Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Excellent Lou Elizondo interview


Phantom309

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, badeskov said:

I read it and didn't know whether to laugh or cry, to be honest. I have never seen such abuse of probability density functions in science ever, and I used to be a reviewer on some pretty high end journals in the field of optical communications and semiconductor devices. That was, well, a disaster as presented in that "paper". Good grief.

Indeed - at first I thought maybe I was unaware of some obscure statistical / probability analysis technique that could be applied in a velocity calculation/estimation scenario...  I researched that possibility, and could find nothing.

Then I thought, maybe Kevin has access to some sort of dataset that would justify the creation of all those graphs, which are obviously suggesting a huge number of data points/measurements and that also require logical choices of constants and variables..

But NO, Kevin seems to have pulled all of that impressive-looking - but utterly made-up, unsupportable and completely inapplicable - graphical probability 'analysis' {pun intended} from the deepest nether regions of his colon.  He has essentially made up the graphs from what are single data points, and those data-points are anecdotal, unevidenced numbers that were guesstimated.

And then he has the hide to call it 'peer-reviewed', when HE was the peer-reviewer and is the OWNER of the predatory 'journal' that 'published' it.....  It's abuse of science at its disgusting worst, and that report is a worthless piece of junk

Go on, ask me what I really think... and yes, my comments about that loser would also not pass UM's obscenity filters....

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little offtopic...

Merc14 was a valuable poster in this area of the forum... however he hasn't posted for well over a year, although I see he has logged in occasionally.  On the political forums, he was a rather strong supporter of the 'orange idiot' - perhaps that is relevant...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

A little offtopic...

Merc14 was a valuable poster in this area of the forum... however he hasn't posted for well over a year, although I see he has logged in occasionally.  On the political forums, he was a rather strong supporter of the 'orange idiot' - perhaps that is relevant...

Hi Chrlzs

Yes he was and glad you remembered his user name as I remembered his avatar but got lost on the ex navy rio tag.:tu:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

A little offtopic...

Merc14 was a valuable poster in this area of the forum... however he hasn't posted for well over a year, although I see he has logged in occasionally.  On the political forums, he was a rather strong supporter of the 'orange idiot' - perhaps that is relevant...

He was indeed a valuable poster in this part of the forum. To be honest, there are two topics I do not discuss online, and those are religion and politics, so I have not really seen his posts in the political forums.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Indeed - at first I thought maybe I was unaware of some obscure statistical / probability analysis technique that could be applied in a velocity calculation/estimation scenario...  I researched that possibility, and could find nothing.

Admittedly, I didn't even think of any obscure statistical/probability analysis as I use it all the time and it was just very off. 

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Then I thought, maybe Kevin has access to some sort of dataset that would justify the creation of all those graphs, which are obviously suggesting a huge number of data points/measurements and that also require logical choices of constants and variables..

That was what struck me. He basically posted Gaussian probability density functions like this:

image.png.4a81bd9477d3c4085b9b490f75a96784.png

Given the amount of "spikes" in the bell shaped curves, it implies a large experimental data set, but obviously it did not exist. From his "paper", that should be a clean curve.

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

But NO, Kevin seems to have pulled all of that impressive-looking - but utterly made-up, unsupportable and completely inapplicable - graphical probability 'analysis' {pun intended} from the deepest nether regions of his colon.  He has essentially made up the graphs from what are single data points, and those data-points are anecdotal, unevidenced numbers that were guesstimated.

Indeed. 

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And then he has the hide to call it 'peer-reviewed', when HE was the peer-reviewer and is the OWNER of the predatory 'journal' that 'published' it.....  It's abuse of science at its disgusting worst, and that report is a worthless piece of junk

Pretty much. It is obvious that it was never peer-reviewed as he was the one reviewing it. A peer is not oneself.

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Go on, ask me what I really think... and yes, my comments about that loser would also not pass UM's obscenity filters....

You being an Aussie, I can totally imagine that the UM obscenity filters would be strained to the outmost :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To @Phantom309 and @Freez1, both of whom have now been back to this forum... have you guys forgotten about this thread, or just conveniently lost interest?

