What equipment would you need to hunt UFOs?

[kittenshark]

I really need an answer.

Customer asked this question with a straight face. They have money.

ZWO camera? 20" dob? 16" Go-to scope? Mini table-top scope with a sticker of a spaceship in the eyepiece?

Bear in mind they may come back to return all the things because they can't find/photograph said UFO.

:question: :screwy: :help:

[wavelandscott]

I would offer skepticism...but if they insist...

Binoculars to see/find them. Different kettle of fish if they want to get a picture...

[AstralTraveller]

Custom-modified image processing software could help. ;)

[xelasnave]

Interesting problem.
Let's be positive and assume they have UFOs that they want to photograph.
Now I may be wrong but I think you can get binnos that have a built in camera and if there are non on the market there should be.
However what we really need is a super auto guide system such that it acquires the target and follows it taking photos and video.
The military probably have something and if they haven't they could be another buyer.
Alex

[Bart]

I think the truth as best we know it, it's not all about the cash. There is a moral obligation here.

This is my opinion only and not intended to start a thread war. YMMV.

[deanm]

Essential kit: tinfoil hat.
Dean

[Stonius]

How bright are these theoretical UFO's? How fast do they expect them to be moving?

They're they key questions, AFAIK. Then you're dealing with their expectations, not yours. When they don't find them, you want to have supplied the scope for the job, that they specified and *could find them if they were, in fact, there.

-Markus

[Slawomir]

As Matt suggested, an all sky camera would be a good point to start. If anything, it surely will provide some interesting images of clouds, night sky, meteors etc.
Then if a telescope is desired, I think a manually operated (not motorised) quality alt-az mount with good bionos or a wide field scope.

[leon]

I would tell them to save their money, as there is nothing to find :scared3:

Leon :thumbsup:

[ngcles]

Hi All,

40-less I.Q points via frontal lobotomy.

Best,

L.

P.S More seriously, image-stabilised binos.

[barx1963]

I think the concern is that if you make a recommendation, the customer may attempt to return the goods? And under Australian Consumer Law, if inn the course of discussion, you indicate that a piece of kit is suitable for a purpose, then if it turns out not to be, then you have to replace, refund etc.
If it was me I would simply be truthful, tell them that the gear you sell is suitable for astronomy and you are happy to advise on that, but for other purposes, he will have to do his own research.
That way, the standard required under the law would revert to "reasonable expectation", and if he didn't find any UFO's, it is his issue.

Malcolm

[doppler]

15,641 registered members in this forum and only a handful have seen something that resembled a UFO. You could always tell them where a good spot is then send up some hot air balloons.

[phomer]

I would advise against hunting UFO's as they may decide to retaliate and you would have no idea what may be an effective weapon against them.

I suggest you may be safer trying to make friends, so invite them in for tea.

Regards

Paul

[Pinwheel]

1997 was a good year for these, which were taken on film by me. Also authenticated as genuine by Prof Gail Spring RMIT forensic science dept. They earned me a nice $15,000 and an interview on an Australian doco "OZ encounters" you can see it here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAGqsA5Q3mA

[el_draco]

If I was doing something serious....

A wide field detector that can slew a mount fast to a target object with multiple cameras for wide, narrow and filtered (for data collection), and video imaging. I'd want a dedicated spectroscope, photometer and at least one fast big aperture lens for a "closer-up" look. Of course it would need software to exclude known satellites, aeroplanes and other possible man made targets.

It would cost a BOMB!

[csb]

If a hunter fails to kill an animal because they found none or couldn't get in a good shot then they have no legal right to a refund.

Neither would UFO hunters.

AND fisherman have no right of refund if their new fish radar fails to locate fish that are not there.

The all sky camera is the best shot. Recommend they should buy at least 1,000 units.

[Stonius]

True, but animals are known to exist.
If I sold you a depth sounder for finding schools of fish and it didn't detect any, you'd return it, right? The client's position is that UFO's exist. Let them define the specs for the job, and build the quote around that.The big question is what the client expects these UFOs to look like? That dictates the nature of the equipment required for the job of (most likely not) finding them.

:-)

Markus

[barx1963]

The clause in law is "The product is reasonably fit for any purpose specified by the customer and agreed by the seller, at the time of sale."
(This is from the Vic government consumer website, but the rules are now Australia wide)
So the question would come down to "reasonably fit". One could argue that a retailer who recommended something would be joining in the unreasonableness of the expectation of their customer and so would then be liable for a refund.
In any case, I reckon the retailer is on a hiding to nothing!

Malcolm

[iborg]

Something like these? Binos with HD camera.

Need to be able to scan across the sky. Then you can image all the balloons, contrails, er I mean UFO's, to your hearts content.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/12x32-HD-Black-Binoculars-Telescope-Folding-with-Built-in-Digital-Camera-G-/272309480794?hash=item3f66e8ed5a%3A g%3AYtgAAOSwIgNXieUt

[Atmos]

I have had this conversation with my friend a couple of times over the years. As long as you were to word it as "IF you're wanting to find UFO's you are going to want a wide field of view so something like a 8x42 binos do this well. Plus they're good for dark skies."

[PeterM]

Consumer Laws and fit for purpose oh come on..... and the proof is your honour... If they are willing to part with their money sell them anything in the store. A 12 inch Meade LX200 $10,000 would be ideal or perhaps a 14inch, and if you get bored looking for LGM you can also use it for some fun astro. The site below gives a good indication of what is "recommended".

http://www.ufostop.com/

[Slawomir]

I would also get an infrared camera in case UFOs use cloaking devices...

[multiweb]

A tinfoil hat.

[csb]

They don't sound like crackpots :rolleyes:

[GrahamL]

2X 150 mm plasma cannons on a rotating hub , works a treat .

Then a big fat :welcome: sign .

[Wavytone]

Equipment ?

A computer and a copy of Chariots of the Gods in one hand, and ia lunatic imagination a-la Eric von Daniken that regularly leaps to the wildest conclusion then spend hundreds or thousands of hours faking the "evidence" to justify the conclusions.

What you don't need is a good camera or Astro equipment. A $10 junk camera from an op shop wil suffice, preferably with a rather grubby lens.

[Boozlefoot]

Personal lube in case you find one (or rather they find you):sadeyes:

[el_draco]

I find it somewhat surprising that so many people are so sceptical here. True, whilst the chances of an alien race visiting us may be remote, it's not impossible. We have been a technological civilisation for only a few generations and before people like Newton came along, we knew surprisingly little about how things work in space. Since then, our understanding has grown considerably but we are basically babies at this stuff. Heck, I may live long enough to see an image of another stellar disk.... My kids will probably see the planets around some stars... if we can avoid wiping ourselves out..

Who knows what another 1000 years, let alone millions of years, of development may bring. Based on the little I know, the planetary catalogue Kepler has popped in the think bag, and what we know about the resilience of life here, it seems to me that there are possibly millions of "advanced" civilisations in our galaxy alone. I can't even imagine what some of them may have achieved. Indeed, a trip across thousands of light years may be no big deal to "them". Of course, our understanding of science sets limits like the speed of light but there have been so many limits broken in the past that I see no reason why "trans-warp drives" don't exist somewhere. Perhaps there is a branch of Science yet to be discovered that allows such things. Its happened before, (Think, radio, infra-red, X-Ray and now Gravitational wave astronomy). What, I wonder, will quantum computing enable us to achieve?

