It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New UFO Research Techniques and Proposals

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:56 PM
As an acknowledgement to Hal9000, who suggested I do this, I expect his participation in this discussion. The purpose for
this topic is to suggest alternate methods of research, preferably scientific, and to discuss the viability of each method. To keep
the forum on topic, please start your post with the "option number" for which you will discuss. I am reserving the first three option numbers,
after which any other ideas will be optioned as they appear. If you wish to discuss existing methods of UFO research, simply
use "current" or "existing." Generic inputs to the topic which fall outside existing or option discussion number should be identified
as "generic". Apology if this sounds kinda formal but I am trying to organize in advance. While I am open to any and all
ideas, I am not a garbage disposal. I am biased in the sense that "if you cant measure it, it aint real".

With that introduction, I shall kick off the first post below with what I term Option 1, followed by some quotes from Hal (in case he gets
cold feet) regarding option 1.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:58 PM
Option 1. (This reply will discuss option 1. as indicated. It also originates the option)
Title of option one is optional but here:

The Ufologist's Model (Option 1)

When studying an unknown, attempt to model it. Keep improving the model until it predicts the
real situation.

Model summary: Assuming an advance designed starship has crashed and been recovered, make a model
that can predict results of such an event.

(a) High technology (500 plus years ahead of present)
(b) Hazardous/Toxic
(c) Reverse engineering will compete in a mix of superstition and religion.
(d) keep it secret

Model objectives:
(a) Predict effect on society, social, technology, religious, etc...
(b) Determine characteristics of reverse engineering successes as a template to identify potential candidates from "normal" technology advances.
(c) identify candidate technologies from modern society that match the templates above.

Reverse engineering is a strange term to use on technology that is well beyond our own. It normally means to use
existing principles and knowledge to study another groups use of those same attributes in their design. What
happens when the design is way beyond the principles and knowledge of your best minds? That is what this model
is all about. And, how we shall cheat. We will know all the things the best minds of the day do not, as we will have
direct knowledge of the technology that crashed.

So, for our first model, the "skycraft" that will crash will be a Northrup Grumman B-2. It is 500 years ahead of the technology of the day.
It is going to crash in Elizabethan England, just to make the model charming.

Background for the non-British folk

Life in Elizabethan England

By extrapolating possible knowledge gained by Elizabethan England folk, we will have an idea of what and where we need
to look today for EVIDENCE of starship influence on todays society.

Clear ?

(This option first appeared in Hal9000's PJ discussion forum - a good read as well.)

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:59 PM
Option 1.

I include these comments from Hal on Option one just to insure he keeps his promise to participate.

"I went back to review your proposal and although it would be an intriguing exercise, it would be too speculative.

But the problem with a model is there needs to be a pattern of behavior that can be modeled. The only part of the exercise
that can be modeled is how people would react. Just a minor alteration at any point could cause various outcomes, and anyone
could manipulate factors until they get the outcome they want. I know you wanted to do this to disprove the story of Roswell.
Regardless of how unbiased we would try to be it would still be biased. Even if we went through the exercise to predict an outcome,
I don’t think it would prove anything. " == Hal9000

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
As Nightwing said those were my comments on his proposal, and I still stand by them, but I will re-format for easier reading.

Originally posted by Hal9000
But the problem with a model is there needs to be a pattern of behavior that can be modeled. The only part of the exercise that can be modeled is how people would react. Just a minor alteration at any point could cause various outcomes, and anyone could manipulate factors until they get the outcome they want. I know you wanted to do this to disprove the story of Roswell. Regardless of how unbiased we would try to be it would still be biased. Even if we went through the exercise to predict an outcome, I don’t think it would prove anything.

I just don't think that much can be gained from this approach. One difference we may have nightwing, is the overall goal of the research. I think the goal should be to determine the nature of the phenomenon. But with the model you propose, the goal is to determine the social impact on humans of a crash of an alien craft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't think our goals are the same.

Also most scientific models I am familiar with are in the form of theories accompanied with equations. You enter variables into the equation and out pops an answer. Now if the answer matches the observed outcome repeatedly, then you have a working model. I just don’t see how you would do this with the variables your proposing. Maybe if you showed me an example, it would help me to understand.

Meanwhile, I will add my own proposal.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:39 PM
This is actually a pretty intriguing avenue to take nightwing. It is certainly a fresh idea and perspective in examining the idea of the process of discovery, coverup, reverse-engineering, etc. When time permits (to do it properly), I'll post my stab at this one.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:48 PM
Recreating Earthlight Phenomenon.

