Who would have thought, researching and writing a few detailed essays would have been so time consuming. Anyway, work on this foray into UAPs UFOs has been progressing, and something of substance should be out by the end of the month. In the mean time, I have come across some more sites worth of note. The first would be the successor to seti@home or rather, the rebooted version. I will be getting "back" to it soon: I was an avid member between 98/99 but, life got in the way, and I haven't been back since. The next is very much related: http://www.seti-germany.de/. I think the web address says it all. The last is Citizen Science I expect some great things will come from that site soon.
That is about it for this week, as the other projects are still forming and requiring much time.
BTW: Does anyone out there know of a good tutorial on DIY RADIO-Telescopes?
Showing posts with label DIY science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DIY science. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Critique of UFO / UAP Research.
A Brief Critique of UFO Research and some suggestions of future course.
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.
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.
Monday, May 23, 2011
DIY Science and the Exopolitics / UAP Community.
Where is everyone?
Last week's post contained (amongst other things) a call for comments / ideas on how to devise a scientific frame work for detecting and "proving" that UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon) were in fact controlled by ETIs. The essential request was reiterated in several forums, posted to numerous "social" sites affiliated with the community and alas, was tweeted. Much to my chagrin or rather, dismay the single piece of "feed back" received was from someone not even remotely affiliated with the community. Though, his comments were helpful and insightful; it spoke more that no one within the community took the opportunity to post their ideas.
Why is it that none took the opportunity?
It may have been my implying, most "researchers" were glorhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifified stamp collectors; a comment which was as brutal as honest. But, for the life of me, I can not understand why so many would rather suckle at the teat of government(s) waiting for some disclosure which may or may not ever come. There is a community, there are several highly trained professionals who could offer their expertise; a support structure which spans nations! Yet, I get a lot of "views" but no comments. Presumably, one of the following is why.
1. Fairly Unknown: This may be a fair reason, but humor me; I would like to know which ideas are floating around and what might have already been tried.
2. Abstruse Writing. The previous post contained a few paragraphs about the demise of "government" sponsored space programs and some praise for COPENHAGEN SUBORBITALS. This lengthy introduction (in internet time) may have buried the actual request for comments. This will be remedied; as once this post has been published, I will write a short concise request for feed back on DIY / Open Science research into UAPs and ETIs.
3. Lack of Interest. This "possible" reason I find the most troubling. There can be several reasons for lack of interest; from not knowing how one could participate to actively not wanting to participate. Not knowing "how" is within the domain of the requester; and in this case fairly explicit: What are YOUR general ideas on how to go about detecting / recording UAPs with the intention of proving they are being controlled by ETIs. Everything is game, no idea too absurd- I just want(ed) to know what the community thinks and what might have been done in the past. (it would be impossible for me to read all of the literature out there, though I have given it a good go! The second aspect of "lack of interest" is the most perplexing, as it bodes ill for the community and UAP / ETI research in general. Actively not wanting to participate could be due to two "main" points. (a) The person has accepted ETH for UAP as a given and no research need be done. This is as self defeating as the congressperson who cuts funding to science programs: The average person does not believe the same as you! (b)Belief might be threatened if meaningful results were not found, or heaven forbid negative results were produced. I can understand this hesitation, Ufology has played a big part in society, many of the fictions it has produced: symbolic and archetypical, have become so much of the social glue, that to disprove any aspect of them would be akin to holding up camp fire stories to the Socratic method. In other words, asking to many questions, spoils the magic. As said before, I can understand this aspect; I for one would never take someone's dreams away; so, for those who fall into this category- farewell.
4. Where are your ideas? This final "probable" reason for not receiving feed back I find the silliest, but most understandable. I did not include any proposals in the first post as the likely-hood of that guiding the discourse would have been too great. (or so I thought)However, to quash this right away, some general ideas have come to mind. After reading the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defense Region: Executive Summary of 2000 which proposes that the 5% still unexplained UAPs might be due to plasma / magnetic waves and spooky action at a distance could actually be tested. (of course the actual report is a bit more concise in its hypothesis)It seems, that some simple DIY ballooning with the proper equipment could "produce" these same proposed results. (again, the actual report is more detailed and fleshing out this idea is the WHOLE reason for this post.)