The question I have often thought about is, "So why haven't they contacted us? Well, a couple of possibilities include:

1/ "They" have a principle like the "prime directive". Logical, considering the history of more advanced human societies contact with other groups. (ie) the Spanish in South America. Undoubtedly, "they" would have learned the hard way as well.
2/ "They" may be using transport and communication methods so different from ours that its akin to us trying to understand machine code using a charcoal stick and clay tablet. They may be screaming at us, "Are you deaf?", in a wavelength we haven't even tried yet...
3/ "We are being studied like the "proverbial microbes in a drop of water" :rolleyes:

The history of Science is resplendent with examples of people who have been scoffed at and ridiculed for ideas that have subsequently become mainstream, (Darwin, for example). That's a lesson we should always put front and centre when confronted with "fringe" ideas!

This bloke may indeed be pissing his money away, (he wouldn't be the first :P), but I've decided to take the "Never say never" stance and I'd advise the bloke according to what I previously said, based on how these things may move, and what kind of data I'd want to collect to record and support my observations.

He may achieve nothing more than a catalogue of observations that can be used to "eliminate" further misleading "sightings" (useful), or discover something like "sprites" which have a history worth reading about... OR he may get a "WOW" moment that rattles the planet.
The key here is to apply critical scientific analysis to any claims of success rather than blanket cynicism.

Tolerance is a virtue and may save some of us having to wipe egg off our faces in the future ;)

I'd add one more word for those about to scoff. SETI! :)

[AussieTrooper]

A pair of out of focus spectacles. That way, every flying object you look at will be unidentified to you.

[Kal]

Since the most common UFO sightings are in fact venus, aircraft, or baloons mixed in with a healthy amount of ignorance, I would suggest two eyes are all it takes to hunt for UFO's

[androidbitcoin]

I registered for this forum just to reply to this message :)

I'm a UFO researcher to an extent. After this thing flew over my house and got picked up radar I started looking more and more into it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/53lnuu/pottsville_pa_about_an_hour_ago/

I started digging around and saw A few weeks ago this happened in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGmxM2cw5FQ

A few others like this .. but evidently they can be seen on Radar , and though thermal cameras... so to answer your question a thermal camera appears to do it.

[csb]

Well thought out. Maybe.

Asking for a customer is not as obvious a cover as asking for a friend. Hmm, Cheryl-Ann? ;)

[Pinwheel]

A UFO experience is a lot like a fatal car accident, Until it happens to you nobody wants to accept it could happen to them.

[Stonius]

I guess there's two kinds of UFO researchers; those looking to *identify those flying objects (whatever the explanation) and those looking for evidence of aliens. They are two wholly different paradigms with two very different accepted truths as starting points.

-Markus

[Slawomir]

Just over a week ago I returned from my trip to Houston which included several meetings with interesting people who work or used to work for NASA, such as dr Heather Paul, dr David C.Hilmers, dr Leroy Chiao just to name a few. When prompted, they openly admitted that they are convinced that our Universe is teeming with life and happily elaborated on these matters. While Universe teeming with life doesn't necessarily mean UFOs visiting our blue rock, I thought I will mention this nonetheless :)

[csb]

That's a point, Suavi.

We listen to people with background and consider what they say.

Other people are just considered crackpots.

[Tropo-Bob]

In all seriousness, if there is ethical money to be made from this, perhaps the answer is develop a kit to eliminate false positives. The main false positive is Venus (that bright light that was travelling parallel to the car), the Moon when it has a thin crescent, aircraft, hot air balloons etc.

It would probably be doing us all a favour if an 'annual kit' was developed for UFO researchers showing when Venus can be low and mistaken for a UFO, same with thin Moons etc and giving locations of flight paths or planes or Hot Air Balloons at night. In the same vain, where the ISS will be visible and explaining tumbling satellites etc.

Other items that could be explained is how bright stars like Sirius can flash many colours when low. Seriously, 25 years ago, I had to ring to the local radio station after Arcturus was claimed to be a UFO by a number of callers.

As said, something to eliminate False Positives may be doing us all a favour.

[Atmos]

Suave makes a good point, there are a fair number of space scientists that do believe that there is other life out there; I'm not one of them by the way but Hawking is! Now we wouldn't call him a crackpot.

As Bob suggests, having a handbook or a kit purely for taking out false positives is a good idea BUT the vast majority of people that are likely to go looking for UFO's don't know the first thing about astronomy. You could give them a star chart but it isn't going to help them.

I work with someone who believes in a lot of the conspiracy theories, UFO sightings and the like, all of his information comes from YouTube. He wants to go UFO hunting. One of my friends asked if he could borrow my 10 LX200 (before I sold it) as he wanted to go UFO hunting as he believes he's seen them on a number of offasions in the last decade. I explained the futility of high magnification viewing by hand on a moving object and suggested binoculars instead.

I have met a fair number of people at public outreach nights asking about UFOs and aliens, they've come along wanting to learn more about astronomy as a future aid to their UFOing (I verbed it!).

There are several kids of alien believers out there. There are the conspiracy theorists (UFO crackpots) that would require a military grade instrument and a team of scientists to have a chance of getting through although at that point it is still just a conspiracy and government coverup!
Then there are the casual UFOers, those that believe they've seen something and would like something to confirm or deny any future sightings. For these, a kit could be useful but would have to be very basic and they're worthwhile having a pair of 8x42 binoculars on hand as it's the only useful "telescope" to them.
Then there are the alien (intelligent or single celled) believers that are of no harm to modern day society :P

[lazjen]

Life out there? I'd say almost certainly. Intelligent life? Maybe.

Check out the Fermi Paradox. Here's a good book on it: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/180506.If_the_Universe_Is_Teeming_w ith_Aliens_Where_Is_Everybody_

[Atmos]

On the Feemi Paradox... another interesting read if I say so myself :P
https://www.dropbox.com/s/klsv8urzqpwlmtq/Fermi.pdf?dl=0

[tonybarry]

Dropping in to this thread a bit late, but ...

The all-sky cam is a very good idea. Such cams are used for meteor tracking right now and are very useful for the purpose.

You need a time stamper to get good (ideally GPS based, or at least NTP based) time signatures on each frame. Otherwise your images are going to be of limited value even for the meteor hunters.

An infrared all-sky cam would also be helpful, but such cams have very poor resolution right now (think 256 x 256 for a $5k unit) and that is not really going to be very helpful.

If you want to spring for a second all sky cam mounted a few km away from the first cam, this will improve the utility enormously. With GPS time stamps on both cams, you will be able to triangulate the height of the object(s) seen, whether meteors, aeroplanes, balloons, or whatever.

The other posts in this thread about "fitness for purpose" are outside of my knowledge. A lawyer would be the required person to provide those opinions, and for a fee.

Regards,
Tony Barry
WSAAG

[lazjen]

@Colin: interesting read - a mini summary of some of the points raised in the book I linked.

Btw, UFOs exist. Anything that is a Flying Object that isn't identified is by definition a UFO. Now, it's much more debatable if any UFOs are from aliens though...

[Boozlefoot]

They are out there. To believe otherwise reflects a very narrow point of view. Considering the way in which we treat each other, in all possibility other worldly beings are more likely to be far more advanced and treating us with smirking distain after viewing the US elections and the recent spate of terror attacks. (Like kids looking into the Sea Monkey jar) You don't necessarily have to believe, rather retain an open mind to the possibilty.

[Weird1]

Maybe a bigger version of one these http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208629&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1483237942:rofl::lol: (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208629&d=1483237942)

[astroron]

Belief is not proof.
Facts,not science fiction is required for your statement.
After 30 years of observing the day and night sky
I can honestly say I have seen nothing that cannot be logically
explained.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[el_draco]

Probabilities are important in Science. Odds are heavily stacked in the affirmative even based on our limited knowledge of the universe.