There's a whole pile of stuff up there for you to dispute, and we are STILL waiting for the alleged evidence of non-terrestrial maneuvering...

All we've been able to find is Chinese Whispers, purely anecdotal, and of course the claimed numbers have changed with every retelling, and in most cases completely contradict the operation modes and capabilities of the radar equipment.

Forgive me for calling bull****, but it's the right colour, the right stink and the right orifices.  It is bull****.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they won't be back. When confronted with facts and logic, those who support the fantastical usually disappear from these debates.

@ChrLzsand @badeskov, thank you for doing the heavy lifting on the finer points on this topic.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I suspect they won't be back. When confronted with facts and logic, those who support the fantastical usually disappear from these debates.

@ChrLzsand @badeskov, thank you for doing the heavy lifting on the finer points on this topic.

Trelane, I bet you are correct. Few come back to actually debate (all respect to Skyeagle in that respect - he always came back). 
 

By the way, credit goes to ChrLzs for doing the heavy lifting, I merely chipped in were I could. 
 

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliments, guys, but I also lean upon the shoulders of other giants, and often learn from you'se as well. :D 

And may I do something that you will never see tinfoilhatters doing...

If ANYONE has any question or doubts about what I post, whether you wish to dispute anything or would simply like some clarification or different sources for verification, please just ask.  You won't get any flak from me UNLESS you just post unsupported garbage and then refuse to discuss or engage with the topic (or just run for it, like the two cowards herein, who I shall not rename...).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

{Offtopic, maybe..}

Now, about this telescope you're building, Bade - may I ask what sort of optics/design, and also what type of mount and whether the mount will be automated in any way?

The latter might add something to this thread when we discuss the type of gimballing mount used on those ATFLIR videos, and why it sometimes loses lock or does a nasty jump...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

{Offtopic, maybe..}

Now, about this telescope you're building, Bade - may I ask what sort of optics/design, and also what type of mount and whether the mount will be automated in any way?

The latter might add something to this thread when we discuss the type of gimballing mount used on those ATFLIR videos, and why it sometimes loses lock or does a nasty jump...

Hi ChrLzs,

Could be off-topic, but I agree, in this thread it might be helpful as to explaining why some issues arise (although while not exactly relating to the ATFLIR issues seen, those could easily be replicated if one gets a tad too fancy on the automated tracking).

But on the telescope itself and the optical path, it is a multiple step process to be honest, so it will not exactly happen overnight. First of all, it will be automated to as far as I can do it, but let me explain that stepwise. Instead of the optical lens assembly I used before, I am going to use a Canon EF-S lens (it was broken, but I managed to fix it it). Need to sit in front of my desktop to send pictures, as they are too big for UM. But the part is that I am hoping that the Canon lens has better light capturing capabilities and it has an SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) to control it. So I can remotely control focus and magnification. 

I am going to use my present substandard telescope optics to try this out, but am on the hunt for a 20" (~500mm) black PVC pipe to mount it in. That way once I am satisfied with the image quality of the lens system I can replace the parabolic mirror and the reflector to the imagining system with something larger and of better quality (we have Zemax at work, so was planning on doing the initial design using that). 

On the mount, I was going to start building something like this:

image.png.6c9a0f1fbc61df007d290ab9e5a8f5e2.png

I have most of the parts, but there is a lot of metal work that I don't have the means to do at home as I don't have a lathe. I am being trained at work in the machine shop (not that I don't know how to use one, but for insurance purposes I can't just go use it before I am certified). This should be a very sturdy stand and it will be anchored to the patio concrete slab.

I have the stepper motors required to drive the gear worm wheels and have actually tried them out. In my previous work designing and testing fiber optic gyroscopes for missile guidance systems and GPS denied areas (whether it be submerged vessels or due to jamming), we had a 5m deep concrete block rubber insulated from the surrounding floor to minimize vibrations to bolt the rate table used to for characterizations and a surveyor that would do the true north calibration, but is obviously not an option that I have. But what should suffice.

On the imaging system, I need to redesign my aluminum block with the CCD so I can still cool it down to about -50C to minimize thermal and shot noise in the CCD semiconductors and having the ability to replace the air with nitrogen (dry air), so I don't have moisture turning into to ice on the sensor or creating shorts/false current paths in the electrical circuits.

