How to detect alien space craft

[neilzero]

In the now closed thread about aircraft black box evidence for alien space craft, Van Jaij asked "How, specifically, are we supposed to be looking for alien spacecraft? What should we do, in your opinion, that we are not doing today?
I suggest we have voluteers point their camcorders approximately straight up and let them record for 6 hours. One of the audio tracks should record WWV or equivelent timing. On the other track, the camcorder owner should tell his location as precicely as possible and estimate ie two degrees North-East of vertical. Details about the camcorder are also helpful including the brand and model number.
Computers scan the tapes for anomolies. An object recorded simultainiously on two or more camcorders should permit calculating the distance, speed and altitude. In addition to possible alien space craft, bolides, ordinary aircraft, and possibly other items would be documented.
Has anyone an idea what it would cost to computer scan and corellate ten million hours of VHS tape per year? Neil

[R.A.F.]

Has anyone an idea what it would cost to computer scan and corellate ten million hours of VHS tape per year?

Yeah...too much.

[JustAFriend]

Tape is so '90s.
Video can be digitized directly to harddisk now without any tape involved.

But your idea would not be good; camcorders do not have big enough lenses, have enough resolution or scan enough sky to be useful.

...now a solar-system-wide array of radar dishes might be more useful.....

You could not only scan for objects exhibiting non-ballistic trajectories, but you could also map out all space junk and any other comets/asteroids/rocks that might head our way and be a hazard. As a side benefit, such loud pings would be a shining beacon across the lightyears to other civilizations that WE ARE HERE!

(as with any good government project, have a good easy-to-understand but non-oldtimer-threatening purpose down on the mission statement while you persue your other goal....)

[01101001]

Computers scan the tapes for anomolies.

Please provide a rigorous definition of anomaly for the purpose of implementing computer scans in software.

Would secret military flights be flagged? Would kites? Would bats? Would meteors? Would fireflies? Would helium balloons? Would birds? Would clouds? Would contrails? Would hoaxer toys? Would Frisbees? Would RC planes?

Has anyone an idea what it would cost to computer scan and corellate ten million hours of VHS tape per year?

Or how little it would be worth?

[tdvance]

I guess if one wanted to find an alien spacecraft traveling through our solar system, the easiest way would be if they wanted to be detected--look for their radio beacon tuned to the frequencies they detect coming from Earth. If they are not intent on being discovered, it becomes a problem of finding a body in a solar system full of asteroids, comets, etc. If they use rockets or other heat-generating propulsion, we might detect the infrared--an unusually warm asteroid not following an orbital path would bear a closer look.

If not--they'd still most likely generate heat (though if they really wanted to be invisible, I guess a giant solid (?is that possible?) block of helium might do it. Assuming that is not worth the expense, we'd be looking for a slightly warm asteroid, possibly smaller than most, when we are far from having detected all asteroids and comets in existance. I.e., we would be searching for a slightly warmer needle in a haystack made of needles.

[Noclevername]

If they use rockets or other heat-generating propulsion, we might detect the infrared--an unusually warm asteroid not following an orbital path would bear a closer look.

If they really want to avoid detection, they might have a cooling system that radiates their waste heat in one direction. Just keep it pointed away from Earth, and you're invisible.

[Ronald Brak]

Are those meteor detection stations still up and running? Odd how they never detected any spaceships.

[neilzero]

Thank you. All good answers. Clearly some people would record in newer formats than VHS. Some of the CCD = charge coupled display video recorders would record stars making the direction pointed very precise and also capture some of the brighter space junk and satellites.
I was thinking many people would not want to leave their expensive recorders unattended outside for two hours or more.
A spacecraft sheathed in frozen hydrogen might be detectable because less infrared would be detectable from that direction.
The people who keep secrets would definately not want their secret military flights detected. Bats, birds, hoaxer toys, frisbies and radio controlled airplanes would mostly be too low to be detected by two camcorders. An unconfirmed detection is of little value. Neil

[Maksutov]

Thank you. All good answers. Clearly some people would record in newer formats than VHS. Some of the CCD = charge coupled display video recorders would record stars making the direction pointed very precise and also capture some of the brighter space junk and satellites.

Uh, Charge Coupled Device.

Whether such equipment records stars depends on the equivalent ISO sensitivity of the CCD, the shutter speed, and the f-ratio and diameter of the lens. As well as the conditions at the observing site.