Blanket denial and cynicism as demonstrated in some of the responses here is just naive... or worse. Harks back to a universe "created" for our pleasure by some omnipotent bureaucrat. Simply ludicrous... but plenty had die proving the opposite. :shrug:

Anyone who wants to have a go at proving it, using proper scientific methodology, has my blessing and they should be respected as long as they don't get whacko about it like some of the numb-nuts on the net.

[sharpiel]

:thumbsup: well said.

[clive milne]

Well.. in my forty plus years of observing under skies ranging from the nullabor, haute provence (southern French highlands), Calar Alto (Max Planck institute) mainland China, Thailand, (every country in Europe) Singapore, Malaysia, high in the the Swiss alps, Hong Kong, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Turkey and both sides of the American divide, I can state with all honesty that I have never EVER come across an amateur astronomer called Ron, to the best of my knowledge.


There is no rational explanation for this,
Therefore, I conclude that there is no such thing as an amateur astronomer called Ron, and all who believe otherwise are bat5hit crazy conspiracy theorists.

Maybe I need to get out more?

[sharpiel]

Eloquent :lol::lol:

[el_draco]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Gawd I needed that!

[Stonius]

Come on, the mere fact that you are conversing with Ron yields a lot more proof of his existence than has ever been provided by aliens. That's not a fair analogy.

-Markus

[clive milne]

Yes, Markus, I concede that is a valid argument..

but you do understand the logical fallacy I was pointing out...?


I don't have a horse in this race other than... I wont be told that two plus two doesn't equal seven - because motorbikes don't have ash trays...

and not expect me to call (the argument) for what it is.

[Boozlefoot]

All I said was to maybe retain an open mind to the possibility..............I have no factual proof I'll win the lottery, but I still buy a ticket!

[Stonius]

I think so.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (No proof of aliens yet, therefore there are no aliens)

But as far as the UFO hunters go, they have an equally valid point that in the absence of any evidence that Aliens don't exist, it's possible that in fact, they may.

The flip side of this is that the existence of Aliens can't be disproven for the same reason that the existence of Unicorns can't be disproven. Until there's more evidence, Aliens and Unicorns must inhabit a similar sphere of veracity.

-Markus

[jenchris]

I can only offer a mark 1 eyeball as reference to seeing two (not at the same time.
One was when I had a paper round - I would have been 13.
I was lying on the ground in midwinter (I kid you not) at 6.30ish AM in a local park enjoying the solitude and stillness it was still totally dark and my eyes were adapted.
I observed a steady red light (that's already unusual) vertically above me - now this is 1965 so no satellites to worry about - as I watched it for about ten seconds it slowly tracked across about 5 degrees of sky. No noise and no variation of light.
Then - it turned 90 degrees and continued on for about another ten second before suddenly winking out. The sky was crystal clear.
the ODD thing about that was the 90 degree turn was without a radius or change in speed. One second it was going right to left the next it was going up to down.
Unidentifiable I think.
The next was 4 years later about two months before Appollo landed for the first time.
I was standing in parade ground formation (I was in the services) perfectly still when above the building in front of me a shiny cylinder which I thought was a plane at first. As my eyes tracked it slowly across the sky I noted that no matter where it was in my vision, I could see no wings and no tail. No rotors no jets no noise nothing -
The object was the same at both ends - not tapered at all just rounded.
There were what looked like windows on it. Square windows. I didn't count them (it's hard to count regular items in a line )but there were approximately 10.
It eventually disappeared behind another building. I had and have never seen anything like it before or since and no pictures of aircraft ever seemed similar.
It wasn't for instance an aluminium plane like a douglas DC3.
Now add to that that the plane was headed nowhere near an airport and was only a few degrees above eyeline over what would have been Cornwall's moorlands, I think I can safely say it was a UFO.
I'm not easily fooled and quite sceptical and pragmatic.

Astronomers point their gear at a very small part of the sky and even their eyes aren't tuned to observing a wide field under normal circumstance. I know there's thousands of us and we look at a lot of sky but that doesn't mean we're likely to see much more than we expect.

