A troubling aspect of current research seems to be a tendency to apply exotic theories and explanations to the physics of UFOs / UAPs. Further, these theories are presented without first looking into the possibility that current technology may account for some (if not all) of the observed phenomenon. A case in point would be radar returns (or lake thereof) from encountered UAPs.
Though I am hopeful that duel static passive radar, as described by Peter Davenport may be of use; the point being made here has more to do with "radar" being some sort of defining variable between what is "real" and what is not. Leslie Kean and many others put forward these "5%" figures of UAPs which have been observed visually (often by multiple witnesses) and also were monitored and recorded by ground radar systems. Granted, the 5% which has both radar and witness evidence would be the logical place to being research; lack of radar returns should not mean that the visually observed phenomenon be discounted. The reason why these occurrences of witness only observations should not necessarily be discounted is based on the simple fact that stealth technology does exist. Not only does the technology exist to render aircraft virtually invisible to radar returns, the technology is practically "commercial" in availability. As of this writing, known states which posses this technology are: USA, Russian Federation, and China. Presumably the United Kingdom and pretty much every NATO member at this point, either has in operation or soon will the same stealth capabilities.
Almost needless to say, being "invisible" to radar is something that science and engineering overcame nearly thirty years ago; in which case, not having radar returns, does not necessarily "mean" anything. On the other hand, it does still go, that having some sort of returned signature from ground based radar stations could be used as a "further" validation- but lack of returns should not be used to dismiss observations.
The radar problem is but one example of where research should take into account our current abilities, and what light they might shed on the observed phenomenon. Unfortunately, "often" researchers construct theories without taking a good accounting of the current state of the art; and thus base subsequent (maybe logically derived) conclusions on a faulty premise.
Update: DIY Science.
I have yet to hear anything back from anyone in regards to requests for thoughts, proposals and suggestions on implementing a true "open" science project. At this point I have posted on several more forums, sites and social sites with the same request. It is slowly becoming apparent that the UAP community in many ways is a passive / perhaps closed community which does not like to engage in these types of discussions. My next step will be to present some of the ideas which I have formed to pre-established communities, which might take an interest. i.e Amateur Astronomers, Open Source Hardware, 3d printing communities. I am still hopeful to gather a team of like minded (science minded) individuals who feel a project like this is worth the doing. Will keep things updated as they progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment