< < Go back to Crop circles / crop formations / agroglyphs / pictograms main page

Space-based Microwaves & Crop Circles


From: David Rudiak
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:46:55 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 15:27:45 -0400
Subject: Space-based Microwaves & Crop Circles


>From: Michael Christol
>Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 05:58:30 -0500
>Fwd Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:25:45 -0400
>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee & The AIR Report?

>>From: Greg St. Pierre
>>Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:04:46 EDT
>>To: updates
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee & The AIR Report?

>>Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:38:28 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
>>From: Michael Christol
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee & The AIR Report?

>>How would you surmise that they would be any more likely to
>>project the images on the wheat than a sophisticated, solid
>>state, high tech, computerized, graphic oriented, microwave
>>generating, beam capable communications satellite could?

>>I don't surmise it at all. American satellites were incapable of
>>bringing to the world's attention India's nuclear capabilities
>>until after the weapons were detonated. Yet, somehow there are
>>satellites over Europe that have the optical or energy-focusing
>>resolution necessary to produce the intricate, frequently woven
>>patterns hundreds of miles below? Even if such a system existed,
>>it clearly works perfectly...so why keep testing it (in the same
>>place), and risk discovery of the pattern's source?

>You are assuming that the American Government is being totally
>truthful with us. I on the other hand doubt that they are. It
>has been said as far back as the 60's that American Spy
>Satellites had the capability of reading a newspaper over the
>shoulder of a person standing on a street corner.

Time for Mr. Christol to get a physics reality check. Anybody
who said an American spy satellite could read a newspaper
obviously didn't know what they were talking about. Even under
_optimum conditions_ (e.g., no atmospheric distortion), the
maximum angular resolution "A" of a circular aperature imaging
system of diameter "d" imaging a wavelength L is given by A =
1.22*L/d. Furthermore, "A" is also the size of the element you
are trying to resolve, call it "x" divided by the height "h"
that the satellite is above the ground, or A = x/h = 1.2*L/d.
From this, we can calculate that the minimal resolvable size on
the ground is x = 1.22*Lh/d.

Now let's select some _optimal_ numbers for the variables to
give you the best possible resolution (again neglecting such
things as atmospheric turbulence which wreaks havoc with
telescope images, seriously degrading them). Suppose your spy
satellite is only 100 miles (160 km) up, about the lowest
practical distance you can place it without it quickly being
dragged out of orbit by residual atmospheric friction. Suppose
further that "d" is equivalent to the largest current
space-based telescope, namely the Hubble telescope, with an
aperature of 60 inches or about 1 m in diameter. Now choose a
relatively short wavelength of light to again increase
resolution. Let L = 5 * 10^-7 m, the wavelength of blue-green
light.

So even after using all these optimal numbers, we still get x =
10 cm or 4 inches. That represents the width of the elements you
are trying to resolve. Suppose you were trying to make out a
large newspaper headline with the letter "C." Each resolvable
element must be separated by at least 10 cms. So that letter "C"
will have to be at the very least 30 cm or 1 foot tall --
absolute minimum. That's one tall newspaper headline! Such an
optimal system couldn't even resolve ordinary newspaper
headlines much less the actual newsprint on a page.

>Another thing, you seem to assume that they are testing the
>satellite...I on the other hand do not make such an assumption.
>I suggest they are deliberately adding to the UFO lore

The only one here "deliberately adding to the UFO lore" seems to
be Mr. Christol, with his elaborate and almost impossible
theories of fantastic military secret projects somehow
accounting for nearly all UFO reports, and even crop circles.

>by doing this, when in fact it may have nothing to do wiht UFOs. As far
>as risking discovery of the pattern's source, how is that going
>to happen? You don't see a "beam" projecting into the fileds
>from above. You don't see anything.

Here's one way it could happen. An airplane flies into the path
of the potent microwave beam, has it's navigation disrupted, and
crashes. Or how about a slight guidance error, which results in
the microwave beam hitting a populated area instead of some
field. That would get people's attention.

If the military wanted to play with space-based to ground energy
beams, they would test them out in some highly deserted area,
not direct them near populated regions. The danger of
catastrophe is simply too great. And nobody has ever accused the
military of having a delicate, artistic side. Their goal with
powerful weapons is to make things go BOOM, not draw
etch-a-sketch patterns in wheat fields from space using
extraordinarily expensive systems.

>Again, this a purely subjective area of ufology.

No, it's not a purely subjective area of ufology, because Mr. Christol's very
fanciful theories of military secret weapons from space creating crop circles
can be shown to be complete bunk using simple, very basic physical arguments.
"Subjective" would mean that there was insufficient information to resolve the
issue. That's not the case here.

>>>Just how would the UFO project or lay out the pattern? Would
>>>they not have the same capabilities as those mentioned in the
>>>preceeding paragraph?
>
>>Are you suggesting that we may have the same technology as ETs
>>hundreds or thousands of years in advance of our own? I think
>>not. I think there would be far greater and noble uses for such
>>technology if we had it.

>No...I am suggesting that ET's have nothing to to with this at
>all. I am suggesting that it is purely a local phenomena, one
>origionating, not in the depths of space, but from right here on earth.

No, some space based military microwave beam won't work at all,
which becomes much clearer below. Such a project would have to
be absolutely massive in scope, a FACT that Mr. Christol doesn't
seem to grasp.

>I am going to be honest with you Greg. I am not sure there are
>ET's visiting this planet. I am convinced that at least 90 per
>cent of ALL UFO sightings are a result of advanced technology
>produced by someone on this planet, and that it has always been such.

Mr. Christol seems to be pulling more fanciful rabbits out of a
hat. Study after study has shown that 90% (give or take) of ALL
sightings are misidentification of common objects and natural
phenomena. Where did Mr. Christol come up with the figure that
90% are the result of advanced military technology? Who knows?
Perhaps Mr. Christol can cite even ONE study that has shown
this.

>I know this is not a popular point of view, but I have not seen
>any evidence to dispute this.

It's not a popular point of view, because numerous studies have
proven it false. If Mr. Christol hasn't seen any evidence to
dispute this, he simply hasn't been looking. He could start with
something like Blue Book Special Report #14, which does a
statistical analysis of over 2000 UFO reports.

>I know it is popular to blame everything on ET's.

Mr. Christol's strawman argument. Nobody who is in the least
knowledgable about the field "blames everything on ET's."

> But I also
> know that the Military powers in this country have been working
> with the CIA and other groups developing Mind Altering Drugs and
> other techniques including sonic devices which effect the brains
> ability to tell the difference from what we call reality and fantasy.

If Mr. Christol "knows" this, it must be based on personal
experience, given his inability to tell the difference from what
we call reality and fantasy in the rest of his arguments,

>I also know this taps on the average UFO believers sacared beliefs.

Again, I guess he "knows this" in the same way he knows that spy
satellites can read newspapers, military satellites create crop
circles, and 90% of all UFO sightings are really military secret
projects.

<snip>

>>So how does one stop the microwaves from just blasting into the
>>ground? How would they withhold their "bending power" until just
>>above the ground? Why were no bad experiments found, wherein
>>obvious failures in the system occured during initial testing
>>stages? To my knowledge even the simplest legitimate circles
>>were still perfect in dimention. Would microwaves be attenuated
>>by cloud cover? Could the imaging system look through the clouds
>>with sufficient accuracy to create the desired result? Crop
>>circles can and do occur under overcast conditions.

>Sure microwaves could produce the patterns through cloud cover.
>They are using infrared devices to view the earth's surface
>during cloudy weather and at night. These things you are
>suggesting are not a problem.

Well let's get down to the crunch here. What sort of space-based
microwave imaging system would it take to create something
remotely like a crop circle? It's really the same basic physics
optics problem as in the spy satellite resolution question, but
in reverse. The spy satellite receives EM radiation in the
visual range. But the hypothetical microwave crop circle
generator must transmit in the microwave range. The BIG
difference here is that microwaves are orders of magnitude
greater in wavelength than visible light and thus require orders
of magnitude in size greater imaging systems. This is due to the
inherent wave nature of light, which causes the waves to spread
out from any aperature and also to interfere with themselves
creating a diffraction pattern. This places fundamental
limitations on how tightly you can focus any form of EM wave
with a given size aperature.

Let's illustrate this with an example. Keep your "crop circle
generator" only 100 miles up. Assume that it must be able to
focus a spot on the ground only 1 m across to create something
of the intricacy of geometric patterns seen in crop circles. To
aid in getting this resolution, let's use a relatively short
wavelenth of microwaves, namely 30 gigahertz microwaves, which
would have a wavelength of only 1 cm. Now the question becomes,
how big a microwave "dish" does it take to create such a spot
(again assuming optimal atmospheric conditions causing no
scatter)? Rearrange the first equation, and we get the equation:

d = 1.22*Lh/x

Plug in the values and you find that d = ~2000 meters!!!! That's
a mile and a quarter across! How did our brilliant military
manage to do that? How do they keep such a huge object invisible
from the ground? Can you imagine the enormous resources it would
take to place such an attenna in orbit? And to do what? To
create crop circles, according to Mr. Christol, just to confuse
us.