[sjastro]

Personally I think it is far more plausible that the Universe let alone our galaxy is not teeming with advanced civilizations for what ever reason are too shy to announce their existence.

The Fermi paradox was postulated at a time when the infinitely old steady state theory of the Universe was the mainstream theory.

An infinitely old Universe allows "enough time" for advanced civilizations to develop.
Given that it took 3 billion years for "intelligent" life to develop on Earth which is nearly a quarter of the age of the Big Bang it might be the Universe is simply too young to support a large number of advanced civilizations that are even technologically capable of communicating or visiting each other.

Regards

Steven

[Robair]

I happily subscribe to the train of thought that due to the sheer size and diversity of the universe there statistically has to be some form of life out there intelligent or otherwise.
Perplexity creeps in though when it is assumed that there is super intelligent life capable of interstellar travel which chooses to leave us alone for whatever reason.
I'd like to throw out there the assumption that our little blue dot holds the most intelligent life in the universe. That would certainly explain why we have never seen aliens overhead letting us know what a bunch of destructive gumbies we are?
The discovery of simpler life forms is our most likely scenario imho.
Cheers
Rob B

[N1]

There are very few objects that can be, or have been, confirmed to be flying while remaining unidentified at the same time. Anyting else is not a UFO as per the definition.

[jenchris]

Puttong yourself on a pedestal are you?
We, the highest form of life?
We're self destructing so fast that I may witness the beginning of the end.
Intelligent.... not much.

[Ric]

They are out there, that's for sure. They just don't want to be involved with us.

Seriously if you pulled up at a planet that looked intelligent only to discover the way they are destroying, polluting and generally wiping themselves out, would you really want to drop in for a cuppa and a chat?

Cheers. :)

[Slawomir]

Let's not forget to mention that dwellers living on this blue rock tend to shoot first at things they do not understand/fear and ask questions later... :lol:

[Robair]

Hi jenchris

My point was that maybe we are on the pedestal. Whether we deserve it or not is open to the individuals own interpretation as to just how successful we are as a civilisation. Personally I hope the pedestal is not our space to occupy, however, the possibility should at least be entertained.
:shrug:
Cheers
Rob B

[el_draco]

I think it unlikely we were to occupy that position anymore than there being the "omnipotent bureaucrat" who built it all for us. After all, the sun is only middle aged and there are way more stars much old than the sun, not including those that have already popped the cork. Any space faring races that old would certainly have left the building in time. :)

[AstralTraveller]

When considering life elsewhere in the universe we, unfortunately, have only one analogy to follow. Without forgetting this we should try to understand as much as we can from that example.

Firstly, life arose quite early on Earth and that by about 3.7 billion years ago bacterial colonies existed (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/nature19355.html#tables). We also know that life can use a variety of chemical-energy sources, not just photosynthesis. This is just as well because (I've heard it said) photosynthesis is an unlikely two-step reaction which has evolved just once in the history of the Earth: green plants co-opted the reaction which evolved originally in cyanobacteria. By contrast sight, hearing, locomation and flight have evolved multiple times. This suggests that life may be reasonably common, at least on goldilocks planets, but the chance of it using photosynthesis is lower. "It's an ecosystem Jim, just not as we know it."

Second, it took about another 3 billion years before solid-bodied species arose and another few hundred million for animals to start colonising dry land. We, of course, have only existed for an instance. Even in a 'busy' universe the chance of an alien civilization having spotted us are exceedingly low. In truth, the chance of them existing at the same time as us is exceedingly low. If species come and go on other worlds as they do on Earth why should we even be around at the same time? Evolution only has to run a different course or at a different pace for us to miss each other by a billion years. Not only space but also time is vast.

Third, we have no evidence that the fundamental limit of the speed of light can be broken. Each intelligent species may be trapped on its own world, forever fated to wonder what else is out there. They too may wish to boldly go like Captain Osifdhf or travel time like Dr Fafc but be equally clueless as to how to achieve it (and have their own problems at home).

So for me it's: chance of life elsewhere, ~100%; chance of what we might consider intelligence, very low; chance of meeting or detecting them, vanishingly small; validity of trying to find them, very high; chance the discoverer will walk into kittenshark's store and ask for instructions, laughable.

[csb]

This discussion seems to be flowing through 2 pathways.

1) Is there other intelligent life in the universe.

2) Is Earth being visited by "space craft" built by other beings.

I think 1) is a good possibility.

I think 2) is unlikely. There are many obvious reasonings that point to the improbability of others beings travelling here. These out way the fewer reasonings that may support the possibility of space craft visiting Earth.

Personally, I think all UFO sightings are mistaken conclusions, wishful/hopeful thinking, deceitful reporting, fame/attention seeking, etc.

This is certainly an interesting and enjoyable discussion.:thumbsup:

[sharpiel]

Back to the OP before her thread got hijacked by all us "rude ignoramuses" (to coin someone else's phrase)...I'm really intrigued to know what you ended up selling to the customer Cheryl-Ann?

[PeterM]

Hallelujah.

[astroron]

A number of suggestions where made re the original question,and on that score not much could else be added to that advice.
In other words the question was answered.
That the thread moved into away from that is a natural progression of such a question on an Astronomical forum.
Cheers
PS the people who call other posters ignoramuses must have a very high opinion of themselves. :question:
Cheers and happy New Year to you all.:thumbsup:

[csb]

This thread mostly stayed on topic until about Post #30. No posts from the OP since #1.

Yep Ron, natural progression of this particular discussion

[PeterM]

Agreed Ron, I think there has been some poor form shown by other posters in relation to fellow astronomers here. I bit mylip at "Never seen a Ron". I hope we do hear from OP as to the outcome and if this thread has in anyway proven useful.

[astroron]

Yes Peter,it always saddens me when people denigrate others on IIS
but then again they probably do it quite happily in their everyday life.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[AussieTrooper]

On a serious note, a previous poster mentioned thermal cameras. These things have now dropped in price to be similar to other pieces of astronomical equipment. You can get something like a 4x thermal camera for about $3,000. It was only a few years ago that these things were huge and over $10k.

On the topic of UFOs, the simple fact is that people are absolutely terrible at identifying something that they haven't seen and had explained to them before, or that they weren't expecting. There are countless examples of this. There has been a staged mugging during a law class, where pretty much every student gave a wrong ID of the 'offender'. A large number couldn't even tell whether he was black or white.

Today, almost every single person has a video camera with them. There must be thousands of sky cams, and absolute hordes of surveillance cameras. So why hasn't the number of photos/videos of UFOs increased much? Could that be because the number of hoaxes hasn't increased?

It would be unscientific to completely dismiss the possibility of UFOs existing, but given the sheer volume of surveillance and still the lack of reliable evidence, the chance of them existing has become vanishingly small.

[Tropo-Bob]

Many years ago, a member of the Cairns Astronomy Group was also a member of a UFO society. She asked if she could bring members around to look through my telescope. I showed planets, nebula & galaxies, but there was a complete lack of enthusiasm by the visitors. I late learnt that they had been expecting to scan the skies looking for UFOs.

During the visit, I was also exposed to some trails of thought by these UFO enthusiasts. Some of the members believed aliens were living amongst us and disguised themselves as humans. (And this was before Men In Black was a movie). Others in the society rejected this completely and were apologetic about such opinions.

So interestingly, there a lot of thought 'constructs' re UFO and aliens, but no incontestable evidence.

I had another friend who really insisted that she had seen a UFO when she was 18. She said, I will never forget it as this was the first night that she ever had an alcoholic drink. Hmm.

