UFO detector network?

[Ian]

This subject has been briefly discussed on this forum before, but I have an old pamphlet published by Ray Stanford scanned and posted below, and I'd like to bring the subject up for discussion again. This forum and the Paracast has links with Ray. It also has some experienced and very informed members from MUFON.

Background for newbies: UFOs - whatever they may be - are supposed to be surrounded by strong magnetic fields or distort the earth's magnetic field. The theory, I guess, comes from close encounter reports of petrol vehicles stalling while diesel vehicles did not. It was speculated that this was because the electrical circuits to operate petrol vehicles was being interfered with by the UFO.

In 1975, Ray Stanford was director of Project Starlight International. I have the pamphlet published by PSI showing how to make a couple of electro-mechanical UFO compass/magnets-on-a-wire detectors. They are very crude magnetometers and you'd need a strong field to set off those things! But they were simple and could be made at home fairly easily. Anyway, the idea was that folks build these and created a network of detectors and when activated tell the PSI 'detection net coordinator'. What a great idea! Does anyone have a record of this project's findings? Does Ray read this forum? Why aren't we doing something like that now??

Surely this is a project MUFON could initiate amongst its members? Ideally these would all be connected to the internet and send data to MUFON for patterns to emerge. But cheap home made ones may have a place, with activation reports emailed to MUFON and data compared with known geomagnetic activity from official magnetic observatories (e.g. the UK has three such observatories).

There are "UFO detectors" available vial Amazon, ebay etc. mostly using Hall-effect devices but are still fairly crude, insensitive magnetometers. I've built one of similar design. It has been activated a few times...

I know apps for smart phones for UFO detectors have been discussed and may be available, but can't see them working unless the phones is left in one place for very long periods. Moving it around in normal uses would of course subject it the constant changes in the direction and strength of the earth's magnetic field.

So... how about resurrecting and updating Ray's idea from 1975, and using the internet pass the data to some central point - MUFON for example? Yes? No? Stupid idea?

For some reason they've come out turned by 90 degrees to fit. I can't see how to fix that, but they're easily turned using arrow button when displayed. Sorry...

 

[Ian]

It appears MUFON have had some dealings with UFO detection as far back as 1973 according to documents on the NICAP.org website.
http://www.nicap.org/madar/letters..pdf

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

This subject has been briefly discussed on this forum before, but I have an old pamphlet published by Ray Stanford scanned and posted below, and I'd like to bring the subject up for discussion again. This forum and the Paracast has links with Ray. It also has some experienced and very informed members from MUFON.

Background for newbies: UFOs - whatever they may be - are supposed to be surrounded by strong magnetic fields or distort the earth's magnetic field. The theory, I guess, comes from close encounter reports of petrol vehicles stalling while diesel vehicles did not. It was speculated that this was because the electrical circuits to operate petrol vehicles was being interfered with by the UFO.

In 1975, Ray Stanford was director of Project Starlight International. I have the pamphlet published by PSI showing how to make a couple of electro-mechanical UFO compass/magnets-on-a-wire detectors. They are very crude magnetometers and you'd need a strong field to set off those things! But they were simple and could be made at home fairly easily. Anyway, the idea was that folks build these and created a network of detectors and when activated tell the PSI 'detection net coordinator'. What a great idea! Does anyone have a record of this project's findings? Does Ray read this forum? Why aren't we doing something like that now??

Surely this is a project MUFON could initiate amongst its members? Ideally these would all be connected to the internet and send data to MUFON for patterns to emerge. But cheap home made ones may have a place, with activation reports emailed to MUFON and data compared with known geomagnetic activity from official magnetic observatories (e.g. the UK has three such observatories).

There are "UFO detectors" available vial Amazon, ebay etc. mostly using Hall-effect devices but are still fairly crude, insensitive magnetometers. I've built one of similar design. It has been activated a few times...

I know apps for smart phones for UFO detectors have been discussed and may be available, but can't see them working unless the phones is left in one place for very long periods. Moving it around in normal uses would of course subject it the constant changes in the direction and strength of the earth's magnetic field.

So... how about resurrecting and updating Ray's idea from 1975, and using the internet pass the data to some central point - MUFON for example? Yes? No? Stupid idea?

For some reason they've come out turned by 90 degrees to fit. I can't see how to fix that, but they're easily turned using arrow button when displayed. Sorry...

I'm not a fan of the magnetometer approach, because of the clear sensitivity/proximity limitations.

But I absolutely love Peter Davenport's idea: setting up a national passive radar network by peppering the country with rooftop antennas that we could plug into our USB ports to connect to an online server, to generate a real-time map of air traffic, with algorithms to flag anomalous targets, and even send out alerts to smartphones in an area of intriguing activity so people could get photographic and video evidence.

One of the many great things about a passive radar system, is that the antennas are cheap. If we could work with an engineer to design a standardized passive radar antenna, and a programmer to create the software for a dedicated online server, then we could do a crowdfunding project where anyone could buy into the project for maybe $50, and get their own antenna kit in return with a software program to prep their data for transmission to the primary server. If enough people participated, it could fund itself. Where I think Peter went wrong, was trying to find a small group of investors to cover his entire 7-figure cost projection up front.

I think it's also a mistake to pitch the idea exclusively as a "ufo detector network." Because the potential inherent with a system like this is staggering. A single subroutine, for example, could detect trouble and send out an alert whenever any aircraft turned off its transponder signal - if we'd had that capability in 2001, we would've been able to see that NYC was under attack before it happened. Many lives could've been saved, especially those people in the second WTC tower before it was hit - they actually could've seen the second plane approaching the city and known they were in danger. Also, aviation enthusiasts could study test aircraft emerging from military bases like Area 51, and even see the size and shape of anything in the sky. And a whole new field of meteor recovery enthusiasts could track incoming meteorites and see exactly where they came down. You could even see exactly where lightning had struck, or where a pillar of smoke was rising, and send out fire patrols before anyone even made a phone call. And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

If I knew a software engineer with professional experience working on these kinds of systems, I'd probably be working on pulling this idea together right now. But they're probably all making an excellent living working for Raytheon and Lockheed and places like that, making multi-billion-dollar systems for the defense department.

 

[Ian]

Yes, the passive radar idea also has much mileage in it. But do UFOs always reflect radio signals?

Passive radar has been used extensively in recent wars and has some advantages over conventional radar. I've used it with my own transmitting equipment (3.5 MHz to 29 MHz) in conjunction with a receiving site 6km away to detect planes around Heathrow Airport. As you probably know there is a keen branch of amateur radio that do this to record meteor pings and re-entering space debris. We tried to get a ping off the ISS, but have so far been unsuccessful. However, amateurs tuned to the French Graves radar have been quite successful, although no-one seems to have detected any 'fastwalkers'.

Using local VHF/UHF/microwave transmitters as passive sources may only need basic receiving antennas, but they can't just 'be plugged into USB ports'. Some sort of SDR dongle at the very least will be required, and I'm not sure the cheap commercial ones are up to that task. Something for someone to experiment with if that's not been done already.

 

[Ian]

Chris also has a project in the San Luis Valley. I believe it uses (or will use) a range of systems, but it only covers one geographic area. Nevertheless, that might be enough to pin down some aspects of the phenomenon - I sure hope so!

 

[DROBNJAK]

UFOs produce effects in 3 fields: electric, magnetic and gravitational and 2 light spectrums: visible and IR. Once some target is acquired one really wants to grab signature for all these fields separately, otherwise skeptics are going to say "oh, it was just Venus or just aeroplane". Like catch it on EM, confirm it with gravimeter and point visible & IR camera at it. Simply aeroplanes don't produce detectable gravitational disturbances and have quite modest EM signatures.

Ideally one wants to capture visual of an object that just made instantaneous 90deg zag, while producing anomalous spike on gravimeter, all along with full spectrum of EM. That way skeptics can be left dumbfounded and can't say it was aeroplane or temperature inversion or swamp gas etc. Actually Ray Stamford and his team done exactly that, but were somewhat unfortunate because two UFOs turned up and it was difficult to tell signals apart.

And to round it off and avoid any confusion, one would need GPS coordinates, GPS time, with azimuth and elevation.

Davenport's passive radar idea is the best ever, but apparently they require mega complex software because unlimited number of variations of frequencies and time shifts.

Gravitational is really easy, if not easiest, every mobile phone has accelerometer and these sensors actually measure changes in gravitational fields. Thus eBay is full of both accelerometer ICs or even breakouts with relatively high level of precision and response times.

As far as EM is concerned, UFOs are quite wideband phenomenon. EM frequencies that came out of various cases are all over the place, from approx 10Hz or < 500kHz to GHz ranges and higher. As I understand, there is no "catch all" EM sensor for all the frequencies but different bands are quite special.

I was seriously thinking of making such stations, but more seriously one takes it more cost goes up. I don't think that any station bellow about $2,000-$3,000 would be of any scientific value. Capturing one dimensional data would be of very little value and wouldn't even matter to 'believers' and would just invite 'skeptics' to run circles around us.

Unfortunately, to best serve this purpose, these devices would need to have multi-sensor data-logging capability which would double the cost. Data-logging would be way around the lack of investigator's technical proficiency, because it will deliver standardized data-set that can be analyzed by specialists in the central office.

MUFON was somewhere showing instruments they use and they are really basic. One has to take into account that they need 100s of these units, so cost would be really huge. So quality suffers. As well there is particular difficulty with a fact that 90% of investigators are not technical people and have negligible grasp of what EM is.

These Stamford's designs are quite 70's designs. Technology accessible to amateurs, like us, had moved on quite a bit.

@Ian Do you possibly have any more technical papers from Ray Stamford? I have a small collection, but its incomplete. We can swap if you want?

 

[Ian]

Thanks Drobnjak for your thoughtful reply and the document links.

I will look at them to see more detail of how, when and where the various EM and gravitational signatures have been evaluated. Passive radar is indeed an interesting avenue, but as you say, separating out and processing all the phase shift and Doppler data would be quite a task from more than one or two installations.

As someone who has worked with RF from below 100 kHz to 12 GHz for nearly forty years, this aspect is particularly interesting. In all my years of observations (both attended and unattended) I have observed some odd things - "HF squiggles" being one phenomenon being recently investigated - but natural or man-made sources have always been the most likely causes of weird signals. Software defined radio has allowed continuous radio spectrum observation and analysis, but to my knowledge no one has ever identified a signal as coming from a UFO! But I guess a fleeting burst of RF noise or other RF signals could easily be overlooked (there are so many sources for that now), unless it left a track across multiple sensors in a region. Nevertheless, I can't help thinking such a signature is more likely to come from terrestrial vehicles; even if nuts-and-bolts alien craft were zigzagging in our skies, would they really have the equivalent of unsuppressed spark plugs?!

The Ray Stanford designs are pretty crude, but I guess the thinking was 'cheap, simple, lots of them'. I wonder what happened to his PSI project using those devices? Was any data collected? How much? Was it analysed? If so...? There are a number of much more sensitive magnetometer designs available for the 'home brewer', but we're still up against separating natural and man-made from other disturbances.

I suspect a phone's accelerometer is as limited in this research as its magnetometer, only of any use if left completely undisturbed - for months...

Unfortunately that pamphlet is the only technical paper I have published by Ray.

 

[DROBNJAK]

EVIDENCE OF VERY STRONG LOW FREQUENCY MAGNETIC FIELDS
by A. Meessen
Abstract: We have shown why the propulsion of Unconventional Flying Objects of unknown origin can result from very intense low-frequency magnetic ¯elds and an adequately pulsed ion-ization of the ambient medium. We also found how these ¯elds could be produced, if the surface of these objects were superconducting. Now, we present evidence of the existence of these ¯elds. It results from traces left on the ground by induced currents, rotating compass needles, direct magnetometer recordings and very remarkable magneto-optical e®ects. They provide even proof of the required pulsed ionization.

This work is particularly valuable because it contains (pg. 2) rarely published graphs from Ray Stanford's instrumental data recordings (magnetometer and simultaneous gravimeter) collected back in 1978 from the edges of the White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico.
Dropbox - ufo.paper.phys.EM.Meessen - Evidence_Strong_LF_Magnetic_Fields.pdf

If you are after some slices of Ray Stamford's data, you'll find a little bit in the above paper. Dr. a. Meessen is professor of physics in Belgium, so he's serious guy.

"HF squiggles" being one phenomenon being recently investigated - but natural or man-made sources have always been the most likely causes of weird signals.

Yeah, I bet if you've seen UFO signals you would know instantly. It would be something so violent and ruptuous that most likely you never had seen something like that.

