Getting the evidence

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It should go without saying to anyone who thinks there are real UFOs not of human origin and wants their existence known to the public that there should be a civilian redo of Project Twinkle done with modern equipment. But rather than using expensive cinetheodolites, it could be done with three video cameras, each with a telescopic zoom lens and motorized pan/tilt mount, all three controlled by a single operator from a computer anywhere so that operation can be done in shifts, perhaps a few hours a week per team member.

The software could look something like the figure below (I left out some widgets and readout displays), allowing the operator to aim all three cameras remotely by moving the apex of the red pyramid with the mouse. Azimuth and elevation would be displayed for each of the three frames, and the target's size, altitude, and location would be computed and displayed by the software. Zooming would also be done by the operator, using the program. Each camera station would, of course, be connected to a computer, and the operator at any given time would be remotely operating those three computers via the Internet.

The system would very likely not be able to measure the speed of a target darting away unless the operator were lucky enough to stay with it or pick it up again quickly, cases for which the software would have features to support. The software could also have an alarm to alert the operator when a target first appears. The software would have settings for the exact locations of the three stations, determined beforehand by GPS, and be able to triangulate to produce the desired data to go with the video. And since the software would aim the cameras, it would generate the required azimuth and elevation data, eliminating the need to import that information from expensive theodolites.

Verification of the system and operator practice would be done by targeting ordinary airplanes or balloons at first. Once the system is operational, anything captured that looked like a secret U.S. craft would not be reported, nor would a helicopter hoisting a cow. The target is so-called flying saucers.

Such a project should be set up and administered by some person or organization already widely known, respected, and trusted in this field, who would then seek out people with knowledge of the equipment, software development, etc. The three camera stations should be miles apart, perhaps surrounding Los Alamos or Sandia (for the clear skies and possible interest to the targets). Once set up, the project could run for as long as it takes. Once a target has been captured and verified, weather data should be obtained and an FOIA request for radar data submitted immediately. Captured frames with acquired data could then be published, and the weather and radar data, as well as a description and even the source code for the software, could be made available for examination.





posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
It should go without saying to anyone who thinks there are real UFOs not of human origin and wants their existence known to the public that there should be a civilian redo of Project Twinkle done with modern equipment. But rather than using expensive cinetheodolites, it could be done with three video cameras, each with a telescopic zoom lens and motorized pan/tilt mount, all three controlled by a single operator from a computer anywhere so that operation can be done in shifts, perhaps a few hours a week per team member.



Can you give a rough idea how much would this cost (initially and to run - assuming the system would be run by volunteers rather than paid employees)?

Where would the funding come from?

By the way, you may be familiar with the limited number of projects that have attempted to film UFOs in alleged hotspots for reports - e.g. Project Hessdalen:
www.hessdalen.org/



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 

Would this be unofficially official? What about chain of custody? Who is going to watch the watchers? And, the disinfo types would still "debunk" it on the internet. Good idea, but hard to render in actuality, especially in the digital age.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Plain theodolites are from $800 to $10,000, but motorized pan/tilt mounts are around $130 to $230, and each of the three camera owners would have to have one. The idea here is that since the software controls the mounts, the unique function of the theodolites is provided by the software, drastically reducing the cost. And everybody should already have a computer. If I want to join a rock band, it's a good bet I'd have to bring my own instrument, not that a famed ufologist couldn't ask Steven Spielberg and George Lucas to go in halves for a grant.

And if someone wants to use such video in a documentary or whatever and pay some money, then those who paid for the camera equipment should get most, if not all, of that. It's not my project. It's up to whomever bites and wants to do this.

reply to post by intrptr
 


What's to debunk? If results are obtained, where they came from is open and honest, backed up by weather and FOIA radar data, and access to the software and its source code. Every photo would have the time, GPS camera location, azimuth, and elevation stamped on it by the software. If it looks like a Lubbock plover, a debunker is free to say so. But if it looks like a flying saucer and has all those data to go with it, well, even debunkers can change their minds if the evidence is strong. The author of The Obituary of the Flying Saucers did when he had a personal sighting in front of witnesses.

Who watches the watchers? ATS (and maybe the MIBs).
edit on 18-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Why re-invent the wheel?

As I posted here there are already systems running that can do all of these things, even calculate the orbits of objects entering our atmosphere:


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
There are networks of cameras all over the world right now designed to catch phenomena such as meteors.

Multi-station networks with cameras separated by a few tens of km can automatically capture and even work out the orbit of an object without anyone having to lift a finger once they are up and running. The rather aptly named "UFO-capture" software used as standard today has some quite neat features.

Many multi-station meteors and fireballs have been captured over the years, but so far no UFO's. The numbers of networks is growing year by year, so who knows...