I would propose trying to recreate the various Earthlight phenomenons, and see if they behave the same as other observed phenomenon. Nicola Tesla built several devices that I think could be experimented with. It might not be possible, but we won’t know unless someone tries. Earthlights are only one aspect of the phenomenon, but it is one I think could be solved. Unfortunately, this type of research requires a lot of time and money, and is why is has not been done yet.

Nicola Tesla created some of greatest inventions in history. It is because of him, that we are using electricity in the form of alternating current rather than direct current. Some of his inventions we are familiar with, for example: the AC electric motor, the Tesla coil, and the transformer. Some of his more bizarre inventions are wireless power generators, plasma generators, and the infamous death ray. He experimented with high-energy devices that I believe could be used as a basis for generating Earthlights, specifically Balls of Light. If it is possible to generate them, it would be possible to study them in detail and determine how they are formed.

As it turns out, there is a place where they occur, and people have been studying them for some time now. We have been discussing it on this thread.

The research they are doing at Hessdalen could be repeated using “manufactured” BOL’s and see if they exhibit the same behavior as the one’s observed there.

It sounds a little far fetched, but who knows it might be crazy enough to work.

[edit on 10/13/2005 by Hal9000]

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:59 PM
Generic Posting

Hal, Thanks for referencing the source thread for this one. I forgot.
And I will throw out some starter comments to your critique of option 1 in another post. This one is a collection
of thoughts as to how and why we proceed.

"It is certainly a fresh idea and perspective in examining the idea of ..." == Gazrok

Exactly. And as Hal has already shown, I cant be the sole holder of new ideas. Lets get them all in here for
documenting NEW ways to solve an old irritant. And PLEASE DO make a stab at option 1. I will amplify as to
how in my answer to Hal's critique.

"Recreating Earthlight Phenomenon." == Hal9000
An excellent response, and in the realm of science. Recreating Earthlight Phenomenon is hereby designated
Option 4 (submission by Hal9000)

lost shaman and I have jointly arrived at Option 3, which is also a scientific endeavor, but I will leave the
submission and a Title for it to him. Hate to dissappoint you Hal but Option 1 was never intended to
counter Roswell at all. See my later post on it. Just to get Gazrok wound up, my response to Roswell
will be Option 2.

Nw's rule of thumb for thinking outside the box:
The universe is what it is, it cannot lie or intentionally decieve, and observations of it, once understood, we shall call science.
Intelligence is not necessarily what it is, can lie and decieve, and observations of it we shall call controlled speculation. (legalistic observation may be another useful term)
Legalism is not useful to science since the universe cannot lie or decieve.
There is no rule I know of to prevent the use of science in legalism, other than caution, and doing so will always be out-of-the-box.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:29 PM
As nightwing mentioned Option 3 originated as a joint effort between him and I.

Option 3

Mobile Automated Research Station

Modeled loosely on the success of the Hessdalen AMS and Tornado Chasers, the MARS would allow researchers to collect Data sets from any given area that is accessible by existing roadways.

Ideally the MARS would collect data in real time by means of automated or triggered sensors and instruments, record the data collected and up-load that data via the net to researchers. The MARS vehicle should be reasonably mobile with the intent of allowing the opportunistic collection of data when and where that opportunity presents itself.

Project Hessdalen - Hessdalen AMS Info

[edit on 14-10-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:23 AM
Option 2. Time correlation functions

(Co-created by Gazrok, like it or not Gaz. You gave me the idea over our long standing disagreements
about what constitutes evidence and scientific data. If I allow that testimony can be scientific data, or at
least treated that way, then we have a lot more ways of looking at the "data".)

In data analysis, where different measurements must be correlated, there has to be an external universal
time code standard for correlation, whether it be IRIG, GT, UTC, or GPS. Measurement data is time stamped initially
with an internal counter which starts at a significant event. This can be many types of data, but to give an idea of
correlation, lets say we are rocket scientists and we have accelerometers and strain gages on the rocket, radar
tracking and photo-optic tracking on the ground, and high resolution photography as well. The rocket comes
apart. (Boom) We wish to examine all the data to try and determine the cause of Boom. We do NOT just
look at it. Telemetry data from the rocket ends with Boom. Key data is assumed to be right before Boom.
All telemetry data is time tagged at receipt, lets say with IRIG (Inter Range Instrumentation Group) timing standard
B code. We have configured our radar and optical tracking data to be externally stamped with IRIG. Our photography
is high resolution film, 125 frame per second, and time stamped with IRIG in the film margin. Now we start.
All data, regardless of type, has the SAME external time reference. The internal counters are reference checks
for each datum type to events. The EXTERNAL time is the correlation time between datum types. Once the
data for each datum type is matched to IRIG, we can sorta lay them side by side, and cross correlate data types.