So, never to be deterred by the sounds of crickets after a question has been asked; I will once again call out to the community for ideas on DIY / open science with the sub-goal of building up relationships to begin science based research into the ETH for UAP.
*
Last week's post contained (amongst other things) a call for comments / ideas on how to devise a scientific frame work for detecting and "proving" that UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon) were in fact controlled by ETIs. The essential request was reiterated in several forums, posted to numerous "social" sites affiliated with the community and alas, was tweeted. Much to my chagrin or rather, dismay the single piece of "feed back" received was from someone not even remotely affiliated with the community. Though, his comments were helpful and insightful; it spoke more that no one within the community took the opportunity to post their ideas.
Why is it that none took the opportunity?
It may have been my implying, most "researchers" were glorhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifified stamp collectors; a comment which was as brutal as honest. But, for the life of me, I can not understand why so many would rather suckle at the teat of government(s) waiting for some disclosure which may or may not ever come. There is a community, there are several highly trained professionals who could offer their expertise; a support structure which spans nations! Yet, I get a lot of "views" but no comments. Presumably, one of the following is why.
1. Fairly Unknown: This may be a fair reason, but humor me; I would like to know which ideas are floating around and what might have already been tried.
2. Abstruse Writing. The previous post contained a few paragraphs about the demise of "government" sponsored space programs and some praise for COPENHAGEN SUBORBITALS. This lengthy introduction (in internet time) may have buried the actual request for comments. This will be remedied; as once this post has been published, I will write a short concise request for feed back on DIY / Open Science research into UAPs and ETIs.
3. Lack of Interest. This "possible" reason I find the most troubling. There can be several reasons for lack of interest; from not knowing how one could participate to actively not wanting to participate. Not knowing "how" is within the domain of the requester; and in this case fairly explicit: What are YOUR general ideas on how to go about detecting / recording UAPs with the intention of proving they are being controlled by ETIs. Everything is game, no idea too absurd- I just want(ed) to know what the community thinks and what might have been done in the past. (it would be impossible for me to read all of the literature out there, though I have given it a good go! The second aspect of "lack of interest" is the most perplexing, as it bodes ill for the community and UAP / ETI research in general. Actively not wanting to participate could be due to two "main" points. (a) The person has accepted ETH for UAP as a given and no research need be done. This is as self defeating as the congressperson who cuts funding to science programs: The average person does not believe the same as you! (b)Belief might be threatened if meaningful results were not found, or heaven forbid negative results were produced. I can understand this hesitation, Ufology has played a big part in society, many of the fictions it has produced: symbolic and archetypical, have become so much of the social glue, that to disprove any aspect of them would be akin to holding up camp fire stories to the Socratic method. In other words, asking to many questions, spoils the magic. As said before, I can understand this aspect; I for one would never take someone's dreams away; so, for those who fall into this category- farewell.
4. Where are your ideas? This final "probable" reason for not receiving feed back I find the silliest, but most understandable. I did not include any proposals in the first post as the likely-hood of that guiding the discourse would have been too great. (or so I thought)However, to quash this right away, some general ideas have come to mind. After reading the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defense Region: Executive Summary of 2000 which proposes that the 5% still unexplained UAPs might be due to plasma / magnetic waves and spooky action at a distance could actually be tested. (of course the actual report is a bit more concise in its hypothesis)It seems, that some simple DIY ballooning with the proper equipment could "produce" these same proposed results. (again, the actual report is more detailed and fleshing out this idea is the WHOLE reason for this post.)
So, never to be deterred by the sounds of crickets after a question has been asked; I will once again call out to the community for ideas on DIY / open science with the sub-goal of building up relationships to begin science based research into the ETH for UAP.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)