It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bernstein and his colleagues used Hubble to look for planetesimals that are much smaller and fainter than can be seen from ground-based telescopes. Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys was pointed at a region in the constellation Virgo over a 15-day period in January and February 2003. A bank of 10 computers on the ground worked for six months searching for faint-moving spots in the Hubble images.
The search netted three small objects, named 2003 BF91, 2003 BG91, and 2003 BH91, which range in size from 15-28 miles (25-45 km) across. They are the smallest objects ever found beyond Neptune. At their current locations, these icy bodies are a billion times fainter (29th magnitude) than the dimmest objects visible to the naked eye. But an icy body of this size that escapes the Kuiper Belt to wander near the Sun can become visible from Earth as a comet as the wandering body starts to evaporate and form a surrounding cloud.
These icy bodies are a billion times fainter (29th magnitude) than the dimmest objects visible to the naked eye.
The space telescope can detect objects as faint as 31st magnitude, which is slightly better than the sensitivity of much larger earth-based telescopes. (The human eye can see celestial objects as dim as sixth magnitude.) Because generally the fainter an object is the farther away it is, Hubble has been used to probe the limits of the visible universe and uncover never-before-seen objects near the horizon of the cosmos. Because it is outside our atmosphere, the telescope can view astronomical objects across a broad swath of the electromagnetic spectrum, from ultraviolet light, to visible, to near-infrared wavelengths. The telescope can also see faint objects near bright objects.
Okay... hmm... although your argument seems logical on face value, it seems (since I can't possible afford to subscribe to a flight data service) that I can believe you that nothing unusual is picked up on our radar tracking systems...
or...
I can believe renowned Astronuat Gordon Cooper who said to the entire UN:
"For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists and astronauts. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us."
So you are some guy on the Internet and he is a famous Specialist.
So to believe you I have to believe he (and many many other people who have actually gone into space) are big liars...
I also have to believe that the U.S. Govt. would give access to an unedited radar feed to civillians despite any National Security concerns...
And finally, I would have to believe that the hundreds of members here and the thousands of people eslewhere who have actually seen amazing machines up close are all delusion[al] too..
Well it is hard to believe the public sometimes - especially when they tend to vote for people who will get them killed, but I'm sorry - the Astronaut and Military Specialist testimony just puts it over the top for me.
So I find your cynicism and unbelief misplaced at best and deliberate at worst.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I never said "nothing" was; I said that "if there were any Spaceship Guys out there, it simply couldn't stay secret for long."
A threat to withdraw funding from a certain project or school is certainly enough to make most university staff say "no comment".
Second of all, its fallacy to assume that we know about every single thing in near earth orbit. We dont. We are constantly finding new debris every day we did not know was there.
they often put filters on their tracking equipment, like NORAD did, to filter out signals that were too slow to be a meteor but too fast to be a missile or plane.
Third, you assume that our technology would even pick up any UFOs. The fact of stealth technology nullifies this arguement.
So, in reality, the idea of space travelers comming to this planet for whaever reason is not impossible or improbable because of the above arguements.
I still see nothing logical produced yet that effectively rebutts the possibility of alien visitation.
"...J. Allen Hynek did a couple surveys o0f his scientific collegues, and found that 13% had reported seeing UFOs... not a single one had ever reported ...."
Lack of proof of the existance of black holes doesnt stop scientists from believing in them. They base their believes on various pieces of evidence they collect, combine, and analyze.'
Major scientific discoveries have been amde with far less evidence and proof than we have for the UFO phenomenon.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Skadi says:
"...J. Allen Hynek did a couple surveys o0f his scientific collegues, and found that 13% had reported seeing UFOs... not a single one had ever reported ...."
Well, Skadi, which one is it? One of your statements seems to be wrong.
Major scientific discoveries have been amde with far less evidence and proof than we have for the UFO phenomenon.
Yes, and the reason those scientific discoveries have been validated over time is that more and more evidence comes to light, and finally the amount of actual evidence (as opposed to reports) is such that everyone accepts the discoveries.
Right , just as every year more and more evidence for the reality of UFOs comes to light. The difference being that Black holes are stationary Celestial bodies that remain in fixed positions in the Sky for easy independent confirmation.
Now you have to remember that if a UFO happens to be a technologically manufactured Craft capable of locomotion is not going to stay in a fixed position. That makes the normal process of independent confirmation inadequate.
Think about it like this , if you phone to the Highway Patrol and report a Car wreck then the Officers will show up where you told them it happened and find a Car wreck ( confirmation ). But if you phone in and report a drunk Driver, then if the Officers show up exactly where you told them the DD was , there will be nothing at that location.
Does this mean that there are no good reports of drunk Drivers ( UFOs ) as opposed to Car wrecks, or that simply showing up at the location of the report( normal process of Scientific Confirmation ) is an inadequate way of confirming reports of drunk Drivers ( UFOs )?
In other words the normal confirmation process that is fine tuned for the confirmation of new Comets and new Planets and Black Holes , is not an adequate process for the confirmation of objects that have the ability to change course or hide from you or any other normal thing that a technological device under the influence of an intelligence can do.
And the whole point of looking for UFOs is to find those that would be technological devices under intelligent control.
So does that mean that it is not possible for Mankind to draw the Scientific conclusion that some UFOs are intelligently controlled craft just because the normal accepted methods of Astronomical Scientific confirmation are inadequate for the task? No.
No . We would look at the sighting reports , and if there were good information from credible observers that were independent of one another and we had RADAR or Theodolite or any other instrumentation that collaborated with the witness observations we could conclude that a Foreign Aircraft was in our Airspace.
Why would we do things any different for confirming that some of the Unknowns are also real objects? It seems to work just fine when we are talking about similar events such as Foreign Aircraft ? So why change the methodology when the word UFO is used instead of Air Craft?
Astronomy can not give you Scientific confirmation of an Air Craft or a UFO.
SETI on the other hand is looking for a Civilization located on a Planet or near a Star in which case if it finds such a civilization Astronomy could Scientifically confirm that.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, Skadi, which one is it? One of your statements seems to be wrong.
Obviously, you are having problems interpreting this simple statement.
13% of scientists have seen UFOs, but none reported them. In other words, they did not fill out an offical report of the sighting to the authorities. But they saw a UFO, regardless of whether or not they reported it.
One astronomer, not a colleague of Hynek, but a world renown and highly respected astronomer, had two UFO sightings that he publically went on the record with. That man was Clyde Tombaugh, the man who discovered the planet Pluto in 1930.
There is far more evidence in the UFO phenomenon tha just a bunch of reports. There is physical trace evidence in many cases that has no mundane explaination.
We have radar visual confirmation cases on record.
The fault lies not in the lack of evidence, but in the scientific establishments failure to examine it instead of auto debunking it or ignoring it.
UFOs are very dangerous to many scientists theories.