Getting back to the automation, it will all be controlled by a single FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) eval board initially controlled through Ethernet and/or USB. I have designed a wireless/bluetooth add-on board as well, but the actual fab and assembly of said if a bit out in the future. I need to do the programming and test of it on an eval board that I currently play with. But time is precious, so that is a luxury that I will get to when I have that one idle Tuesday afternoon I don't know what to do with :blush:

But such a setup should not encounter any of the jumps that you referred to. This mount will be remotely controlled to look at a certain part of the sky and later to simply follow the rotation of the Earth to allow for greater light accumulation. That, however, is pretty simple compared to the ATFLIR system as that is supposed to automatically track fast moving targets and that is a completely different beast to program up and control. You can easily have something being tracked and then something else pops up in the FOV (Field of View) and the tracking algorithm will lock to that instead given that it's luminosity has higher intensity than the previously tracked target, thus the apparent jumping. It is an incredibly difficult tracking exercise and in most cases needs human intervention as automatic/adaptive algorithms are not exactly just there yet albeit they have gotten very far.

I hope that made some sense.

Cheers!

Badeskov 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew!

Scanned thru this one, and its back to the old this guy or that guy claims he heard and believes that UAPs do this or that which is beyond our technologies and they can prove it ( but never do ).

So much is ego and nothing more than opinion and personal belief, threads like this topic has been posted here a lot and not once when the smoke and mirriors clear is there more than just stories,

As far as the claim that gov in changing the term from UFO to UAP means day of disclosure is at hand that is too full of holes ridiculous to get into again.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Bade, that's a serious project.  That was not quite what I was expecting, even though you gave clues earlier... I'll be back later to mull over your aims, but you're aiming a lot higher than my level of knowledge, I think. :D 

And you are right, picking a little patch of sky and driving the optics to keep pace with earth's rotation is a little bit similar, but also vastly different to ATFLIR, with its much higher rates of non-constant movement and the fact that the target *and* the platform are both moving and twisting in 3D space at those changing velocities and without a simple frame of reference like your concrete slab of floor...  Not that I'm saying your road ahead is a simple one, though, by any means...B)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Wow, Bade, that's a serious project.  That was not quite what I was expecting, even though you gave clues earlier... I'll be back later to mull over your aims, but you're aiming a lot higher than my level of knowledge, I think. :D 

And you are right, picking a little patch of sky and driving the optics to keep pace with earth's rotation is a little bit similar, but also vastly different to ATFLIR, with its much higher rates of non-constant movement and the fact that the target *and* the platform are both moving and twisting in 3D space at those changing velocities and without a simple frame of reference like your concrete slab of floor...  Not that I'm saying your road ahead is a simple one, though, by any means...B)

Yeah, well ChrLzs, sometimes I do get a bit too ambitious for my own good, ahem. First I am going to hook up my cannon lens assembly to the FPGA board and get the SPI digital interface working, program up a process inside the FPGA and a small GUI in visual studio to facilitate easy control. 
 

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, badeskov said:

Yeah, well ChrLzs, sometimes I do get a bit too ambitious for my own good, ahem. First I am going to hook up my cannon lens assembly to the FPGA board and get the SPI digital interface working, program up a process inside the FPGA and a small GUI in visual studio to facilitate easy control. 
 

Cheers,

Badeskov

Argh, darn autocorrect when trying to post by my phone. Cannon = Canon :-) 

On a different note, I can’t control the magnification on the lens through the digital interface, as I thought I could. I need to add another external stepper motor for that. 
 

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited to add: by the way, it is a Dobsonian telescope architecture. I missed mentioning that. 

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Wow, Bade, that's a serious project.  That was not quite what I was expecting, even though you gave clues earlier... I'll be back later to mull over your aims, but you're aiming a lot higher than my level of knowledge, I think. :D 

And you are right, picking a little patch of sky and driving the optics to keep pace with earth's rotation is a little bit similar, but also vastly different to ATFLIR, with its much higher rates of non-constant movement and the fact that the target *and* the platform are both moving and twisting in 3D space at those changing velocities and without a simple frame of reference like your concrete slab of floor...  Not that I'm saying your road ahead is a simple one, though, by any means...B)

ChrLzs,

maybe I should start a topic elsewhere on the forum as not to completely derail the present one with my private project details. Not sure where to put it though. 
 

