From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:58:06 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:48:45 -0500 Subject: Re: FM Radio Gives Away Aliens? - Smith >From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:14:55 -0800 >Subject: Re: FM Radio Gives Away Aliens? >>From: Mark Turner <markt.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:29:34 -0500 >>Subject: Re: FM Radio Gives Away Aliens? >>>From: Viktor Golubik <Diverge247.nul> >>>To: ufoupdates.nul >>>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:40:33 EST >>>Subject: Re: FM Radio Gives Away Aliens? >>>If alien spacecraft are maneuvering within our telemetry systems >>>here on Earth, then it may be the unintended (default) radio >>>wave transmissions we should be after... perhaps just one >>>telltale signature of their interaction with our atmosphere and >>>their propulsive systems. >>>Such spectrum analyzers are available for purchase and with the >>>right antennas and configuration could be very sensitive. >>>However, what's the likelihood that we (government outsiders >>>with no budget) could confidently sort the known clutter from >>>the unknown signature with precision? The sad, realistic fact is that very few people devote any time to collecting this type of data. Mainly there is a handful of folk who monitor EMF "signals" due to meteors. A smaller group monitor VLF/ULF for geophysical reasons. And a few folk even track satellites/aircraft using the EMF reflecting from them. There are many cases of the UFO presense affecting radios and electricity. It is likely that UFOs (at least the ones we really are interested in) MUST generate an EMF field (even if its a secondary effect) in order to function, but if no one monitors the fields then no one is the wiser. I checked for any magnetometer sensors in the Chicago area to see if there were any unusual variations during the OHare incident but the closest one was over 500 miles away!!! >>Viktor, it sounds like this is quite possible, and far less >>expensive than you think. See the following links for details. >>I think this may be an excellent way to track alien spacecraft. >>Super-Radar, Done Dirt Cheap: >>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_42/b3854113.htm We've been thru this radar concept before. Some think it may work, others not. >Well, maybe. I note that the Business Week article says "Celldar >will detect the movement of ground vehicles and determine >whether cell-phone signals are _bouncing_ off a tank, truck, or >armored personnel carrier" and that "it 'sees' only radio waves >echoing off _hard_ surfaces". This is a critical issue. If >celldar or its' derivatives can only detect things that have >hard surfaces from which to bounce a signal off of, then an >excruciatngly relevant question arises in the context of whether >there is any possibility of its being used for UAP/UFO >detection. There is only a mixed possibility. History shows UFOs both appearing on radar and not appearing. Its most likely that radar is somewhat flawed in detecting UFOs perhaps due to the physics surrounding the phenomena. >Like, will it detect stealth craft, whether air or land-based? >No, I don't think so. Like radar, which requires an emitter >source and detects the return of said signal back to a receiver, >celldar, although not needing a detectable receiver, seems to >require a non-stealthy, hard surface to interrupt the radio >waves in order to detect the object being surveilled. At least for passive radar, it seems like reflections are needed. I think I read somewhere a proposal for a system that could monitor a distant signal coming in and determine based on reductions of the signal intensity whether something was BLOCKING the source signal. Seems pretty unlikely to implement though with lots of potential noise/error (clouds moving/ionosphere). >So, if celldar can't detect stealth craft, which we've already >had flying for over 25 years with older human technology, do you >think it could detect a UFO, even if it's made of some kind of >alloyed metal, if the design and shaping of the surfaces of any >such possible craft, made with non-human technology at least >hundreds or thousands of years in advance of our own, is >factored in? Extremely doubtful. Well, what about the effects on >the atmosphere itself, where even if you couldn't detect such a >craft, the idea of detecting its' "wake" or disturbance in the >atmosphere itself may allow detection? Equally unlikely, as >there may be other technologies associated with such an "alien" >craft that modify or reduce that effect at least to the degree >that is required to evade detection or movement tracking. Yes, its likely tied up with the physics of the UFO too. So wakes are likely out. >I mean, come on, we are talking about UFO detection. If "they" >can get here from where/when/what ever they come from, and have >been able to avoid providing definitive proof of their presence >through all prior forms of detection (except perhaps when they >"want" to provide some "display", like the RB-47 case) what are >the odds this newer technology will provide a reliable, >practical way of accomplishing this goal? Slim to none. Well, >what about those cases stretching back for more than 50 years >that _have_ been detected by radar? Um, maybe there was some >"intent" behind those cases to allow that kind of tracking to >occur - even then, they seem to be able to disappear and >reappear at will whenever and where ever they "want" when chased >or otherwise observed. Don't get me wrong - since this is just >speculation, the technology ought to be tried, because you never >know what you might achieve until you try it out in the real >world. But given the history and known chameleon-like >"morphology" of prior UFO incidents, I doubt this will be >effective. And if celldar doesn't work, at least we can build on >these ever more esoteric technologies to perhaps evolve a system >of systems which may, someday, give us a means of detecting and >tracking some kinds of UFO's. Since UFOs don't "cloak" themselves (they ARE seen), they must not care too much about whether they are noticed. Thus it seems more likely that the random ability to be detected by radar is more a function of the basic physics (shape?) of the UFO rather than purposeful cloaking (as is their ability to not generate sonic booms every time they zip away). I think there is much more of a likelihood of success of monitoring EMF spectrum and crosscorrelating the results with video imagery.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp