mph and beyond and was visually confirmed in the air and on the ground and captured on both, airborne and ground-based radar systems to there was no question the UFO was an artificial entity exhibiting performance characteristics far beyond anything we had during that time frame and even today and that is one of the reasons why the Condon team was very impressed with that incident.  

The following is what happens went scientist do get involved in UFO investigations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>


DR. JAMES MCDONALD
Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

"James Edward McDonald received his Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University in 1951, then worked there as an assistant professor in meteorology. He was a research physicist in the University of Chicago's department of meteorology (1953-54). In 1954 he joined the University of Arizona faculty, first as an associate professor (1954-56), then as a full professor in the department of meteorology (1956-71). McDonald was also a senior physicist in the University's Institute of Atmospheric Physics, and served as both associate director (1954-56) and scientific director (1956-57). He also advised numerous federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, The Office of Naval Research, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Environmental Science Service Administration."

"During the mid-late 1960s, McDonald became intensively involved in UFO research, interviewing hundreds of UFO witnesses and lecturing widely on the subject to professional societies. His talks emphasized the need for a serious scientific study, adding that he considered the best reports to be evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. He also played an important role in Congressional UFO hearings in 1968."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail24.htm

Also, more data on that UFO. It is very clear, judging from the data, it was impossible for the UFO to have been the result of natural atmospheric phenomena or have been a conventional aircraft.

Conclusion of the Analysis

"The performance of the UFO intercepted cannot be ascribed to a conventional manned aircraft."

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/analysi...radar/index.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 November 2006 - 04:22 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#273    the_UNKNOWN_DEAD

the_UNKNOWN_DEAD

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:58 PM

Perhaps I was not clear enough when I asked this question...

Quote

Is the source for your data on the web?? If so, kindly provide a link.


...about the Belgian air force f-16 data. It's not enough to link to Mark Cushman's interpretations. I was requesting an unbiased viewpoint. A link to the actual data.

Do you have anything other than Cushman's opinions??

Re. scientists: I was expecting something a little more current than what McDonald had to say 40 years ago.

Also...no comment on what I had to say about Hynek??


#274    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2006 - 05:41 PM

Quote

name='the_UNKNOWN_DEAD' date='Nov 12 2006, 04:58 PM' post='1424531']
Perhaps I was not clear enough when I asked this question...
...about the Belgian air force f-16 data. It's not enough to link to Mark Cushman's interpretations. I was requesting an unbiased viewpoint. A link to the actual data. Do you have anything other than Cushman's opinions?? Re. scientists: I was expecting something a little more current than what McDonald had to say 40 years ago.


There was a video with interviews of a scientist who investigated the incidents, the lead F-16 pilot involved, and other military officials but the video link is now dead but you can go here for more information.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm

http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/belgiumtriangles.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9054/ufobelg.html

http://www.artgomperz.com/belgium/index.html

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm

http://www.rense.com/general18/newwave.htm

Quote

Do these "other scientists" have names??


You have Stanton Friedman.

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfhome.html

Even Clyde Tombaugh who have had UFO experiences

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case355.htm

More

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/science.htm

Quote

From what I've read of Hynek, he didn't want to be tied down to any particular explanation...ie. are they vehicles?...or beings from another dimension?...of are they psychic apparitions??


UFOs definitely have nothing to do with psychic apparitions, they can't be detected on radar,  which means they are vehicles. Here's more on J. Allen Hynek

Change of opinion

"Hynek's opinions about UFOs began a slow and gradual shift. After examining hundreds of UFO reports over the decades (including some made by credible witnesses, including astronomers, pilots, police officers, and military personnel) Hynek concluded that some reports represented genuine new empirical observations."

"Another shift in Hynek's opinion came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 per cent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule, or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than laymen, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses."

Quote

It would have been nice (before he died) if he had chosen one explanation, and stuck with it.


We do have something else to remember him by though.

CUFOS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_UFO_Studies

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 November 2006 - 05:49 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#275    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2006 - 06:27 PM

Quote


Since we do have the capability to detect an object the size of a basketball 20,000 miles from Earth, we can also detect an object the size of the mothership of the size as described  during the JAL/UFO encounter over Alaska in 1986,  many times much further.


No, I will beg to disagree here. There are many parameters that determine how far out we can detect something. Among others, it is depending on the modulation scheme the radar is using, the repetition rate of the emitted radar pulses and so on. The radars the military use for surveying satellites and debris in orbit is optimized for this and would be difficult to change for a configuration surveying space beyond lunar orbit, as you would physically have to go change parts. Not saying that it can't be done, but the military apparently don't see the necessity to do so.

Regarding the size of the object we can detect, the most important issue is the dependence of the distance. The formula describing that is called the radar equation and the received power is proportional to the radar cross section (d) divided by the distance R quadrupled!

Prec ~ d/R^4  

That means that if we can detect a basketball 20,000 miles out, the object will have to be 10,000 times larger at 200,000 miles and 100,000,000 larger at 2 million miles to give the same radar return. Lets for arguments sake say that we can detect an object with a surface area of 100cm^2 (small basketball). 200,000 miles out that object needs to be 1 million cm^2, which is 100m^2. That is about 900 square feet and a rather large object. At 2 million miles this size has inflated to 1 Million m^2 or 9 Million square feet.  