Cheers!

Badeskov

Edited to add: if there would be interest in it. 

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, badeskov said:

ChrLzs,

maybe I should start a topic elsewhere on the forum as not to completely derail the present one with my private project details. Not sure where to put it though. 
 

Cheers!

Badeskov

Edited to add: if there would be interest in it. 

Hmm, I'd love it, but I'm not sure there are enough others that hang out here with similar interests.  I've often wondered whether maybe it would be good (if not done already) to just have a thread dedicated to "My Project", where you could post descriptions of what projects you are doing that have grown from hobbies, no matter what type.  I think it has two benefits - first up there's all that sharing and caring and learning stuff, but also there is the motivation to crack on with it!  In my case, after bragging here about my strange hi-fi project and renovating my turntable (which had been languishing untouched for several months) I brought it out and attacked!  It's now cleaned and polished and lubed, I've replaced the broken tone arm clip (which was trickier than it sounds), replaced the cartridge with a fancy new Audio-Technica, and it is 100% done and working like a dream!  I'm ridiculously proud of myself... So I might start such a thread...  I'll link to it here and maybe it might take off - you never know what will go viral... :D  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Every time I hear Elizondo I hear the words of an ignorant. He has no idea what he is talking about. He says ridiculous things like IR can see cold things as well as hot things.

Elizondo has no  idea what the devices are collecting. How can he comment on the result with any sense of intelligence above a bucket of dirt?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good news everyone - @Guyver just posted the following on another thread:

Quote

now it turns out my suspicions were correct.  The vast majority of people now accept that UFO’s are real based upon the facts and recent developments.

I think he was referring to the Nimitz-y incidents, so I thought it was best to resurrect this thread so he can elaborate for us.  Surely he can do what no-one else will - namely NOMINATE the best / most compelling evidence they've seen that some UFO's are non-terrestrial/ non-human/ paranormal/ interdimensional /whatever.  He also tells us he has scientific expertise and mathematical ability as well, so it should be good - he'll be able to point out my mistakes.

As I mentioned over there, we are patiently waiting for ANYONE to nominate what they think is compelling evidence for any non-terrestrial or unexplainable object (or Bigfoot! :) ).

 

OK, I'm holding my breath..!.....

....

....

....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OK, I'm holding my breath..!.....

smiley_popcorn.gif.5a89c843c9c41da25550b2bc3c4c29f6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Good news everyone - @Guyver just posted the following on another thread:

I think he was referring to the Nimitz-y incidents, so I thought it was best to resurrect this thread so he can elaborate for us.  Surely he can do what no-one else will - namely NOMINATE the best / most compelling evidence they've seen that some UFO's are non-terrestrial/ non-human/ paranormal/ interdimensional /whatever.  He also tells us he has scientific expertise and mathematical ability as well, so it should be good - he'll be able to point out my mistakes.

As I mentioned over there, we are patiently waiting for ANYONE to nominate what they think is compelling evidence for any non-terrestrial or unexplainable object (or Bigfoot! :) ).

 

OK, I'm holding my breath..!.....

....

....

....

Oh good lord is that what you want?   I nominate my experiences, however, only one of them was I with others who witnessed the same thing.  I don't care if you or anyone else believes my experiences and I have concluded that what I saw was not military nor was it alien craft, but rather something non-physical.   Why do you insist on beating a dead horse?  You will never get the "proof" you are asking for and you know it, it has become troll like for you to continue this.  As someone once said "The UFOS will keep their secrets".   "The Government" doesn't know any more than anyone else.

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I have concluded that what I saw was not military nor was it alien craft, but rather something non-physical.  

How did you conclude something was "non-physical"?

What does that even mean?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

How did you conclude something was "non-physical"?

What does that even mean?

What does "non-physical" mean?   It means it wasn't physical.  It was some kind of unmeasurable phenomena.  the only reason I do not include that it was purely my imagination is because I was not the only one who saw it, but there was no craft, no noise, no physical effect, just light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.