tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post6570254092817548461..comments2024-03-24T20:16:30.097-07:00Comments on The Big Study: Digging for the Core, Radar.The Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-42127390117419865552014-08-03T18:11:10.804-07:002014-08-03T18:11:10.804-07:00Hello, Ted. Good to hear from you. Hope that you a...Hello, Ted. Good to hear from you. Hope that you and Dick are doing well and that NARCAP flourishes. <br /><br />As to Hessdalen and the other lightfields: Biggest mystery in UFOlogy in my opinion is whether they belong with the UFO craft-like cases or are an entirely different thing. Teodorani's suggestion that these things are energy basically but at the same time "intelligent" is wildly intriguing and mind-blowing. [If this were to be true.] If I was forced to guess, I'd go with a lower percentage of BOLs which are technology, a larger percentage of BOLs which are unclassified "natural" phenomena, and maybe a dash of Faerie tossed in for spice. Some of these cases look like technological "intrusions" from some distant and nearly unguided technology. {I.E. "experiments."} <br /><br />As to "ordinary" cases: I agree that the detection by radar or not of a seen UFO is by no means grounds for case dismissal. How could it be, if we're honest? Heck our own Boys in Blue have already gotten that trick pretty much solved, certainly more advanced technologists would. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-56126003407226599552014-08-03T14:43:14.458-07:002014-08-03T14:43:14.458-07:00Here at NARCAP.org we have done some digging into ...Here at NARCAP.org we have done some digging into radar-related UAP cases and there are some interesting correlations between varieties and reported detections (or reported non-detections). When people see UAP it could be of any variety. Take a look at the phenomena appearing at Hessdalen, Norway and those at sites here in the US that have been examined - we aren't totally certain what these things are and while some of them have no returns others demonstrate almost impossible properties like those reported by the EMBLA team under Teodorani at Hessdalen in 2001. Some of these things seem to have properties of objects and of, say, transparent quantum systems... The other half of the data set that reflects reports of objects, much like those reported by the official teams of the world like the French and Chileans, also contains many examples of observations that were not detectable on radar and then others that clearly were. My point, really, is that the presence or absence of radar detection doesn't make or break a UAP case when they are often reported to be seen but not detected... Our work at NARCAP.org is pointing towards a number of profiles with specific qualities that may be defined as much by the inability to detect them on radar (for example) as the idea of radar "confirming or discrediting" a report. Ted Roehttp://www.narcap.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-4316006984116046282014-06-09T12:05:17.660-07:002014-06-09T12:05:17.660-07:00... cases are ten years apart.... cases are ten years apart.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-27770680405508924552014-06-08T09:58:58.127-07:002014-06-08T09:58:58.127-07:00Frustrating it is. The recent satellite/rocket dec...Frustrating it is. The recent satellite/rocket decay explanation for the Yukon Giant must await actual detailed facts about the exact witness testimonies and precise locations [space and time] of the suspect decay. Merely saying that something happened at around the same time as something else is by itself not a strong causal statement --- it requires a lot of "tying together." "Somethings", after all, are always happening at the same time. Does one REALLY match the other? A philosopher of science once, puzzlingly, said: "Coincidence does not mean Isomorphism", and in fact it is unscientific to even imply that it does without a lot of depth work, as one needs to dig beneath the surface of the How [behavior of things] and demonstrate the Why [the cause]. Another philosopher said: it is much easier to accept a simple falsity than a complex truth. Whereas every side of a UFO issue can be guilty of this, it is usually the debunkers who just hit-and-run. As to Yukon, if Martin Jasek doesn't take up this cause, we'll not get clarity, as it is he who could answer the details needed to evaluate the size, time, direction, and single-thing-ness of what was seen. <br /><br />RB-47 still stands without serious challenge. Some of this debunker crap is just "something I just thought of" type of cherry-picking. This is like any situation where someone has built something and some other people enjoy throwing a rock at it, because they happened to stumble across the rock. Even when the "rock" turns out to be a puffball, and despite that no real honest effort went into it, the public feels that the presenters of the original must respond. These responses are rarely allowed to be brief, and the fellow on the positive side of things is