UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Aug > Aug 4

Re: Detecting UFOs Through 'Passive' Radar

From: Peter Davenport - NUFORC <director.nul>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:57:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:39:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Detecting UFOs Through 'Passive' Radar


>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:15:59 -0700
>Subject: Re: Detecting UFOs Through 'Passive' Radar

>>From: Peter B. Davenport - NUFORC <director.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:19:45 -0700
>>Subject: Detecting UFOs Through The Use Of 'Passive' Radar

>>To the List:

>>I have posted to the NUFORC website the paper I wrote for the
>>MUFON Symposium in Denver earlier this month. It pertains to the
>>remote detection of UFOs through the use of 'passive' radar.

>>In addition, I copy below some links to URLs, which discuss the
>>issue of passive radar:

<snip>

>Hello Peter:

>Now this is interesting!

>I had considered possible 'passive radar' in the past, but I was
>thinking of receivers in synchronization with existing radars,
>rather than the possibility of bounced signals from ordinary
>radio and TV transmitters.

>That is new to me, and very intriguing. I see this would require
>some massive computing power, but not entirely out of reach
>given advances in hardware, and (gulp!) availability of the
>pertinent software.

>The software may come available somehow, but I presume some
>special receiving antenna apparatus would be needed. Would that
>be something like a rotating dish, or a flat fixed array, or
>something else again? This sounds like big bucks for the little
>guy.

>I read most of the URLs provided (not the .pdf which is a mess
>for me) and it appears that this is being taken seriously.

>I like the stealth feature, no special radar beams, just ambient
>commercial transmitters etc. Like other ufo detection devices
>(magnetic anomaly sensors etc.) there remains the issue of
>'false positives. Hopefully, the advanced software would reduce
>those.

>If more develops from this, I'm sure others would like to hear
>about it.


To Ray, Larry, Kyle, Eleanor, and Errol:

Thank you all for the thoughtful comments, and thank you, Errol,
for the radio time on July 31st to discuss the "passive" system
I have proposed!

I commend Larry for his perspicacity on the matter of using
reflected ambient radar/radio transmissions, and I have stumbled
upon a handful of others who have ruminated along similar lines.
Jim Klotz, of the Computer UFO Network (www.cufon.org) is
another who was thinking along the same lines, and it was he who
provided me with some interesting information about top secret
symposia during the 1960's and '70's held on the subject of
"passive" radar. Obviously, Jim was thinking about the possible
application of "passive" detection when he requested the
materials through an FOIA request.

Frankly, I am more than just mildly surprised that no one put
forth the proposal years ago, since the CONCEPT of "passive"
radar seems rather simple, in my opinion. (Interestingly, the
first patent for a "passive" application of radar was applied
for, I'm told by an authority on the matter, in London in
1927!!) Even the construction is not a complex matter, as
witnessed by the relative simplicity of the systems that already
are in operation. It's the actual OPERATION of a "passive"
system that requires considerable resource, it turns out.

The only "hurdle" in the past to our building such a system has
been the computational power required...a minimum of about 10
giga-operations per second for a single station, operated on a
real-time basis. It has been only during the last several years
that such computer capability has been available to the average
consumer. However, a multi-static system requires considerably
more computer capability, since the number of computer
operations required...for real-time coverage...goes up
approximately geometrically, I'm guessing, with the number of
receiver stations in use. Since three-dimensional Doppler
analysis requires at least three receivers, real-time coverage
requires some rather hefty number-crunching capability.

However, for our purposes, during the early stage of the
project, real-time coverage is not necessary. We can collect
data sets for a period of time, and then analyze the data after
the fact. All we have to do is show that there are objects in
the near-Earth environment that do not fit the characteristics
of satellites, meteors, the ionosphere, migratory birds, crash
dummies, swamp gas, etc.. Once we have such data in hand, we
will have some rather powerful evidence, I believe, as to the
existence of, and apparently real nature of, UFO's.

This is a project I first proposed in January 1995, and no one
took notice...save for Mark Cashman, then SD for Connecticut,
who sent me an article on the subject. I then "formalized" my
proposal by publishing an article in the November 1999 issue of
the MUFON Journal. Frankly, I expected to be bowled over with
response...but nothing, absolutely nothing...from the
readership!! Finally, ten weeks after the issue had been
delivered to everyone's mailbox, I received a note of interest
from Richard Vitello, MUFON member from Indiana (??), and a ham
operator, about the proposed system. I received no other
queries!!

Karla's suggestion of mobile units is an attractive one, but the
system I have proposed is not yet built, and we first have to
learn to "crawl," before we will be able to "walk" with it.
However, given what the GPS system, combined with wireless
internet, permits, her proposal is not out of the question.
However, I must add that I don't believe that there are UFO
"hotspots" that would deserve special coverage. Moreover, given
that the system might be able to detect a disc 10-meters in
diameter out to the distance that the Moon is from the Earth,
the issue of the location of a UFO, relative to a point on the
surface of the Earth, really is a moot point. Also, the first
system will be tailored for detecting targets that are tens,
hundreds, or thousands of miles above the Earth's surface, not
close to the ground.

I have assembled a small team of electrical engineers,
physicists, and computer types to assist in the construction of
the first system. The team is being "counseled" by a person who
is a specialist in the field, and who already has built a
"passive" system, so the current manpower needs for building the
first system are satisfied, at least as things stand now.

What I foresee for the project is a network of perhaps half a
dozen stations, which will feed into a common website. I would
like to see the operation of the stations in the hands of the
various major UFO organizations, all of which will feed their
"hits" to a common website. Hence, anyone on the web will have
access to accurate, objective data regarding detection of
UFO's...absent the need for eyewitness accounts, which I
consider to be the "weak link" of ufology. I suspect most of us
would agree on the latter point.

The greatest satisfaction I think I will derive from the
project, if it is successful, is that it removes the virtual
monopoly on "hard" data that governments presently enjoy in the
realm of ufology. To no less a degree, I revel in the thought
that ufology might "scoop" the SETI project in showing that
there is other intelligent life in our galaxy...and that it
appears to visit our planet on a regular basis. In fact, I find
it difficult to believe that my proposal has not already been
circulated around their offices in Menlo Park, and that it isn't
already causing the generation of above-average levels of
stomach acid there...


Regards,

Peter
--
Peter B. Davenport, Director
National UFO Reporting Center
P. O. Box 45623
University Station
Seattle, WA 98145
E-Mail: director.nul
Web:   www.UFOCENTER.com
Reporting Hotline: (206) 722-3000






[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com