Unfortunately, in most cases we only have the witnesses word for what they saw, and triangulation is not possible, although, as I said above, in a few years time there will probably be lots more area covered by cameras.

NASA is one organization that is expanding it's network currently. A few months back they were asking people for suggestions/permission to position their cameras at suitable sites.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
It should go without saying to anyone who thinks there are real UFOs not of human origin and wants their existence known to the public that there should be a civilian redo of Project Twinkle done with modern equipment. But rather than using expensive cinetheodolites, it could be done with three video cameras, each with a telescopic zoom lens and motorized pan/tilt mount, all three controlled by a single operator from a computer anywhere so that operation can be done in shifts, perhaps a few hours a week per team member.


It's kind of a touchy subject for me, it was a touchy subject for the Bennewitz family knowing that they refused to talk. Greg Bishop says that the government made this awesome scientist to believe in alien implants. He figured out the implant himself. This is touchy to me because it really happened, and Greg is saying otherwise to the world.


A case history of an Encounter Victim in New Mexico which lead to the communication link and discovery that apparently all encounter victims have deliberate alien implants along with obvious accompanying scars. The victim's implants were verified by x-ray and Cat Scan. Five other scar cases were also verified. - Scientist Dr. Bennewitz in 1981
edit on 18-12-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
More evidence will not buy us anything. We have a ton of evidence, but no proof. Proof is what we need and it can never come from more evidence, no matter what elaborate mechanism is put in place to gather it. Even if SETI were to pick up a broadcast that basically gave us a decipherable message, that is not even proof.

The only proof comes from hard physical evidence that you, and everyone else can touch. How that may happen is quite a debate, but until that day comes, it will always be the way it stands currently.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
@C.H.U.D. Regarding Arbitrgeur's comment about the difficulty in aiming three theodolites in the thread you linked, I addressed that issue in my OP, where the software allows an operator at a computer anywhere in the world to move the apex of the pyramid with a mouse, whereupon the three connected computers that control the motorized pan/tilt camera mounts adjust the aim of the cameras according to the position of the target, keeping it center of frame in all three received images, since the computer at the operator's end, not theodolites, generates the aiming data in response to operator control. The operator's computer also sends zooming signals to the three camera-control PCs in response to operator control. That's one innovation of the proposal I made in the OP. It reduces equipment cost and allows smooth, synchronized aiming of the cameras by a single operator. The software also does the triangulation and provides time, azimuth, and elevation data for each frame that can be rechecked if anyone doubts the ability of the software to calculate the altitude, size, and location of the target, even though saving of images with the information attached is best done at each camera-control computer. Each operator would be only on duty for one hour at a time and could be at home, thousands of miles from the three cameras.

I know about the skywatch cameras. We know there are regulations about making sightings public, such as JANAP 146(E) and AFR200-2, and probably others elsewhere in the world. But antidisclosure people in government can also make convincing arguments to the director of a facility without making personal threats that making sightings public is not in the public interest. The Project Twinkle photos were never made public.

I also remember some newspaper articles from Canada about witnesses that were outraged by the debunking claims of the director of a meteor-tracking facility after the witnesses had cooperated fully and filled out forms and answered all the questions asked. I never did get to see any follow-up, but it was an extended sighting with various movements of an unknown mostly hovering and not-too-distant object, which the scientist claimed was a meteor despite the descriptions of the witnesses.

So there is plenty of doubt about what they will tell the public.

@charlyv If it’s hard, physical evidence you require, like pieces of a saucer that can be tested in a laboratory, well, there is a way to try to go out and get it, with no guarantee of success: Not quite the same as “Occupy Wall Street,” but a long group hike along the presumed path along which a damaged saucer might have continued on after depositing the debris in the Roswell case, with people walking perhaps 20 abreast 10 feet apart, with SUVs carrying supplies, taking video going out live on the Web, and ready to medevac any participant if necessary, in a massive effort to find one little piece of that “magic foil” Jesse Marcel described that the cleanup (and ETs themselves) failed to pick up, even though such a piece might be 50 or more miles away and not causing reflections visible from the air because of being covered with a little sand. It’s long shot, and a lot of ground to cover, but if Major Marcel was telling the truth, there should be something out there somewhere even today. The idea is that such pieces wouldn’t be deeply buried but just covered with an inch or so of sand. Crazy? Futile? Maybe, but something to do. If it really was Project Mogul, there won’t be any magic foil--maybe just some antique coins or diamonds or something.

edit on 19-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I like this idea. Technology that can do this is becoming afordable enough where common folk can do this themselves. I always thought survalance cameras and equipment of all kinds should be in use around the homes of Abductees. Since abductions seem to happen repeatedly and run in families, it would seem like the chances of capturing something would be high. That this is not done is baffling to me.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


I think you have a good idea in general, but making it work might be tougher than you think. I just think the most important data can be gathered without having to track and zoom in on the object in question. ie using a standard multi-camera network.