Funny, all the news folks at the networks have been using recording technology far in advance of VHS for many years, lo, even decades.

I was thinking many people would not want to leave their expensive recorders unattended outside for two hours or more.

Check buy.com. They're not very expensive.

A spacecraft sheathed in frozen hydrogen might be detectable because less infrared would be detectable from that direction.

Huh?

The people who keep secrets would definately not want their secret military flights detected.

Begging the question, AKA, circular "reasoning".

Bats, birds, hoaxer toys, frisbies and radio controlled airplanes would mostly be too low to be detected by two camcorders.

So?

An unconfirmed detection is of little value. Neil

Sorry, but if there's a logical flow to what you've written here, I fail to detect it.

Even with a CCD.

[tofu]

airplanes would mostly be too low to be detected by two camcorders.

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. The computer would filter out everything that doesn't appear in at least two recordings. I think that is theoretically possible, however there are one or two essentially insurmountable practical problems.

1. You have to get a lot of people in the same area to point their cameras straight up. Any lone person who volunteers to participate, but doesn't have a partner close enough to him so that their recordings overlap is not producing useful data for you.

2. You have to make sure that everyone produces quality data. People with old cameras, or people who don't point them straight up (thinking "45 degrees will be good enough") are giving you worthless data.

3. Any way that you look at it, that's a lot of data and a nontrivial programming project.

And after you solve those problems, guess what - you have filtered out bats and insects, but now you're recording jets (they don't always produce a contrail, and when they don't they are just going to appear like a moving dot on your recording). You're still recording satellites and other space objects - do you have any idea how many are out there?

http://sparkleberrysprings.com/v-web...earthsats2.png

So basically, all that work, and you're going to have thousands of little moving dots. Maybe one of them is an alien spaceship. There will be no way to tell.

frozen hydrogen

sorry, but there's no such thing.

[Swift]

So basically, all that work, and you're going to have thousands of little moving dots. Maybe one of them is an alien spaceship. There will be no way to tell.

That's my feeling. Even if the two cameras allow calculation of speed and altitude and maybe even an estimate of size, so what. I now know that an object 25 feet long crossed the sky at 250 mph at an alltidue of 1 mile on June 16. Maybe you can even barely make out a shape. It doesn't really tell me much and certainly not that it is an alien space ship.

Originally Posted by neilzero
frozen hydrogen

sorry, but there's no such thing.

Sure there is. I don't see how it is used to prevent infrared detection, but it exists.

[John Mendenhall]

[QUOTE=Swift;1014502]That's my feeling. Even if the two cameras allow calculation of speed and altitude and maybe even an estimate of size, so what. I now know that an object 25 feet long crossed the sky at 250 mph at an alltidue of 1 mile on June 16. Maybe you can even barely make out a shape. It doesn't really tell me much and certainly not that it is an alien space ship.[QUOTE]

Yes, you're going to detect a lot of stuff, essentially anything that shows up in the camera. As small as the field is for most telescopes, astronomers are driven crazy by meteors and airplanes spoiling shots. A video camera is also going to see bugs, car headlight diffractions, leaves, other windborn litter, and so forth. You'll certainly capture some good meteor tracks, though, maybe enough info to look for falls.

[trinitree88]

How about asking a suitable high government official to pick up the phone and call NORAD @ Cheyenne Mtn.? A phased array radar can see a basketball at ~ 2000 miles.Might help. You don't think they wouldn't tell us?.......

[eburacum45]

That's right. I live twenty miles from one of the most powerful phased array radars on Earth; if anything larger than a basketball moves in our atmosphere anywhere near Western Europe that array will detect it.

There are only three possibilities;
no alien spacecraft are in our skies;
they are there and have been detected and no-one is telling us;
or they are there and can avoid radar detection.

I arbitrarily chose the first option for my own world view, but others may have different opinions.

[Redrum]

Madness!!
all Madness!!!!

[John Mendenhall]

Madness!!
all Madness!!!!

Yes, visitation by aliens is way up there on the list of things that people think should be true but probably are not. The universe is cold, dark, and heartless. Ask any T. Rex. They're about as likely to be found as aliens.

[novaderrik]

i thought that all you needed to detect a ufo was a cheap handheld camcorder pointed in the general direction of venus on a clear night? if you put it on a tripod, the ufo merely looks like a bright slow moving star, but if you hold it in your hand, the "ufo" moves around in an erratic manner.