Here I have completely omitted the fact that the radar cross section doesn't normally scale linearly with size!  

Civilian radio astronomer programs have the huge parabolic antennas which gives the low sensitivities required to detect small objects in deep space. The military doesn't! One wonders why not if they really believed ET was flitting around out there.  

Best,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 12 November 2006 - 06:30 PM.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#276    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2006 - 06:36 PM

Quote

name='badeskov' date='Nov 12 2006, 06:27 PM' post='1424584']
No, I will beg to disagree here. There are many parameters that determine how far out we can detect something. Among others, it is depending on the modulation scheme the radar is using, the repetition rate of the emitted radar pulses and so on. The radars the military use for surveying satellites and debris in orbit is optimized for this and would be difficult to change for a configuration surveying space beyond lunar orbit, as you would physically have to go change parts. Not saying that it can't be done, but the military apparently don't see the necessity to do so.


The UFOs just pop up in front the the sensors facing deep space, optical and other means. There was a person who thought that we have only the Pave radar system for space surveillance but we have other important assets other than just radar.

Quote

Regarding the size of the object we can detect, the most important issue is the dependence of the distance. The formula describing that is called the radar equation and the received power is proportional to the radar cross section (d) divided by the distance R quadrupled!

Prec ~ d/R^4  

That means that if we can detect a basketball 20,000 miles out, the object will have to be 10,000 times larger at 200,000 miles and 100,000,000 larger at 2 million miles to give the same radar return. Lets for arguments sake say that we can detect an object with a surface area of 100cm^2 (small basketball). 200,000 miles that object needs to be 1 million cm^2, which is 100m^2. That is about 900 square feet and a rather large object. At 2 million miles this size has inflated to 1 Million m^2 or 9 Million square feet.


But, UFOs have been noted in the vincinity of the moon and some astronomers have documented their sightings. NORAD also indicated it tracks many "FastWalkers" each year in space.  

Quote

Civilian radio astronomer programs have the huge parabolic antennas which gives the low sensitivities required to detect small objects in deep space. The military doesn't! One wonders why not if ET was really flitting around out there.


   Believe me, the military has the means to see very little  objects thousands of miles in space. For an example, the  military "accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radar's and optical sensors at 25 sites worldwide." They also track space objects which are 10 centimeters in diameter (baseball size) or larger.




Edited by skyeagle409, 12 November 2006 - 06:42 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#277    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2006 - 06:50 PM

Quote


Radar mirages do not exihibit the kind of radar returns as metallic objects. For an example, throw a steel ball at a rubber wall and then, throw that same ball at a metal wall. Note the difference in the sound waves that returns to your ears. That is why radar 'ghost angels' are typically known as soft targets (weak signals) and metallic objects are known as 'hard targets' (strong, solid signals).


I apologize, but I fail to see how your analogy can be applied here. The power level of a radar return signal will depend on the distance to the target and the composition of the target. The distance is easily computed from the time difference between when you sent out the radar pulse and when a return is received.

The composition of the target of course has huge saying in how much power is returned. A big metallic plate facing towards the emitting radar will give a huge radar return. A big, wet blanket will give a small radar return. But nowhere in that radar return signal can you what is metal and what is not. That information is simply available. A weak signal can be a small metallic object, whereas a strong signal can be a large conductive, but non-metallic object.  
  
The only other information contained in the returned signal is the change in carrier frequency. This is solely caused by the velocity of the object targeted relative to the radar emitter. The composition of the target will not induce any changes.

Quote


Let's take a typical air intercept radar. Air intercept radars have mulitiple modes and sub-modes, so here you are cruising around with your radar in track-and-scan mode when suddenly it jumps into single-target tracking mode, (STT). Now, the radar has grabbed that  object in much the same way as when you grab an angry alley cat with your hand. Judging by feel alone you know what that alley cat is doing and trying to do. An air intercept radar in STT mode will give all kinds of data on the object that is locked on as well such as heading, velocity, aspect headings, altitudes, etc.

So now, you have just locked on to a UFO and just as the UFO was locked, it suddenly maneuvers at multiple Gs and accelerates from 150 mph to over 1000 mph in two seconds and drops in altitude of 4000 feet in one second. The maneuver breaks your radar lock and later, you are able to try again and the same thing happens a second time and this time your wingman also  loses his lock on the UFO as well. You try again and the UFO once again maneuvers to break your lock.  Natural atmospheric phenomena cannot do that and the nature of the information given by the radar in STT mode also indicates that the UFO is not the result of weather-related phenomena, remember the differences between the rubber and metallic walls.


While it definitely sounds out of this world, I still have to beg to differ. Just to repeat myself, a radar return will not give any information whatsoever about the composition of the target. Hence, you cannot exclude weather phenomena just by looking at radar signals.

Quote


The question you can ask yourself is, does mankind have a saucer-shaped 100 meter in diameter flying vehicle that can conduct right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs and stay intact and then zoom off at 9000 mph within the Earth's atmopshere without creating a sonic boom? If not, then it's safe to say the flying machine is not ours. Many UFO aerial encounters were not only tracked and recorded on radar data tapes but visually confirmed as an artificial metallic saucer-shaped flying machine and that is yet another way you can confirm that the UFO was an intelligently controlled flying machine and why I am very interested in the radar/visual case files as other UFO investigators are.


No, I would have to say that if mankind had a saucer-shaped flying object, they have done a very good job at hiding it. But again, there are so many visual sightings and no evidence that I still have to very skeptic about this whole issue. And, finally, nobody can tell whether these UFOs actually were metallic, just that they were metallic looking.

Best,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#278    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2006 - 06:53 PM

Quote

name='badeskov' date='Nov 12 2006, 06:50 PM' post='1424594']
I apologize, but I fail to see how your analogy can be applied here.


When I speak of deep space surveillance in that regard, I am speaking of optical means, not radar.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#279    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:02 PM

Quote


The UFOs just pop up in front the the sensors facing deep space, optical and other means. There was a person who thought that we have only the Pave radar system for space surveillance but we have other important assets other than just radar.


The PAVE radar is the ballistic missile tracking radar, correct? That is a phased array and while big, can not even hope to get close to the sensitivity of a parabolic dish the same size. Secondly, that was specifically designed to look for objects in low Earth orbit, as that is where a nuclear warhead from a ballistic missile would be found.

Any radar that looks beyond lunar orbit has a certain size requirement and the military has yet to build those. And, believe me, the sheer size of those antennas makes them mighty hard to build in secrecy.

Quote


But, UFOs have been noted in the vincinity of the moon and some astronomers have documented their sightings. NORAD also indicated it tracks many "FastWalkers" each year in space.  


Civilian astronomers, correct. As they are the only ones looking towards deep space.

Quote


   Believe me, the military has the means to see very little  objects thousands of miles in space. For an example, the  military "accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radar's and optical sensors at 25 sites worldwide." They also track space objects which are 10 centimeters in diameter (baseball size) or larger.


But now we are back to the discussion on what deep space. I agree, they are very good at tracking satellites and debris orbiting the Earth, but not very much further out that geostationary orbit. That is not far enough if you want to find UFOs before they cross our border.

Best,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#280    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:03 PM

Quote


When I speak of deep space surveillance in that regard, I am speaking of optical means, not radar.


Aah, ok. Sorry, I missed out on that one original.gif

Best,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#281    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:12 PM

Quote


NORAD also indicated it tracks many "FastWalkers" each year in space.    


Yes they do. For background, the DSPs carry a large infra-red telescope and their primary mission is detection of missile launches. When the system became operational, it was soon found that non-missile targets were also being detected, and these were classified as "slow walkers", which are aircraft, and "fast walkers", which are satellites. They are known as walkers, from the way they "walk" across the operators' screens. Nothing ET about it though.

Edited by hazzard, 12 November 2006 - 07:13 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

#282    Unlimited

Unlimited

    Truthseeker

  • Banned
  • 7,597 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Give me liberty or give me death.....

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:30 PM

with the cloaking abilities of most ships; and ability to avoid radar or sonar detection...most of this is just speculation at best...so back to topic..you agree that we have been found? geek.gif

God Bless America..

"one man with courage,makes a majority"..tj

#283    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:40 PM

Quote


with the cloaking abilities of most ships; and ability to avoid radar or sonar detection...most of this is just speculation at best...so back to topic..you agree that we have been found? geek.gif


Uhm, this would be a whole thread in itself, but you do realize that cloaking something comes with some serious disadvantages, without even going into how it can be done?

But back to the topic at hand. Please let me quote Hazzard:

Quote


As I was thinking about SETI and our "radio signature bubble" reaching out in to space, I can only think of these few possibilities.   unsure.gif

- Either the aliens has already found us and has answered back (the message is on its way?)

- They are ignoring us for some reason.

- They are less technologically advanced than we are (hasnt looked yet).

- ET simply doesnt exist... Not very satisfying I know, and there is no way to really know which choice is more likely correct!


I guess the answer is that we simply do not know. I am personally leaning towards that ET is out there on many worlds, but hasn't discovered us yet. They might have learned that the Earth here and if they are really good, that it also has an atmosphere that can sustain life. But that is my personal opinion original.gif

Best,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#284    Squirrelboy

Squirrelboy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2006

Posted 12 November 2006 - 08:57 PM

Alien sightings started after the first atomic bomb was tested. alien.gif  

I say they have visited many times and it's not just one species either. blink.gif


#285    Unlimited

Unlimited

    Truthseeker

  • Banned
  • 7,597 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Give me liberty or give me death.....

Posted 12 November 2006 - 09:07 PM

Quote


Uhm, this would be a whole thread in itself, but you do realize that cloaking something comes with some serious disadvantages, without even going into how it can be done?


Best,
Badeskov


what possible disadvantage could a cloaked ship have?..are you sure you know what your talking about? hmm.gif

God Bless America..

"one man with courage,makes a majority"..tj




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users