Originally posted by xpoq47
I also remember some newspaper articles from Canada about witnesses that were outraged by the debunking claims of the director of a meteor-tracking facility after the witnesses had cooperated fully and filled out forms and answered all the questions asked. I never did get to see any follow-up, but it was an extended sighting with various movements of an unknown mostly hovering and not-too-distant object, which the scientist claimed was a meteor despite the descriptions of the witnesses.

So there is plenty of doubt about what they will tell the public.


It's actually extremely common for people to misinterpret what they see when they see meteors. Especially bright ones, as I pointed out in my thread.

Did you know that a meteor can appear to stand still or "hover" ? Of course, they don't really stand still, but it can look like they are, and I don't think the majority of people can be expected to know this.

I also see people severely underestimating distances to meteors on a regular basis, so I don't think it's a case of data being covered up, but rather that people do not make very good witnesses when it comes to meteors.

If it's a coverup, then it must have been going for more than 100 years because scientific journals of the time record that astronomers were frustrated with people reporting meteorite falls just near by to them, when in fact they had fallen 10's of miles away.

Anyway I think it's great that you are trying to set up a network so that you can find out for yourself. Good luck



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


I've given some thought to technical issues like misbehaving camera pixels, birds/insects, Windows bloat, and speed of the software, pan/tilt, and data transfer, and come up with some conventional and some unconventional solutions, and also thought of a way to automate it in a way that concentrates on hovering objects that may dart around. Maybe I'll make a proof-of-concept program that lets the user control a UFO within a block of sky 100 miles x 100 miles x 50,000 feet and see how well it can reestablish aim from three ground positions when a hovering UFO makes sudden 20-mile jumps. I came up with a cheap trick for drastically speeding that up, too.

If meteor skywatch can and will do the job, I’m all for it, but in the 2008 Stephanville, Texas case, the FAA radar obtained through an FOIA request confirmed the movement of the object and pursuit by USAF jets. What did we get on that case from meteor skywatch?

edit on 20-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


Your biggest nemesis, in regards to robotic software theodolites, with servo motors --- is rain. Moisture will seep into the electronic innards of a robotic theodolite; causing it to have major malfunctions.

Your best bet, is to have all three robotic stations manned by human personnel; because these robots can get to be a bit twitchy at times.

Good luck,

Erno86

edit on 20-12-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


What I was thinking in that regard was that each one would be set on a cheap wooden table in the owner's back yard, and the camera mount would be fixed to a piece of plywood with a wooden frame that fit over the tabletop so that it would only be outdoors on clear days and perhaps be brought in when nobody was home to avoid theft, as well. The table would stay outside in the same position, with its GPS location registered with the program.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
Your biggest nemesis, in regards to robotic software theodolites, with servo motors --- is rain.


Your second biggest nemesis, as always, is the government and their Air Force. Even if you manage to clearly capture a flying whatchamajigger doing amazing, spectacular feats of stratospheric skill -- including going invisible, changing shape, zooming away at high speeds, etc. -- you will never be able to determine whether or not they are home grown. And that that point, unless you want to do the high-tech equivalent of trainspotting, it's all just a waste of time.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Erno86
Your biggest nemesis, in regards to robotic software theodolites, with servo motors --- is rain.


Your second biggest nemesis, as always, is the government and their Air Force. Even if you manage to clearly capture a flying whatchamajigger doing amazing, spectacular feats of stratospheric skill -- including going invisible, changing shape, zooming away at high speeds, etc. -- you will never be able to determine whether or not they are home grown. And that that point, unless you want to do the high-tech equivalent of trainspotting, it's all just a waste of time.



I have to disagree, that it would be a "waste of time," by trying to capture a picture or triangulation, location videos of an other-worldly craft. Granted.... you have to be in the right place and the right time, and you would also probably have to purchase a radar system; { that is if ET starships are non- stealthy}. For starters the cost of such a triangulation video radar system: My guess--- $250,000 dollars and up.

If the federal government refuses to release any evidence of full ET disclosure, the U.S. public, will have to rely on basic Mom & Pop organizations, to break-up the reign of ET suppressed evidence; by the United States Federal government.

Could you please explain the definition of --- "trainspotting."

Thanks,

Erno86

edit on 20-12-2011 by Erno86 because: changed cost estimate
edit on 20-12-2011 by Erno86 because: added non-stealthy



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 



You will probably need a more expensive cinetheodolite, than the first generation robot theodolite that I run; while working on a survey crew. You need the theodolite that floats slightly on a electromagnetic field, on top of the survey tripod; which gives it the abilitly to rotate very fast.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
Could you please explain the definition of --- "trainspotting."


