3 ms·

That's cool information. I wonder what makes these systems ineffective for capturing UFOs? Is their output completely open access and uncensored? Do they have s

That's cool information. I wonder what makes these systems ineffective for capturing UFOs? Is their output completely open access and uncensored? Do they have sensitivity in IR? Do they have an ability to capture / disambiguate extremely fast moving objects close to Earth? There are other classified space systems that operate further out. But the public data on UAP says they are detected coming in "above 80,000 feet", which would be too low for these satellites to detect, I guess? I suppose if it was like star trek and there were space ships just floating around the solar system, and hanging out at Jupiter Station or whatever, these systems would get it. Do these systems have any blind spots or blind areas of the sky that they don't cover? Are they radars or visual systems?

mike_hearn 3y ago
Most modern UFO sightings get explained as oddly observed planes or balloons, so something looking for satellites wouldn't spot them.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Given there's no explanation for 10s of 1000s of reports, things looking for satellites would spot them, if they're coming from space and the sensors cover the right area, and can adopt a configuration that detects them. Perhaps they can't tho. Regarding your other point about sightings that get explained: how many of those is it dishonest to include in UFO numbers to start with? If they're so easily explainable, probably a lot haha! :) Also, how many of those are poorly explained? Or unconvincingly explained? Could be a lot, too. Including easily explainable things in the dataset only pollutes the data. No serious analyst would do that, for any data set. Some databases you may be interested in if you want to see the big scale of the open data on this: NUFORC from US, CNES/GEIPAN from France, the 700 unexplained from Blue Book. It might help you refine what you mean by "most". 51%? 91%? Where are you starting at? Reports of balloons or something that's a little more difficult?

mike_hearn 3y ago

Most modern UFO sightings get explained as oddly observed planes or balloons, so something looking for satellites wouldn't spot them.

keepamovin 3y ago
Given there's no explanation for 10s of 1000s of reports, things looking for satellites would spot them, if they're coming from space and the sensors cover the right area, and can adopt a configuration that detects them. Perhaps they can't tho. Regarding your other point about sightings that get explained: how many of those is it dishonest to include in UFO numbers to start with? If they're so easily explainable, probably a lot haha! :) Also, how many of those are poorly explained? Or unconvincingly explained? Could be a lot, too. Including easily explainable things in the dataset only pollutes the data. No serious analyst would do that, for any data set. Some databases you may be interested in if you want to see the big scale of the open data on this: NUFORC from US, CNES/GEIPAN from France, the 700 unexplained from Blue Book. It might help you refine what you mean by "most". 51%? 91%? Where are you starting at? Reports of balloons or something that's a little more difficult?