drawn into constantly wasting his time dealing with nuisance and usually disingenuous argument. Thus, many UFOlogists don't bother when the objections are crap, and merely discuss the situation among themselves --- as has been done with this in semi-private discussion amongst the group that Fran Ridge [of the NICAP site] calls his "A-Team." <br /><br />Why do "we" handle it this way? Part is the waste of time as above. Part is the fact --- yes fact --- that all of us serious veterans of this field know two things: A). these debunkers have no role in the future of this field. Almost no one gives a damm about them and shouldn't. As I've said before, we listen to their chatter, and if there's something worth continuing to analyze there, we do ... without their "benefit", since in their shallowness they have nothing more to say. They are muddiers and destroyers, whose ultimate "life's work" here is futile. Their attempt to eliminate the field of study is already a bankrupt malicious hobby, as the book UFOs and Government will prove to anyone with an open mind. And B). the field, as I am demonstrating to myself at least [and I know that I'm doing it for a lot of others] is hundreds, probably thousands, of cases larger than any one cheapshot target that these --- boy, I'm having a hard time not using some horrible-sounding labels for these knowledge-criminals --- persons choose to rattle about with their noise. <br /><br />UFOlogy will survive both me and them. While they choose to behave like immature trolls, I choose to try to ensure the survival of the information that they try so puzzlingly to censor. <br /><br /><br />.... and, as usual, the debunkers have succeeded again in tempting me to waste too much of my own time, though in this case I am sort-of happy to have done so. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-76548287466354523932014-06-08T09:17:08.158-07:002014-06-08T09:17:08.158-07:00Just a comment, with regards to the Yukon sightin...Just a comment, with regards to the Yukon sighting there has been much speculation that it was caused by a satellite re- entry. There has been little response from ufologists with regards to critiquing some of the prosaic explanations that have been offered to significant cases. Shough easily refuted the debunkers on the Exeter sighting. However the RB47 case has been ' debunked', however I am aware that at least 2 researchers have critiqued Printy, or however you spell his name, however have not published their material. Very frustrating!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-45591745187610463622014-06-07T22:55:07.037-07:002014-06-07T22:55:07.037-07:00the famous alaskan JAL sighting , do you think it ...the famous alaskan JAL sighting , do you think it has any connection with the yukon giant sighting ? they were about a month apart and occured on almost the same region (the JAL sighting was very near the border of alaska and canada, yukon sighting further south). too bad there are no info on UFO flap in that area at that time, maybe the desolateness of the region coupled with the lack of populated areas is the reason.<br /><br />one other thing prof, lets say this is for BS discussion , from the behaviour of that UFO in alaska, how do you categorize the encounter ? the plane encountered a UFO, the UFO followed them , then after certain distance they seem to lost interest and go away, all while detectable by military radar (skin paint).. buntalanlucuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02058846205282464955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-9156575677962115452014-06-07T13:30:56.362-07:002014-06-07T13:30:56.362-07:00Yes, I agree. The more backup the better.
I'...Yes, I agree. The more backup the better. <br /> I've never read Eberhart but I will keep an eye out at the used bookstore. Someday I will find an out of print treasure!<br /> Thanks for the reply. :-)<br />--Mrs. C<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-38793333406497536272014-06-06T16:43:40.457-07:002014-06-06T16:43:40.457-07:00Yes, much modern radar does do as you say due to p...Yes, much modern radar does do as you say due to pragmatic decisions about what is related to its dedicated job and what isn't. However, most radars can be put into another manual mode which would allow painting an object lower than programmed, or in a different direction, or in a specific location. This is in fact exactly what the Muskegon operator did in the Holland, MI case when alerted by the 911 operator. <br /><br />But beside all of that, most objects in the cases in those "good old days" of UFO flaps were positioned in the sky so that any old ATC or sky-sweeping military radar would still paint them as long as they weren't going too fast. So I don't believe that the modern massaged-functions of radars have had much to do with missing the UFOs. The Stephenville, TX case had plenty of radar data. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-63393750334569925132014-06-06T16:35:37.696-07:002014-06-06T16:35:37.696-07:00Absolutely a big shame.