But never say never. When I was 13, I bet a friend that they will never prove UFOs are aliens. He took the bet and then said, U will never collect because there is no end date, whereas, if it is ever proved, I will lose the bet. Silly me, so though very, very sceptical, I now realise that we can not prove every sighting is not an alien in a UFO, so the negative case also remains unproven. Still, the scientific onus is really on those who believe to provide extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims.

[sharpiel]

I agree that threads morph. Much like language does over time. "Rude ignoramuses" was only used by me 'tongue in cheek' as it was a phrase once used against myself lol. By John Bumbury I think. Anyway...that's irrelevant of course now.

Despite all the excellent :P advice given by us all to Cheryl-Ann, only she can actually tell us what she did. Wish she'd let us know...hate being left hanging! Has been a brilliant thread none the less :thumbsup:

[thunderchildobs]

I would suggest the following, 2 different brand cameras, each with a different lens and gps mounted side by side on a stable tripod. Should make dust, lens flares , dodgy pixels, camera artifacts, focus issues easily detectable. If it is not the same in both cameras, it is not there. It is a lot harder to fake if there a multiple simultaneous images. The biggest advantage is getting to sell twice the amount of equipment :)

If the customer gets bored with ufos, the same setup could also work with ghosts and yetis.

Additionally some astronomy software showing stars and satellites wouldn't go astray.

[kittenshark]

Geez, I left you guys alone for a couple of days and you can't behave! ;)

I re-open shop on Thursday. Still recovering from the silly season sales and catching up with housework and taking care of the fish the past 2 days.

No word from the customer yet. I sent him away with a 2x barlow for his existing scope which he couldn't figure out how to use.

I'm not sure if he's ready for a ZWO camera yet.

Some days you think you can make it up as you go along but no....

If he wants to hunt yetis I can sell him night vision goggles, but I'm more tempted to send him to the local hunting store and let them deal with him!

[Atmos]

I thought Yeti's lived in perpetually cold climates, gotta go to Canada or something for them :P

[AussieTrooper]

If you've ever had to deal with the staff at most hunting stores, you'll realise what a mean thing to do that would be!
Think of the good service that you generally get from astro stores. Then replace 'good' with 'condescending/arrogant' and you'll have a fair idea.

[kittenshark]

I've never had the pleasure, unfortunately, though in a parallel universe I might take up hunting and fishing.

There are some birding people who refuse to go to hunting stores for their sports optics because "they shoot innocent birds", so they feel more comfortable in a store that does more astro gear and have binoculars as a sideline rather than a shop that sells guns and have binoculars as a sideline.

I haven't sent him there yet (no need to) but let's hope he's just happy with just a barlow and his own telescope. Sorry to disappoint. :shrug:

[clive milne]

Cheryl Ann, would you be so kind as to clarify a point here...

Did you recommend (or sell) a barlow lens to aid in this person's endeavour?

[kittenshark]

I sold him a barlow because he wanted to get more use out of his existing scope, UFO hunting or not, so hopefully he gets more interested in general astronomy than in hunting UFOs only.

I wanted some suggestions (and some laughs) as to what the next progression should be so I though I'd pick your brains here. Because no doubt he won't be the last UFO hunter we'd get.:rolleyes:

He's still thinking about the all-sky camera.

[AussieTrooper]

Guilty birds are somewhat difficult to identify. The scoundrels...

I'm not sure why bird watchers would come to a hunting store anyway.
That's not the area of expertise of the staff there.

[cometcatcher]

Some UFO hunters also use image intensified video cameras or frame integration video cameras, Magnetometers and EMF meters.

This is getting old now but I captured a bunch of satellites with a frame integration video camera and USB capture device. For all I know they are all LGM and not tumbling satellites, but I don't think so lol. But this sort of thing gives them some footage to review so usually makes them happy.
Better video can easily be done nowdays with a DSLR, tripod and interval timer.
Best bits are after 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsk2I3TLMU4

Shorter edited one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Zg82wq1_s