From: Peter Davenport <director.nul> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:33:52 -0700 Archived: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:09:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Peter Davenport's UFO Detection Plan >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:50:20 +0000 >Subject: Peter Davenport's UFO Detection Plan >Dear List: >>From the Coast to Coast AM website: >----- >UFO Detection: >In the latter half, Director of the National UFO Reporting Center, >Peter Davenport, discussed his revolutionary proposal: >http://www.nuforc.org/MUFONPresentation.pdf <snip> >I found Davenport and I agreed. Enough cases have been collected. >That is in the past. It is time to look forward and prove once and >for all that ET craft are flying our skies. >We are in agreement that whatever 'alien abduction' turns to be, >it is not the acts of 'benevolent brothers' (as early abductees >claimed), but sinister. Davenport believes that the ETs have the >capability of manipulating humans perceptions and control the >encounters. >He is firmly convinced that his "passive radar system" will >provide proof positive of visitations and will convince the >scientific community that the phenomena is real and needs to be >examined. >Davenport alleges that the U.S. Navy built a passive radar >system that keeps track of near space objects, now run by the >U.S. Air Force. >Davenport contacted the Fort Hicks, Texas facility. They took >his call and transferred him to the Public Relations Office. >When the officer found out it was Davenport, she knew who he was >and hung up on him. He never got to ask any questions and doubts >that today his phone calls would not get through. He was looking >for information as to whether that facility picked up and >recorded anomalous space objects. Kathy, Thank you for your interest in my paper, and in what I had to say about "passive" radar on the Coast to Coast program on March 19! I would like to correct a few of the points you address above. I believe that in discussing the U. S. Space Surveillance System, I placed its headquarters at Ft. Stewart, Georgia, not Ft. Hicks, Texas. The transmitter for their "passive" system is located near Kickapoo, Texas, but I believe the headquarters are in Georgia. Also, the detection range of any "passive" system is a function of several factors, to include the power (and frequency?) of the radiated signal; the range to the target; the noise in the radio environment; the radio-reflective characteristics of the target; the sensitivity of the receiver; the accuracy of the system time-measuring device; and a few other factors, as well. In my 2004 paper, I cite a detection range of 250,000 (statute) miles, were the U. S. Naval Space Surveillance system's radiated signal (742,000 watts) used as the radio source. It would be a useful signal because of its power, but there are better signals that could be used, our engineering team believes. We haven't shared that information publicly, yet. You suggest below that I have proposed turning over the detections to "scientists" for analysis. However, I do not see a need to do that. If the system I propose can be built, it will be designed to do all of that analysis, e.g. triangulation, Doppler data, range, velocity, and perhaps size and shape of target. Those determinations are what the system I describe in my paper would be designed to do. Its capabilities are a function of the software that would process the reflected signals intercepted by the receiver. Once the data is collected by individual stations, it could be fed to a central website for display, similar to the way that several web cameras can be downloaded to, and accessed from, the same website. The data from a "passive" radar system would be displayed differently, however, to make it easy to understand by the radar layman. Thanks, again, for summarizing my comments on Coast to Coast. I have received a great deal of favorable correspondence about that appearance, many of them from some very technically savvy people. They seam to concur with my claim that such a system could be built, and that it would take from all governments the monopoly they heretofore have enjoyed vis-=E0-vis objective data about apparent UFO visitations. Peter NUFORC Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp