What can we do to support valid UFO research?

[Wade]

You never know until you try. This approach has never been tried before so how do you truly know if it will work or not unless you do it? I believe it can work. Hi-rez camera images combined w/ gravitometer and magnetometer data obtained from a proven hotspot is worth the time and energy to pursue. Of course we'll also get a few boo-birds, as well, but that comes w/ the territory.

Is there a correlation or similarity between high emf fields and hotspots, said to be areas of negative magnetic fields as I've heard both effects can account for anomalous phenomena. Are not high power lines supposed to be areas of ufo anomalous activity?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Is there a correlation or similarity between high emf fields and hotspots, said to be areas of negative magnetic fields as I've heard both effects can account for anomalous phenomena. Are not high power lines supposed to be areas of ufo anomalous activity?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I have noticed that pockets where high intensity magnetic field strength is in close proximity to low intensity field strength creates seams where there appears to be higher concentrations of sightings--at least in the San Luis Valley... It would be a worthy research project to see if other "hot spot" areas have this same apparent correlation.

 

[Wade]

Sorry it was poorly phrased. What I was wondering is that being that ufos have been sighted in the vicinity of HIGH power lines, maybe the high electrical energy fields could somehow lower the magnetic field of the area. I know the logical thinking would be the higher the energy in the area the higher the magnetic field but I was thinking along the lines in the radio spectrum the higher the frequency, the lower the wave and maybe the same principal could be at play here. I was taking a blind stab at finding a common attribute between areas of negative magnetic field and high tension lines because of ufo sightings in both. i.e. Maybe the reason why ufos are sighted around high power lines have less to do with tapping any energy coming off the lines for power than taking advantage of the field to manifest themselves. Sounds crazy I know but it would have been a neat theory.

 

[Wade]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I have noticed that pockets where high intensity magnetic field strength is in close proximity to low intensity field strength creates seams where there appears to be higher concentrations of sightings--at least in the San Luis Valley... It would be a worthy research project to see if other "hot spot" areas have this same apparent correlation.

Well that is an interesting aspect and something along the lines I was thinking about , what made hot spots "hot spots" if it was a single issue, say either a very high magnetic strength or very low magnetic strength then you I think you would have a lot more hot spots, in fact I believe I've seen studies where either field was noticed (but not both) and that would seem contradictory. Perhaps the introduction of a man made electrical source or a good solar storm near an area of naturally low magnetic field strength could provide a welcome environment for the manifestation of ufos.

 

[Trajanus]

You never know until you try. This approach has never been tried before so how do you truly know if it will work or not unless you do it? I believe it can work. Hi-rez camera images combined w/ gravitometer and magnetometer data obtained from a proven hotspot is worth the time and energy to pursue.

OK good luck, but honestly I don't think it'll work, in the sense of producing conclusive results.

 

[Randall]

You never know until you try. This approach has never been tried before so how do you truly know if it will work or not unless you do it? I believe it can work. Hi-rez camera images combined w/ gravitometer and magnetometer data obtained from a proven hotspot is worth the time and energy to pursue. Of course we'll also get a few boo-birds, as well, but that comes w/ the territory.

I hope a big fat mother ship lands in your field of view while streaming live.

 

[Randall]

As for "valid UFO research" ... we need to define exactly what that entails. The four main areas in ufology are investigation, history, journalism and culture. Any one of these areas can include valid research. However you are not going to be able to call an article about ufology culture valid scientific research. So what exactly are we talking about here then? Are we talking about scientific methodology during UFO investigations? Or something else?

 

[Sentry]

Scientific methodology is definitely what I'd be looking for. If I was to sponsor a UFO study, I wouldn't want the investigators using dowsing and channeling to seek results.

 

[Trajanus]

I hope a big fat mother ship lands in your field of view while streaming live.

Lol, no (nongovernmental) scientific study no matter how professional, is likely to amount to much without good evidence or material to work with. The phenomenon doesn't seem eager to let us have it and rest assured even if it materializes it'll be confiscated. Or just vanish.

 

[Randall]

Lol, no (nongovernmental) scientific study no matter how professional, is likely to amount to much without good evidence or material to work with. The phenomenon doesn't seem eager to let us have it and rest assured even if it materializes it'll be confiscated. Or just vanish.

The SLV project is like waving a red flag in front of the MIB. It might have been better to do the project totally in secret ( if that's even possible ). They've always got an eye on anyone seriously into ufology so Chris would be a natural target and it's not likely that they ( the aliens ) will be volunteering any aerial displays so long as they know the project is monitoring the area. But maybe something unexpected will happen. Maybe it won't even involve UFOs. Whatever the case, I think the project shows some very constructive initiative and it would be great to see it capture something useful.

 

[Trajanus]

...it's not likely that they ( the aliens ) will be volunteering any aerial displays so long as they know the project is monitoring the area.

Which I'd assume would be virtually certain.

 

[Randall]

Which I'd assume would be virtually certain.

Yup ... it's pretty much like setting up a film shoot and saying, "OK now come and pose for us." The issues this raises should only be discussed off the forum in a sealed EM proof room.

 

[Trajanus]

Yup ... it's pretty much like setting up a film shoot and saying, "OK now come and pose for us." The issues this raises should only be discussed off the forum in a sealed EM proof room.

And I bet even that wouldn't do any good.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I have a question for some of those commenting on this thread:

As UFOs have been caught on radar (including the time when my Dad worked for Braniff out of Love Field), why would they not be caught on a camera? How is a radar hit of a UFO somehow fairly commonplace but a stationary camera catching a UFO would be unheard of? Is the latter a "come pose for us" moment while a radar hit is just an "oops"? (Google "UFO" and "radar hit" to determine just how often this has occurred. It doesn't take long to discover that radar hits are often used as corroborating evidence when the only other evidence has been eyewitness testimony.) We should also consider the number of times UFOs have been spotted over or near military bases, airports, etc. If they wanted to remain hidden, appearing in places where people are supposed to be looking up and using radar might not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

The truth is, Christopher O'Brien is right in that we won't know what we might find until we actually start looking. For that matter, there may be other anomalies besides UFOs that these cameras catch as well. I don't know if we could consider a camera image to be absolute proof of UFOs or anything else but it could lend a hand to any investigations that are going on and also used to help corroborate any other testimony or evidence. This is a Very Good Thing. I hope he's able to fund this project.

 

[Decker]

You never know until you try. This approach has never been tried before so how do you truly know if it will work or not unless you do it? I believe it can work. Hi-rez camera images combined w/ gravitometer and magnetometer data obtained from a proven hotspot is worth the time and energy to pursue. Of course we'll also get a few boo-birds, as well, but that comes w/ the territory.

I don't know Chris ... but this seems like a "no-brainer!" Get Steve Greer on board for some ... Fund Raising. Hey! He just cleared $ 250 K for his movie ... and his examination ... of a "dead alien!" I mean ... jus' saying ...

Decker

 

[Randall]

I have a question for some of those commenting on this thread:

As UFOs have been caught on radar (including the time when my Dad worked for Braniff out of Love Field), why would they not be caught on a camera? How is a radar hit of a UFO somehow fairly commonplace but a stationary camera catching a UFO would be unheard of? Is the latter a "come pose for us" moment while a radar hit is just an "oops"? (Google "UFO" and "radar hit" to determine just how often this has occurred. It doesn't take long to discover that radar hits are often used as corroborating evidence when the only other evidence has been eyewitness testimony.) We should also consider the number of times UFOs have been spotted over or near military bases, airports, etc. If they wanted to remain hidden, appearing in places where people are supposed to be looking up and using radar might not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

The truth is, Christopher O'Brien is right in that we won't know what we might find until we actually start looking. For that matter, there may be other anomalies besides UFOs that these cameras catch as well. I don't know if we could consider a camera image to be absolute proof of UFOs or anything else but it could lend a hand to any investigations that are going on and also used to help corroborate any other testimony or evidence. This is a Very Good Thing. I hope he's able to fund this project.

Absolutely, we're just poking a bit of fun at the idea. But every bit of humor ... at least good humor, also has an element of truth. The SLV project is one of the most ambitious efforts I've seen in ages out of the serious ufology community and you'll find that we're all very supportive here. At the same time, the elements of the phenomenon that we're touching on are also quite real. To elaborate, starting with your point about radar: Radar catches more anomalies because many unidentified targets are terrestrial aircraft. For example, according to the CIA, the secret spy planes SR-71 and Oxcart were responsible for many unidentified radar returns. We only find out about these aircraft later through disclosures ( either voluntary or FOIA ). Plus there are a lot of other aircraft flying around that aren't on the log books. Add to that all the new drones. Also factor in that unlike cameras, radars steadily carve huge swatches of sky 24 hours a day in thousands of locations around the world looking specifically for flying objects. So the sheer volume of aircraft combined with massive detection capability make it far more likely for a radar to detect unidentified objects than the number of cameras we have that are assigned to the same task.

Also, because UFOs fly around with near complete impunity they are probably less concerned with being detected among the air traffic and noise once in a while. But a specific set location designed to catch them is another story. It is akin to setting up a bug catcher and hoping they'll either just fly in by accident or be attracted to it. The difference is that we're not dealing with something on the intelligence level of insects. For example, they know when aircraft radars lock onto them and can disable high tech military hardware. So I seriously doubt they would have a hard time with a few amateur video cameras and UFO detectors. But even if by some freak accident the SLV captures an event, unless it is instantly streamed to the Internet and recorded far and wide, it's likely to be seized or mysteriously disappear long before it can be distributed. The bottom line is that the SLV project is facing nearly insurmountable odds ... and that is the reason I respect the effort. It shows some real initiative regardless of how successful it turns out to be.

 

[Trajanus]

As UFOs have been caught on radar (including the time when my Dad worked for Braniff out of Love Field), why would they not be caught on a camera? How is a radar hit of a UFO somehow fairly commonplace but a stationary camera catching a UFO would be unheard of? Is the latter a "come pose for us" moment while a radar hit is just an "oops"? (Google "UFO" and "radar hit" to determine just how often this has occurred. It doesn't take long to discover that radar hits are often used as corroborating evidence when the only other evidence has been eyewitness testimony.)

There have been many photographs of UFOs. Naturally, some, like those of Meier, are controversial but others like McMinnville, have not, to my knowledge, been debunked.

We should also consider the number of times UFOs have been spotted over or near military bases, airports, etc. If they wanted to remain hidden, appearing in places where people are supposed to be looking up and using radar might not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

They do try to be inconspicuous but they may have to make exceptions, given the likely importance of monitoring military bases.

The truth is, Christopher O'Brien is right in that we won't know what we might find until we actually start looking.

Lol, the phenomenon reveals itself fairly often--on its own terms.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Lol, the phenomenon reveals itself fairly often--on its own terms.

OK, so the phenomenon is willing to reveal itself on its own terms if it's sighted over a military base, airport, or is otherwise caught on radar, whereas it probably won't reveal itself on it's own terms if we're actually looking for it using stationary cameras in the SLV?

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Trajanus]

OK, so the phenomenon is willing to reveal itself on its own terms if it's sighted over a military base, airport, or is otherwise caught on radar, whereas it probably won't reveal itself on it's own terms if we're actually looking for it using stationary cameras in the SLV

It may have to appear near a base to monitor it, but being generally secretive, it won't show up where there's no need--and certainly not just so we can learn more about it.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

It may have to appear near a base to monitor it, but being generally secretive, it won't show up where there's no need--and certainly not just so we can learn more about it.

Is there "no need" to show up in the SLV? People have been seeing UFOs there since before Europeans settled in the area. There's stories of the Conquistadors being frightened away by strange lights and crafts in the sky. Sightings there still seem to be fairly commonplace and the UFO Watchtower is there, which admittedly is a knick-knack shop but its guests can and do often report seeing UFOs, vortexes, etc.

Let me make sure we're on the same page:

• UFOs "need" to show up by military bases and airports, even though these are places where people are likely to be looking up and also spotting them on radar.
• They otherwise hate to be seen and won't appear where people are looking.
• They show up in the SLV precisely because no one is looking there, in spite of centuries of sightings and a UFO Watchtower where people come from all over the world specifically to see UFOs.
• Even though they are appearing specifically where people are looking for them, using a camera to find one will scare them away because, as we established, there's actually no need for them to be there.

Did I break the Secret UFO Code of Conduct?
Again, thank you for the clarification.