Like they do in England where there are still a lot of vintage train locomotives running around the tracks, and people go out and look for them, kind of like bird watching. This would be like that, except you'd be tracking various jets and things, mostly commercial but the occasional private or Air Force jet here and there. Just to say you saw them.

See, the thing about UFOs is that we already have plenty of evidence, and some of it is actually pretty good. The problem is that nobody knows what it's evidence of. It has a bad tendency to not come together into a coherent package. We have an eyewitness. Or a photo. Or a landing trace. But we never get them all together, which might be a clue in and of itself.

What kind of thing appears out of and vanishes into thin air, can be seen and photographed, but then just disappears? Something from (for lack of a better term) another dimension? It fits the evidence better than UFOs from another planet.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What kind of thing appears out of and vanishes into thin air, can be seen and photographed, but then just disappears? Something from (for lack of a better term) another dimension? It fits the evidence better than UFOs from another planet.

That's definitely one explanation for lots of cases. There is always cloaking too, of course.

I also don't think that the ETH, EDH or the time travel hypotheses are mutually exclusive. After all, as we develop more and more advanced technology surely "extra-dimensional" and time (after all a "dimension" itself) travel of some form will become a reality. Bear in mind also that in the vastness of the universe, in all of the past and possibly "all" of the future, possibly in all of the "parallel" universes somewhere beings both similar to, different to and possibly our own future selves MUST SURELY have developed said technology.

If you followed that, that is why I think the EDH, ETH debate may be a red-herring argument. Maybe the answer is you can't get inter-stellar travel without an inter-dimensional aspect to the required technology?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Well, in support of the ETH against the EDH or time travel (TTH?), an estimate of the gravitational footprint of a classic flying saucer (weight distributed on a circle encompassed by the bottom of its lower rim) is 5.14 pounds per square foot (just over 5 tons if 50 ft. dia.). But the best measurement of the Casimir effect (uncharged in a vacuum) is 2,160 pounds per square foot if two highly polished test discs are 10 nanometers apart (1,080 pounds per square foot in each direction). This force is greater if two discs are even closer together and weaker if they are farther apart. (A high-quality suction cup with contact area of 1 square foot can also theoretically support a load of 2,160 pounds at sea level.)

Even with the best technological trickery to dynamically deplete some of the so-called virtual particles above such a saucer, only a tiny portion the potential 1,080 pounds per square foot could be gained to support the craft in flight against the Earth's gravity, where 0.00476% of that amount would have to be achieved just to make the craft hover and a whopping 0.476% to make it shoot straight up at 99 g (although g-force should not affect anything inside, since that would be like 99-g freefall straight up). That's an awful lot to ask but doesn't require interdimensional beings or materials (or even simply holographic projections of UFOs in our skies by unknown perpetrators), not to mentiton time travel. And it may even require the difficult task of stimulating those virtual particles and capturing the resulting photons to help feed the tremendous power requirements of such machinery, unless an onboard power source such as antimatter would suffice.

This estimate for gravitational footprint is based on mass of a classic saucer according to analyses of imprints found in various landing cases where the weight required to create them (around 5 tons total for a reported 50-foot craft, as mentioned) would make hoaxing rather expensive, assuming 8 feet in height for a saucer 50 feet in diameter, and taking shape that includes a topside dome into account:

w (weight in pounds per cubic foot of water) = 62.4276

s (approximate weight per volume for a classic disc versus the same volume of water) = 0.86

h (percentage of cubic foot of volume per square foot of footprint) = 0.16

a (adjustment of h for typical shape, accounting for the topside dome) = 0.6

wsha = 5.154 pounds per square foot

So it’s a rough estimate and seems pretty heavy, suggesting a dense power core.

Physicists Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and Harold Puthoff have published various papers, without mentioning UFOs, on a possible relationship between those so-called virtual particles and not only gravity but also intertia, and how future interstellar spacecraft might be able to accelerate without experiencing g-force and without being limited to lightspeed.

One of them is here:

calphysics.org

edit on 24-12-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I spotted a couple of errors in my last post above past the time limit for editing. Sorry. EDH should have been IDH (interdimensional hypothesis), and those figures of 0.00476 and 0.476 were factors, not percentages. As percentages they should be 0.476% and 47.6%, respectively--a huge difference.

But I just had another thought about the interdimensional hypothesis, which is that in a few cases shadows cast on the ground have been mentioned, and an interdimensional object shouldn't be able to do that, at least not in the normal configuration. A vessel that had traveled back in time or from an alternate universe I suppose should be able to cast a normal shadow. Shadows have been seen in some photos, but picking out even one genuine photo from the mountain of hoaxes/unclear images is virtually impossible.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join