Why 74 years of UFO investigations have produced nada, and how to break that trend.
(CNN) James Clapper: Logical for intel community to address UFOs. He concedes there should have been more openness in the past.
I joked about it:
- (CNN) Former Pentagon UFO official: ‘We may not be alone’
- Things to Do on Mars; Your CNN Companion
- Groupon Planetary Flying Saucer Cruises
Then I got serious:
- Why AATIP (Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program) could not resolve the question: UFOs: Let’s Get Serious; Why a Program Goes “Black” Part 1
- Practical, human related problems of Ufology: UFOs: Let’s Get Serious; Why a Program Goes “Black” Part 2 and why the question may never be solved.
- After 74 years of pushing paper, new approaches: UFOs: Let’s Get Serious; Why a Program Goes “Black” Part 3
Now suppose the question is properly studied, and no evidence of physical objects emerges, or the picture is quasi-physical, such as
- Light without heat
- Heat without light
- Mass that comes and goes.
- No convergence towards objective truth.
We might then be forced to concede that the underpinning of scientific thought, that objective reality exists, is deeply flawed. The Universe could be the biggest liar of all.
It’s not time to throw in the towel. But if the urge arises to set up another paper pushing program, in the tradition of AATIP. Bluebook, Grudge, and Sign, don’t. In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, Just Say No, unless you want to extend 74 years to a century record for pushing paper or the modern equivalent.
It’s time to apply some technological muscle to the problem. Sensor suites designed for air combat are not very good with UFOs, because they are designed to exclude the noise and clutter that do not contribute to a target solution. These systems know what a target looks like, and present to the operator a view that is simplified to fit the purpose.
Part 3 discusses how common laboratory instruments provide the basis to study this question: Do UFOs have any attributes of physical objects?
The obstacle is that laboratory instruments are not designed to fly and engage rapidly moving targets, while military imaging hardware is highly specialized. Some newer imaging equipment is hyperspectral, but the vast majority of it is not. Yet without it, we haven’t even started. Hyperspectral data is required to address the question.
Hyperspectral imaging is the logical next step, a giant leap past pushing paper. If you’re a typical reader, hyperspectral means nothing, so: The retina of your eye has three cone cells, so you can register three colors out of a possible infinite. Some exceptional people can see four; some animals, many more.
A late-model cellphone may have a hyperspectral camera for face recognition. Older cellphones can be unlocked by a photo print of the user. To foil this fraud, the hyperspectral camera records a 4th color, a heat map of the face. It can’t be fooled by a photo, which doesn’t give off heat. Even this would be a huge advance in UFO study. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, who ran Project Bluebook, relates that the project was issued film cameras which were nonfunctional in low light, which was almost always the case. Modern sensors can see by the light of the stars.
We need a flyable instrument. Modern combat aircraft are cramped and over specified. Mission durations and total flying hours are often short, so let’s go commercial. The gadgetry could almost be crowdsourced, a self-contained imaging pod designed for attachment to the fuselage of commercial aircraft:
- Hemispheric optical enclosure with flush fit.
- Coverage: 360 degree azimuthal, 90 degree elevation, 1/2 hemisphere per install, 2 installs per plane.
- CMOS sensors with extended spectral discrimination
- Flash memory storage.
- Cellular data download.
- A single connection to the aircraft for power.
DoD, openness is nice, but inadequate. Tell yourselves those UFOs are secret Sukhoi fighter jets if you have to. Just say no to pushing paper.