But I guess a fleeting burst of RF noise or other RF signals could easily be overlooked (there are so many sources for that now), unless it left a track across multiple sensors in a region.

UFOs, in witness testimonies, tend to have just few flight regimes. Normally they fly around while partially or completely enveloped with plasma. Now I guess plasma would be very EM noisy and strong. This plasma goes through all the colors: Red, Green, Blue, Indigo Blue, White-Blue and completely transparent. I found on Wikipedia that these colors correspond to emission lines for gasses in the Earth's atmosphere. But that's most likely above THz range.

You have here detailed technical information, frequencies and all, from an UFO case with USAF electronic eavesdropping spy plane fully loaded with electronic equipment, that stumbled on UFO: RB-47 - Case Report for the AIAA - UFO Evidence

I carefully researched hundreds of cases with physical evidence. At least from outside, UFOs pretty much behave as flying Tesla coils. Their hulls are, for some unknown reason, pulsating like capacitative load on Tesla coil. You can see that in Ray Stanford's data slice in the above paper. There are few cases where car body would inductively heat up, or clothing would dry up although person was standing in a drizzle. As well FM radios stop working etc.

It might be an idea to find somebody who has Tesla coil and than stand away, say 100m or 1km from the coil, and just record EM signature from all the plasma it will create.

In Paracast interview Ray Stanford said that there was a signal at 8Hz, but I think that he was just trying to be entertaining, because there is whole this urban myth how human body works on 10Hz and Earth work on 10Hz and so on. His charts (in above paper) show much wider bands.

According to some cases, magnetic field within few feet of the craft is so strong that can magnetize aluminum, although aluminum is not ferromagnetic.

So there is a lots of EM signatures to latch on. There are few good books, by reputable engineers and physicists, that go deep into physical evidence. It might be worth trying to get bigger picture where to look from reading them.

Here are few books, like UFO physical evidence trilogy, I should recommend and I am sure other forum members would agree:

Paul Hill's "Unconventional Flying Objects"
Carl Feindt's "UFOs and Water"
prof. Peter Sturrock's "UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence"

I suspect a phone's accelerometer is as limited in this research as its magnetometer, only of any use if left completely undisturbed - for months...

Accelerometer, as you say, is quite flawed. Although there are lots of very sensitive ICs, its very unlikely that UFO will pass close to the station to make a big difference. So signals will always be very weak. That approach was actually tried before by Claude Poher, director of French GEPAN research institute that was focused just on UFOs. He was taking data from seismic stations around France, that happen to have all the sensors in one place.

But, accelerometer is the crux, without accelerometer there is no UFO forensics. Because that is the only way to accurately measure change in gravitational field. There are no casual everyday sources of gravitation apart from Earth and lava movement in the mantle. Lava most likely moves very sluggishly, so one can tell it away from something faster than jet plane. So any other signal must be from UFO. Additionally, accelerometers are directional. So if both EM sensors and accelerometer point to something high up in the sky, its a bingo. One has a clear proof its a UFO. Aeroplanes and meteorites don't create gravitation fields.

That makes redo-amaters best suited people for monitoring UFOs. The biggest problem is really a low frequency of these events and density distribution of sensors. Realistically speaking, even a group of 100 radio-amaters, evenly distributed over the whole UK, would be waiting at least 3 years to register one UFO case. I guess one needs to live near UFO hot spots. Apparently in UK its Wales and East coast. But its very hard to say.

 

[marduk]

If you are after some slices of Ray Stamford's data, you'll find a little bit in the above paper. Dr. a. Meessen is professor of physics in Belgium, so he's serious guy.

Ya, I'd look at VLF, magnetometer, and gravitometer data. Combined with multi-angle optical at a very high frame rate. That combines digital with analog optical capture.

Sprinkle these sensors around with the ability to mesh together and I'd be very interested to see what they'd come up with.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Ya, I'd look at VLF, magnetometer, and gravitometer data. Combined with multi-angle optical at a very high frame rate. That combines digital with analog optical capture.

Sprinkle these sensors around with the ability to mesh together and I'd be very interested to see what they'd come up with.

That would work like charm if we can find some UFO hot-spots. Than we might strike it lucky in just few months.

The only hot spots that I heard off, but are a little bit out of date:

- Marley Woods, US, source: Ted Phillips, well known physical evidence researcher. Orange orbs appearing every 2-3 days.
- beaches of North Carolina, US, source: Peter Davenport.
- Nevada & New Mexico, US, nuclear bomb testing grounds, back in 70's. That's where Ray Stamford did his data collection.

