The Heros And Frauds of the UFO Movement

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: jritzmann

Though well-meaning, I think Hopkins caused problems by using unskilled techniques for questioning under hypnosis.

I could not possibly agree with you more. Hopkins along with every other "researcher" using hypnosis to recover memory.

Ufology needs to re establish its base by divorcing itself all the people who convolute the subject. How should they go about this is by creating a group who will pull its resources together to finance passive radar systems. Passive radar systems will give quantitative proof of Ufos in sky. The only way to prove Ufos exist is using effective technology such as this. The disclosure movement in the first few years had some decent momentum but they hit a brick wall, so theres no point throwing resources in that direction. The direction has now got to be technology.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Passive radar systems will give quantitative proof of Ufos in sky. The only way to prove Ufos exist is using effective technology such as this.

That technology has limitations and some people don't understand those limitations. When a plane was sent up to confirm the cause of a UFO on radar over Washington DC, they found the source of the radar return, and it wasn't a UFO in the sky. Thermal inversion layers can reflect not only light but radar and that's apparently what happened when Washington DC had some unusual weather patterns:

1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident

Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon...the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I once listened through a radio talk on passive radar once from a person who is an expert in radar systems, and one thing i did learn os the accuracy of the system has a lot to do with software alogrithums. It is like any technology once you understand the limitations the software can be used to filter out anomalies. According to the expert who knows more about radar than you or I will ever know passive system will definitely detect and provide substantive radar proof of Ufos. Im happy to look for the interview and link it I think your just trying to throw a spanner in the works of what is a sensible idea, using throw away lines like people don't understand the limitations as if you are some big expert, not!

a reply to: AthlonSavage
One thing is for sure, the ability of radar systems to filter out anomalies has improved over the years.

But the Steamboat wasn't an anomaly, it was a steamboat, and given a reflective inversion layer I'm not sure that even the improved software would filter that out, because how could it, if the radar is reflecting off of a real, moving object? You could put in a speed filter to filter out slower moving objects, but that would also filter out things like helicopters if they were just hovering, so that might not be such a good idea.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


How often do you thinks anomalies occur that cant be filtered out by software techniques, or refinements to the system design. Obviously Radar technology design is a every evolved reliable technology, and its limitations are well understood and managed by good designed and operating practices, because otherwise it wouldn't be of much use for numerous applications where accuracy is required. You find a isolated incidents and then attempt to use its as reason that passive radar is not going to detect Ufos. I think people who are in interested in passive radar should seek to learn about it themselves and certainly not from you as you motivates are very clear when it comes to subject of Ufos.

But the Steamboat wasn't an anomaly, it was a steamboat, and given a reflective inversion layer I'm not sure that even the improved software would filter that out, because how could it, if the radar is reflecting off of a real, moving object? You could put in a speed filter to filter out slower moving objects, but that would also filter out things like helicopters if they were just hovering, so that might not be such a good idea.

a reply to: AthlonSavage
Here's the thing, ever hear of the "Belgian Wave" where there were a lot of UFOs on radar?

Those should have been the easiest radar signatures of all to filter out, because at times they were "flying" below ground level "underground". So you would think they would filter that out, wouldn't you? But apparently they didn't, and made a big deal out of that. Even the pro-UFO organization SOBEPs finally admitted most of the radar data showed the "UFOs" were "flying" underground, and most of the data could be dismissed as faulty. But you rarely hear about that.

Obviously radar is highly useful as a tool, so I'm not trying to dismiss that utility in any way. On the other hand, some people try to attribute an infallible nature to it that simply has no basis in fact. I could go through many more cases where the capabilities of radar are exaggerated, and I'm sure any true radar experts you want to interview can confirm and describe in detail what the limitations are.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I suppose as UFO detectors, radars are pretty useless. How would you tell difference between a false return and an alien craft capable of all kinds of crazy maneuvers? What's the difference between alien metal and clouds? You would need an alien craft signature (if that's the correct terminology) to detect alien crafts and with 50 or so different alien species with hundreds of different UFO models flying around, where do you start? And who said alien craft cant fly underground?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its like this either its time to move to using technology to study Ufos seriously or not. I say passive radar is the right direction to move in if governments are not going to want to lend their radar resources freely to the studying this phenomenon.

Science is about using the best tools within a scope of what is practical from a cost perspective to gather data. Passive radar will provide a tool, and like anything technological tool design its design will be go through a series of evolutions to refine its accuracy and reliability. The data collected from its use is highly critical to improving the design of the system, and understanding its limitations and working on ways to mitigate the inaccuracies through design or operating practices.

This is how designs work and if you done any form of design of your life you would know that. The arguments your putting forward are a not solid basis for Ufology to not adopt passive radar into its suite of tools for studying the phenomena.

Your trying to put together a spamm argument why Ufology should not adopt this tool and I understand your motivate clearly, it comes through time and time again in posts on the Ufo subjects.

a reply to: AthlonSavage
I don't know anything about radar but I understand data. Where I am confused is how would you know what to filter? There really is no baseline. In the radar cases I have seen, the data is erratic or weak. It also doesn't help if UFOs are reported to be "cloaked" or in some other transient state. What are you looking for exactly? It seems like we can only detect them if we understand what to look for.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I suppose as UFO detectors, radars are pretty useless.

I wouldn't say they are useless. You can use them like in the Washington DC case where you get an unknown on radar, and vector a plane to make a visual ID on the object, which in the example above was a steamboat. In other cases it could be something else, but I think the visual confirmation of the object would be helpful. So I'm not arguing against using radar, and I don't think it's useless. I'm just saying it would be helpful to get some kind of confirmation of what the radar is telling you before you get too excited and think a steamboat is a UFO.

And who said alien craft cant fly underground?

Whether they can or not isn't the question. We know that the radar used in that case is not ground penetrating radar, so therefore data indicating underground "flight" from that radar must be erroneous. There are ground penetrating radar devices, but they have a significantly different design than the radar used for monitoring air traffic, and furthermore they are subject to even more limitations than air traffic radars. For example, some types of more conductive soils block their signals.