If you got thru that without falling asleep, we are gonna make our first stab at it for Roswell. All testimony on Roswell
is now a datum. And EVERY testimony MUST be a different datum type. IF we are to do a credible data analysis
on Roswell we MUST be able to lay all these datum types side by side using an EXTERNAL timing standard. Now
dont snarl and bite me, Gaz, because I do NOT mean this to be an attack on your Roswell series, quite the opposite.
You did a rather remarkable job in there of setting up a time frame of events from testimonies. If you can make the
jump to data analysis, then you can see that you used the INTERNAL counter as the EXTERNAL time standard
for correlation, and did not even use the EXTERNAL time correlation at all. Although you mention the EXTERNAL
timing on occasion, it seems to be there only as commentary. With testimony we have two time standards available
to us. We have the Testimony of Dates (Which is the internal counter and was very well assembled to provide your
sequence of events) What I have yet to see anyone bother with is the external time standard, which is crucial for data
analysis. It is the Dates of Testimony. Once the data is externally time tagged, then lay it side by side and you
will see the "forcing" functions associated with "multiple" events.

So in a NUTSHELL, let me line up option two with a slight misquote from Jefferson Airplane's famous "White Rabbit"

There is Dates of Testimony..........and...........There is Testimony of Dates.

One pill makes you larger.............and the other pill makes you small
And the ones that your Air Force gives you.............dont do anything at all.

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:59 PM
Pre-Option One. Base for Scientific Comparison

nightwing - May I suggest that instead of looking outward, look inward first to see what mankind is perfectly capable of doing now in the biological and aerospace sciences. It's my belief that a significant number of people on this forum don't realize how close we are to regenerating entire limbs or how far non invasive surgeries have come just to name a few.

By noting our current capacities, you essentialy have a base of technological standards to use as a reference base. What mankind can and can not do because of societal and political pressures It's about having a benchmark. Cloning, nano technologies, stem cells etc. Also the significant advances in engineering in aeronautics and where those will be in 10 years and how they will effect us.

Compare these finding with those proposed for alien findings and make objective scientific comparisons.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by nullster]

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:39 PM
nullster, while I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful critique of Option One, I am wondering if you realize that you are actually
introducing a NEW option. I was hoping this kinda thinking would happen. Quite often, the critique of one approach will
yield quite a different one. While you have your thinking cap on, follow thru a bit more on your idea and you will see that
the results from your proposal might have an entirely different result from what I intended option one to have. Option one
was intended to be a wide open, many fasceted model with multiple uses. The primary use I should have explained a bit more.
It was to find technologies that can be "introduced" into society and then look for the characteristics of "introduced" technologies.
The assumption made is that it doesnt matter who or what "introduces" technology. The characteristics are assumed to be the
same. It seems to me that your approach would be more likely to characterize our base technology advancement rate, if followed
through. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that your input was not a critique, but a totally different approach. If you wish to
introduce it as such, Option Five is reserved for your idea, if you want to do such a write up. Once we start seriously discussing the real
critiques, and implimentations, I would expect more options will show as well.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:21 AM
Option 6- Set a trap to draw our prey out into the open.

*This has been a idea which I have pondered about many a night. *

GOAL: What we are trying to do is get some kind of data or evidence or whatever we can about UFOs so that we may be able to study it.

Assertions: Extremely credible eye witness testimony is available to show that UFOs have shown a vested interest in SOME of the following...

...nuclear missle silos, nuclear bomb storage facilities, nuclear reactors, placed where uranium and plutonium are being enriched, people who are miles away or isolated from the cities.

Proposal: We set a trap to draw our prey out into the open, where we may better study, observe, and record it.

As humans, since the very beginning we have survived by being the most capable hunters on the planet. However, now we have met our ultimate challenge someone or something who is possibly foreign to our planet who seems to ellude us.

I know that my proposal seems a bit far fetched and maybe even impossible to outwit a being vastly more inteligent than us. However, I firmly believe that there is important information in UFO sightings. Why are UFOs seen poking around near nuclear missle silos and nuclear missle storage facilites. I believe that they show interest in specific parts of our civilization. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THIS INFORMATION THAT WE CAN USE TO INVESTIGATE THEM.
I firmly believe that this is a proposal which would work given that adequate research and analysis is done into the sightings or UFOS and testimony of those who see UFOs.

.....Just my two cents...Thanks for listening!