Sprinkle these sensors around with the ability to mesh together and I'd be very interested to see what they'd come up with.

Yeah, you are looking at $5k per station.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Ya, I'd look at VLF, magnetometer, and gravitometer data. Combined with multi-angle optical at a very high frame rate. That combines digital with analog optical capture. Sprinkle these sensors around with the ability to mesh together and I'd be very interested to see what they'd come up with.

You forgot a telescope w/ a blazed grating for light spectrum analysis.

 

[marduk]

You forgot a telescope w/ a blazed grating for light spectrum analysis.

With some kind of AI for target identification.
That would be a lot of false positives to sift through.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

With some kind of AI for target identification. That would be a lot of false positives to sift through.

No, the software triggering parameters would have to be triggered first for the telescope to be brought into the chain. The telescope will be mounted on an event-slaved pan/tilt platform that would allow for error-free video acquisition of the target. This targeting data would then be fed the telescope for analog telescope object recognition and acquisition.

 

[DROBNJAK]

There is $50 camera sensor for Arduino that can track objects and read their coordinates on the grid. I wrote before about it.

 

[marduk]

No, the software triggering parameters would have to be triggered first for the telescope to be brought into the chain. The telescope will be mounted on an event-slaved pan/tilt platform that would allow for error-free video acquisition of the target. This targeting data would then be fed the telescope for analog telescope object recognition and acquisition.

Hmm... I was thinking a massive data dump architecture that allows sifting the data in the backend. Might catch something by accident that the target identification system might miss.

But that might pound your network into submission, and be a ton of data to store. I can see why you chose to put the target identification on the device itself.

Your way would be more cost efficient, for sure.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Hmm... I was thinking a massive data dump architecture that allows sifting the data in the backend. Might catch something by accident that the target identification system might miss.

But that might pound your network into submission, and be a ton of data to store. I can see why you chose to put the target identification on the device itself.

Your way would be more cost efficient, for sure.

Yeah, obviously there are two strategies:
1) zoom as much as possible to get lots of details
2) catch all and zoom out as wide as you can and track everything
3) combination of the two

I prefer 1), because it might be possible to very selective about UFOs vs planes, choppers, meteorites. UFOs have two characteristics that can be easily picked up: they do fast turns and they disrupt gravitational field. Even the most nimble planes take 15 seconds for half turn. Danger with option 2) is that one would get fuzzy data that will prove nothing.

Whatever data bandwidth is available its better to spend it on higher resolution, than just ending up with few bright pixels that don't mean anything.

 

[marduk]

Yeah, obviously there are two strategies:
1) zoom as much as possible to get lots of details
2) catch all and zoom out as wide as you can and track everything
3) combination of the two

I prefer 1), because it might be possible to very selective about UFOs vs planes, choppers, meteorites. UFOs have two characteristics that can be easily picked up: they do fast turns and they disrupt gravitational field. Even the most nimble planes take 15 seconds for half turn. Danger with option 2) is that one would get fuzzy data that will prove nothing.

Whatever data bandwidth is available its better to spend it on higher resolution, than just ending up with few bright pixels that don't mean anything.

Plus, to Chris’ point, you need a spectroscope. Can’t just be digital optical data.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yeah, obviously there are two strategies:
1) zoom as much as possible to get lots of details
2) catch all and zoom out as wide as you can and track everything
3) combination of the two
I prefer 1), because it might be possible to very selective about UFOs vs planes, choppers, meteorites. ...

Don't forget we are planning on having a minimum of three cameras focused on the event. The closest camera after zooming will obtain the closet, most detailed image of the event.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Don't forget we are planning on having a minimum of three cameras focused on the event. The closest camera after zooming will obtain the closet, most detailed image of the event.

That's the solution. One has several focal lengths. Like wide lens camera captures object's position, than long focal lens camera is swiveled to that position for high resolution image. And long focal length camera snaps only if accelerometer confirms gravitation distortion from that same position. That's ideal.

 

[DROBNJAK]

You forgot a telescope w/ a blazed grating for light spectrum analysis.

Confirmed. Light Difraction grating on camera lens might be the most important sensor of them all.