We have a few heroic char...Absolutely a big shame.<br /><br />We have a few heroic characters who have tried to dig laboriously through newspaper microfilms in an attempt to indicate better the extent of the phenomenon. Barry Greenwood, Jan Aldrich, and in the old days, Ted Bloecher have been some of those heroes. George Eberhart did a phenomenal search for his GeoBibliography of Anomalies [a somewhat rare and priceless information source.] These herculaean efforts are valuable particularly for mapping and statistical study. What they won't do is give us the reporting depth that we need to establish either "credibility" or the confidence we need in the descriptions to assess strangeness --- the Yin and Yang of a good case. That sort of level of trust demands a solid interviewing and some documentation. Nevertheless, I find even individual newsclipping reports useful if they at least reference some authority being involved taking, say, a police report, and the case details matching a pile of better documented case types already in my files. That scenario gives me some confidence that I'm reading something close to truth. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-85790627537327447992014-06-06T15:06:10.167-07:002014-06-06T15:06:10.167-07:00Hi Professor, I noticed the big drop in reports a...Hi Professor, I noticed the big drop in reports after the '52 flap. As I have been looking through old newspaper articles from 1953 onward, it seems that ufos were covered less in the media and being called fireballs, light barrages, mystery lights, etc. Many small newspapers had stories that weren't carried nationwide and they don't seem to be showing at all on many sightings lists. Doesn't it seem like such a shame, all that missing info? <br />---Mrs. CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-75068226744532152422014-06-06T12:59:22.608-07:002014-06-06T12:59:22.608-07:00Hello. I've heard that modern radar equipment ...Hello. I've heard that modern radar equipment is programmed to ignore extremes in the data as glitches: a UFO that suddenly shoots away at astonishing speed just doesn't register and is not shown to the the operator because 'nothing flies like that'. So the radar operator reads an edited screen, and no one sees the radar data directly anymore. Perhaps this is the reason why the UFO radar has dropped off. Have you heard of this? Could it be true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-68906564258025061812014-06-06T06:41:26.163-07:002014-06-06T06:41:26.163-07:00You're smarter than I am on the radar topic so...You're smarter than I am on the radar topic so my thoughts are poor on this. But for what they're worth: <br /><br />A). It must be true that technology has improved. But it seems to me that such should allow greater rather than lesser anomalous flight detection;<br />B). Even weather radar has better coverage, and satellite radar is of course a whole new ballgame. Again, greater coverage;<br />C). Right or wrong, it seems to me that the drop-off in reports is at least in part strongly sociological. To clarify: the military no longer makes any of these reports available due to no dedicated project and everything passing through "regular channels" to which [they feel] the public has no business knowing. Secondly, there is a great reluctance among commercial pilots to make anomalies sightings public, and the companies REALLY don't want them too. ... just viewed as a no-gain/possible loss scenario. Somehow Dick Haines at NARCAP has gotten some cooperation on this via the argument that unknowns in flight paths constitute a safety hazard. <br /><br />Other than that, it probably is true that, like all the other close encounter incidents, we just don't get as many as in the 1960s et al. The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-23639478466225656772014-06-05T22:10:08.670-07:002014-06-05T22:10:08.670-07:00b"h
I was a military radar tech for jet figh...b"h<br /><br />I was a military radar tech for jet fighters, but that was many moons ago, so I'm only asking questions. In conjuction with these reports spanning decades, I would wonder how radar coverage has changed from the '50's to now, i.e. are there more radars now in more places providing more coverage? Also, how has radar design changed, i.e. modern aperture radars are extremely sophisticated compared to the relatively simple radar I serviced. Then, when did ATC interogating radars become predominant - where a plane equiped with a transponder will reply to the radar pulse, and thus be displayed on screen. If an object does not reply to this pulse, it is not plotted. I gather that there is usually a "skin-paint" radar in operation with transponder types, so that uncorrelated targets can be displayed if operators want to display them, such as (I presume) during the 1986 JAL 1628 where the objects were plotted by military radar. I'm just thinking that the drop off in radar reported anomalies might be due to these factors, and not to a change in actual numbers, though of course, perhaps the numbers have actually dropped.<br /><br />Best wishes William Strathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641055950393700958noreply@blogger.com