[Subra]

Yes, visitation by aliens is way up there on the list of things that people think should be true but probably are not. The universe is cold, dark, and heartless. Ask any T. Rex. They're about as likely to be found as aliens.

The lottery where I used to live advertised, "You've got to play to win!" True enough, but that doesn't mean playing is a good idea

[Thanatos]

And some people complain about the Hubble.

[John Mendenhall]

The lottery where I used to live advertised, "You've got to play to win!" True enough, but that doesn't mean playing is a good idea

What, you don't like investing your money in a game with a guaranteed negative 50% long term return on investment?

[novaderrik]

hey, over all, i'm probably 50% ahead over the years playing the lotto.
i only spend about $2 a week, tho.

[John Mendenhall]

hey, over all, i'm probably 50% ahead over the years playing the lotto.
i only spend about $2 a week, tho.

Keep careful track over the next yew years. No cheating, no fudging, no counting close as a win, and so forth. I'd be curious to see your results. Remember, the states run these to make money - and they make a lot of money off the lotteries.

Excusable lotteries - the ones with multi-million dollar payoffs. It only costs a dollar to improve your chances from zero to infinetisemally small. Over the course of your life it might cost $3000 dollars for one wager per week, against a payoff that means you won't have to work any more.

Inexcusable lotteries - three and four digit dailies. You will get crushed by the negative 50% r.o.i. in the long run.

Really bad idea: book the dailies yourself, and pay one and one-half times the regular payoff. You'll attract a huge business. Statistically, you'll still keep 25% of what you book. But - the state and your fellow bookies will be really irritated with you, and they will team up to fix your wagon. I know a book that tried this, and he got a three year paid federal vacation.

[Gillianren]

I legally can't play the lottery if I want to or not; it's illegal to spend state benefits on gambling, and they specifically include the lottery in the paperwork they make you sign. (For the record: I will occasionally buy a scratcher ticket of the kind that's really just a game, because those entertain me and it would be nice if I won.)

[John Mendenhall]

I legally can't play the lottery if I want to or not; it's illegal to spend state benefits on gambling, and they specifically include the lottery in the paperwork they make you sign. (For the record: I will occasionally buy a scratcher ticket of the kind that's really just a game, because those entertain me and it would be nice if I won.)

Interesting, that the state knows perfectly well that if all the benefit recipients spent all their benefit money on the state run lottery, the minus 50 % r.o.i. would prevail. Of course, the state would get the money back, but then they would have to issue emergency benefits, and around and around.

[stutefish]

Interesting, that the state knows perfectly well that if all the benefit recipients spent all their benefit money on the state run lottery, the minus 50 % r.o.i. would prevail. Of course, the state would get the money back, but then they would have to issue emergency benefits, and around and around.

I'm pretty sure that everybody knows that the lottery has a "minus 50 % r.o.i.". State-run lotteries are fundraising schemes; the state has to win by a large enough margin to fund whatever social program they're using the lottery to raise funds for.

All games of chance are like that. Your chances of losing always greater than your chances of winning. That's where the house profits from running the game.

[andyschlei]

OK, I play because I get my $1 of value by the idea that I might win.

And I think that is the only rational way of playing the lottery.

If you never buy a ticket, you'll never win. On the other hand, if you buy a ticket, you'll never win either.

[DaveC426913]

: wades in cautiously, wearing his anti-crackpot suit :



Anyone who thinks that recording, detecting, false signal filtering and processing is outside the realm of feasibility - should have a short talk with comet and asteroid hunters.

If diminutive rocks can be spotted in deep space by their tiny movements against a sea of identical dots, then flying object detection cannot be ruled as completely impractical.

I know it's not the same thing, I'm sure you all have lots of reasons why these two things are not the same, but I have to admit, it could be worth exploring if done right.

[DaveC426913]

And forget camcorders. Webcams! They could run 24/7 and you could pipe the data to a central location.

[R.A.F.]

I'm sure you all have lots of reasons why these two things are not the same...

The fact that comets and asteroids actually exist comes to mind.

[Noclevername]

: If diminutive rocks can be spotted in deep space by their tiny movements against a sea of identical dots, then flying object detection cannot be ruled as completely impractical.

I know it's not the same thing, I'm sure you all have lots of reasons why these two things are not the same, but I have to admit, it could be worth exploring if done right.

Sure, lots of flying objects can be detected, and are. It's just conclusively identifying them that's the problem.

"There! A moving dot!"

"What was it?"

(shrug)