To keep it short, there are many reasons why it is possible that gravitational effects are produced inside the thickness of the UFO hull that is made from metamaterials. Metamaterials are nothing more but suitably arranged cavity waveguides for EM waves.

There is a large group of ufo researchers in France who swear by difraction gratings. As well Ray Stanford took one color slide through difraction grating on his lens and got this monochromatic red color.

What that means in a context of metamaterials? Cavities inside metamaterials are necessarily of fixed size because metamaterials are solid. If UFOs are filling these cavities with light to somehow produce gravitational effects that light must have single wavelength compatible with cavity's size. Single wavelength means monochromatic.

In other words if we can obtain all monochromatic wavelengths that UFOs emit, with diffraction gratings, we can work out sizes of cavities in metamaterials. And bingo we would make a major step towards unlocking how their gravity propulsion works. Certainly the biggest step we can make with our humble technology.

So if you are making a list of sensors definitely put diffraction gratings on a top.

- - - - - - - -

On another note I came up with a new type of magnetic sensor that is better than any other magnetic sensor for ufology.

This sensor takes advantage of the fact that currently there are no natural or man made objects in our skies. Planes, copters and rockets have no magnetic signatures. Of the top of my head I don't know of any ground vehicles that produce noticeable magnetism. But lightnings and thunderbolts can create magnetic effects. From few UFO cases we can deduce that UFOs have very strong magnetic fields, but we don't exactly know how strong. In short, if magnetic sensor points to the sky it's 99% chance it's UFO. If magnetometer points horizontally over the horizon than chance it is UFO is somewhat smaller. Only experience will tell.

These sensors existed before and are called differential magnetometers. Essentially they consist of of two magnetometers, some distance apart, attached to a stick or something like that. What they do is they measure difference in strength of magnetic field between two magnetometers.

Why is the difference in a field strength important? It is very important because it can tell us the direction in which UFO is. The way they work the direction in which field strength difference is the highest is the direction to the source of magnetic field. Here, hopefully an UFO. No other sensor can tell us that. And according to Ray Stanford magnetometers can pick up UFOs from 90miles 140km away.

But wait, it gets even better. If there is another differential magnetometer in the neighborhood, say within 10…40miles, than we can triangulate and get approximate location of the UFO. If there was a whole network of these devices we can get rock solid cross confirmation.

And there is more. Once we know the distance, from triangulation, because magnetic field distribution follows a formula, we can calculate the strength of UFO's magnetic field at a source. Many, many scientists would want to know that.

Knowing the location of UFO brings another benefit. Even if no UFOs were reported by witnesses you can go to that location and preemptively start a private investigation, ask locals if they noticed something strange etc.

Now, what I wrote so far might have left you with impression that we can only locate UFOs in a horisontal plane. Sure we can, but we can track them in vertical plane as well without a problem. Wherever in the blue sky UFO is we can get both bearing and elevation. And cross-reference with other diff. mags. in the area. But, to do that, diff. mag. would need to be mounted on articulated gimbal.

And, you guessed, diff. mag. can track moving UFO and keep time log of all directions and field strengths. So you can theoretically track UFO from the moment it enters atmosphere to the moment it swings by miles from your house.

There is one a bit funny property of diff. mag. If ufo is hiding behind a mountain, in a next valley, as long as that mountain has no iron ore or metals in it, diff. mag. can "see" UFO through that mountain. Funny, but it can turn to be useful.

In a sense diff. mag. can give us, on a cheap, more information than passive radar some people mentioned. And passive radar would be at least 1,000 times more expensive.

There are some disadvantages. Directional sensitivity is proportional to distance between two magnetometers, so instrument might end up being quite big. It all depends on how strong is UFO field, and for that we have no data. So we'll have to start with trial and error.

To summarise advantages of differential magnetometer on an articulated gimbal:

• It can find direction to UFOs.
• Multiple networked diff. mags. can find out location of UFO,
• If you know location of UFO you can start private preemptive investigations,
• It can track UFO at any horisontal or vertical angle through full dome of the sky,
• It can determine the strength of magnetic field of the UFO,
• It can be designed to track and log moving UFOs,
• Under certain conditions it can detect UFOs behind large natural obstacles like mountains, out of a line of sight.
• It's less expensive than passive radar,

Networked articulated differential magnetometers are really ufologist's dram.