In another post, Mr. Christol even went so far as to claim that
his microwave crop circle generator was in geosynchronous orbit.
Well, that greatly eases the tracking problem from low orbit,
which is ENORMOUS. (Imagine trying to guide a rapidly moving
giant antenna in space such that it remains focused on a spot
100 or more miles away.) But look at what happens to the size of
your antenna.

The height "h" of the satellite increase from 100 miles (160 km)
to 22,600 miles (36,300 km), an increase of over 200 times. The
size of the antenna dish "d"needed to image the same size 1
meter spot on the ground must similarly increase over 200 times.
Our hypothetical crop circle generator becomes 275 miles across!
Now our clever black budget military is assembling objects the
size of artificial moons, and still keeping it all invisible to
the gullible ET believers.

The only conceivable way to avoid using some impossibly huge
dish antenna is to employ something along the lines of a phase
array antenna, such as the ground-based HAARP project in Alaska,
which is using a large array of radio- frequency attenae to get
a focused beam of radio frequency energy. Thus instead of one
solid structure for an antenna, you could put up a large fleet
of individual satellites, and through another stupendous feat of
space engineering, maintain them indefinitely at a constant
distance from one another and emitting microwaves bearing a
carefully controlled phase relationship to one another. If you
can overcome these very formidable problems, you also get the
advantage that you no longer need to physically steer the
antenna in orbit in order to point the beam at the same point,
but can electronically steer the beam by altering the relative
phase between
emitters.

But all this takes a big fleet of satellites if you want a
narrow beam. If you try to do it with just a few satellites, the
vast bulk of your energy gets lost in the side beams produced by
the interference pattern. Besides requiring much more energy to
create a powerful enough central beam, this creates the very
serious problem of a lot of targets being struck by the mulitude
of side beams. It's like an assassin trying to shoot someone in
a crowd by using a sawed-off shotgun loaded with buckshot at 100
yards instead of using a rifle with a telescopic site. A lot of
innocent people are going to get hit in the process and most of
the ammunition is simply wasted.

>Where they get the energy to
>produce these things is easy...most of them are solar powered
>these days. Which gives them an endless access to the power
>necessary to operate all of the satellites operating systems.

See Bruce Maccabee's post on this. If you try to use a smaller
antenna, you get a very large beam spread instead of a tightly
focused beam because of diffraction effects absolutely INHERENT
in the physical situation. The smaller the aperature, the
greater the diffraction effects, or spread due to the waves.
That's why for better resolution, you always opt for bigger
lenses, mirrors, or antenna dishes.

So if you use small antenna and your beam is spread out all over
the place, you require some ENORMOUS power plant just to get a
sufficient energy density to cause the crop circles once the
microwaves strike the ground. (This also ignores the fact that
you can no longer carve out some highly localized, intricate
pattern with such a spread-out beam). So if Mr. Christol thinks
that it is "easy" to produce such energies with solar panels,
maybe he should look at Bruce Maccabee's calculation that you
would need something the size of 100-1000 nuclear power plants,
that is hundreds of millions of kilowatts of power (and that's
just from low earth orbit -- raise the power figures by four or
more orders of magnitude for a geosynchronous orbit). Then
figure out how big a solar array would be needed to produce that
much power. You end up with numbers in the region of 100s to
1000s of square miles (or millions of square miles from a
geosynchronous orbit). How "easy" is that?

In summary, with a small antenna, you would need huge solar
arrays to achieve the necessary energy densities on the ground.
Inversely, if go to tightly focused beams to decrease the energy
demands, then you need an enormous antenna or antenna arrays.
Either way you're into massive space engineering projects that
might cost hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Where
do you get the money to build such systems, how do you launch
and assemble them in space, all the time doing this completely
unseen even after you have assembled these orbiting monsters?

>>Sorry, I just don't think it's satellites.

>Hey, Greg...that is fine...I have no problem with your opinions.
>I am simply exchange ideas with you, not attacking you. As I
>have said, to this point it is purely subjective...

I suggest Mr. Christol take a course in basic physics. Perhaps
then he can learn to tell the real difference between what he
terms "opinions" and the "purely subjective," and physical
FACTS. Just a little back-of-the-envelope type calculations
can go a long way. It proves that his space-based, military,
super-secret microwave crop-circle generator is unbelievable
nonsense, more fantastic than believing UFOs _might_ be
responsible for _some_ crop circles, and even far more fantastic
than believing they are all hoaxed by Doug and Dave.

David (not Doug and Dave) Rudiak



< < Go back to Crop circles / crop formations / agroglyphs / pictograms main page