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:37 AM
Re: Op 6 -

Maverick10 ,

Nice insight.

I think that your proposal is actually worth looking into.

Read this...


This interest specifically expressed itself in certain experts being sent to

investigate, especially to those places where UFOs, let's call them that,

appeared quite frequently. I know a whole number of military bases in that

category. As a rule they are objects of strategic significance, rocket

complexes, scientific test establishments, in other words the places where

there is a high concentration of advanced science and, to some degree,

danger. Because every nuclear rocket, every new Air force installation

represents a breakthrough both in science and in military terms; it is first

and foremost a peak, the summit of human achievement. And that is where

UFOs appeared fairly often. Moreover, individual officers and commanders

on the spot who knew about the phenomenon and had no official

instructions on the matter, acted on their own initiative to investigate

UFOs, recording data, and so on. I know that in some places they even

learned to create a situation which would deliberately provoke the

appearance of a UFO. A UFO would appear where there was increased

military activity connected, say, with the transportation of "special" loads.

It was enough (to) artificially stimulate or schedule such a move for a UFO to

appear. In other words, some kind of conditional relationship emerged.

And they detected it.

You could even use Option 3 to accomplish Option 6.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:14 AM
"You could even use Option 3 to accomplish Option 6. " == lost shaman

And that is an illustration of what I meant by seeing new options show up when the serious discussions start.

Great work Maverick10, and being a hunter myself, I have somewhat of a natural bias towards your option.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:26 AM
That was a great post that you put up lost shaman in regards to the military finding a way to make UFOs appear. To be honest, I always knew it was possible for us to make them appear we just need to spark their interest. And I think that anyone could really do it, you just need to have the materials that they find of interest. So I believe it to be very possible, however, they seem to be interested in nuclear material, something which is extemely hard to get a hold of.

Nevertheless...UFOs have shown themselves to countless other people, and I'm sure that there had to be some reason behind it. A serious analysis needs to be done of these situations to figure out what exactly it was they they were interested Brazil(Operation Prato), the sightings in Belgium, the sightings in Mexico, the sightings other places.

So they are definately interested in things other than weapons and military, but what is it???

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Maverick10
So they are definately interested in things other than weapons and military, but what is it???

I also think your idea is excellent.

As far as what else they may be interested in, it could be tectonic activity. In Mexico there have been many sightings near volcanoes. Other possibilities could be energy vortexes, like intersecting ley lines, but I don't know much about them. I have only heard of them, and don't know if they have been proven scientifically. These would probably be more accessible locations to set the trap, because obviously military installations and the like are restricted.

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:25 PM
Option 7 Data Base Utilization and Management

One thing that always strikes me as useful, is that there has been no lack of folks willing to keep
sighting records. Most are in the public domain I believe (might be wrong here). And I think
to this very day, everyone sorta follows Ruppelt's Bluebook techniques. For a Data Base to be
useful, it has to be formatted and accessable to serve a specific purpose. So the purpose of
Option 7 would be to format sighting reports into a Data Base to serve a specific purpose.

To show a specific purpose, lets take Option Three above as an example. The MARS
would be well served if it could call up an instant data base of sightings for each area it is sent
to. Such things as probability for UFO sightings in the area, multiple sightings for the area,
are examples of things that a MARS data base would used to provide. The Management part is the
most controversial. Just as in Ruppelt's day, some reliability factor has to be assigned to the data or
it is worthless. It would also have to be managed to provide different probabilities for "types" of UFO's,
so we are back to a classification system. The more I think about this, the more I appreciate Ruppelt's
early efforts.

I also suspect Maverick10 can come up with ideas that he would like to see designed
into the data base format to serve Option Six as well.

Same for Option Four but I think Hal would rather
consult the data base for similiarities AFTER he has created his Earthlight. Then he would really have an idea
of how to scan and filter the data base for the rest of us.

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:55 AM
The problem with option 2 has to do with the way we as humans remember things.

Most of us remember the events, not necessarily the exact date, time, day of the week, etc. So, we must try and piece it together by what other things we know.

For example, I remember watching the planes hit the towers on 9/11. Had 9/11 not been ingrained with the event, I'd remember it happening "sometime in September" and this is only a few years after the event. I'd have to look up the day of the week it was (though I know it was a weekday, as I was at work...i.e. piecing it together by other things I know). Also, I'd be unsure of time...though I know it was in the morning.

Just because I can't remember the exact day of the week or the time of day, there is no doubt in my mind that the event happened.

That's exactly why nitpicking at the dates recalled or times, is simply an excuse.


log in