It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*listen* to a mass UFO reporting to a 911 Dispatch live Raw Audio

page: 4
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

All good. keep positing, enjoy the debate and learning and don't worry so much on personality




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I guess your sarcasm meter fails.

The meter is fine, the sarcasm failed. You still think that stuff is funny?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I guess your sarcasm meter fails.


*Leans forward with chin in hand, bats eyes lashes and looks adoringly at you.

"No really, Do go on….."



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Please note that, because of the simultaneous visual sightings (I don't know if there were any direct correlations), I'm not saying that there was nothing unusual going on.



Glad to hear it Phage and I'd say the eye-witness testimony from the ground (in roughly the same area of sky and at roughly the same time) is a pretty important factor in this case -you mention 'direct correlations' and I do seem to remember one police officer corroborating the position of the object(s) in the sky with the radar operator whilst driving his patrol car.

In case you didn't see it below is the other video where Professor Swords discusses the simultaneous visual aspects:





Could be an exageration but it's stated that over 300 reports came in from residents involving cylindrical objects and blue, white, red, and green lights (sometimes performing unusual maneuvers) so I wouldn't say nothing unusual was going on either.

Also when it comes to anoprop I suppose it's worth mentioning that it's stated the weather was clear that night (with no temperature inversions) and the radar operator was 'extremely competent' and 'aware of the sorts of signals one gets from planes, weather, anomalous propagation etc..' - the findings on the height-finding radar are also pretty intriguing and, according to Professor Swords "quite unlike anything which anomalous propagation would do".






The operator also showed me what his height-finding radar was manifesting that night --- I've drawn colored bars on one of his blanks to show that above. These things gave back "spikes" which stood as if suspended in the air, but which terminated quite high [unlike anything which anomalous propagation would do.] There was a sudden leap in height from 25,000' to nearly 50,000' which occurred at the most in 17 seconds. So the return gained that altitude at roughly 1100mph. Some of the lateral jump speeds seemed greater.



Don't know if you can read the small print but it does mention in section 3 of this document that Aurora Borealis was witnessed over Michigan on the same evening -also brought up is the suspicion by David Ford that some military electronic countermeasures may have been going on ('although the phenomenon was observed visually by numerous citizens who made the initial reports to the police').

Initial conclusion 'Unknown'. Initial Speculation 'Possible Anomalous propagation though not explainable or possible valid UFO sighting.





posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Please note that, because of the simultaneous visual sightings (I don't know if there were any direct correlations), I'm not saying that there was nothing unusual going on.




There was nothing unusual going on. Every sighting of a 'ufo' has a rational explanation of either some atmospheric phenomenon. no different



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

The news article you linked interestedly says the 911 calls witnessed tree top level sightings, yet the weather operator reported echoes from 10000 feet and above. Thats a pretty big discrepancy, what could make such a distance in 94>?


Have no idea mate and ascending vertically at a speed of around 1000mph in 15 seconds is pretty impressive in anyone's book -according to the FAA radar info, the Stephenville object from a few years later was also calculated to have been pulling 43 G's so god knows what's going on (because of that case the FAA now refuse to release specific radar information through the FOIA citing 'a threat to national airspace' so that's a bit of a shame).

Don't know how reliable these claims are about the Holland incident and a subsequent BIMUP Investigation but apparently 'hundreds' of other UFO reports came in from the surrounding area in the following days - also mentioned at the link are some alleged documents which raise these points:



This section goes on about how the radar replication reports were acquired and additional information reported that was not made public during the flap of March 8, 1994. Some of the additional highlights are:


• Several minutes before the 'objects' appeared on the exhibit radar printout, other objects were tracked by sophisticated sites across the United States.


• The first group of 24 objects approached the west coast of California from the southwest over the Pacific Ocean and appeared to be on a course toward Lake Michigan.


• At about the same time, a group of 14 objects were tracked approaching the south east from Florida and an additional group of 24 objects approached from over the Alaska and the Northwest Territory of Canada, also appearing to be headed toward Lake Michigan


• Simultaneously, a group of 12 objects appeared approaching from the East Coast of the United States coming from the north east and were observed at Loring AFB.


• All the groups actually converged at a point approximately 52,000 feet above the north central portion of Lake Michigan.


link




originally posted by: carewemust

In fact, didn't they (the military) just come out with a disclosure last week stating that most of the older (and probably current?) UFO reports were due to their secret flight-related tests?


Hi Carewemust, the CIA made those claims over the New year via 'Twitter' and there are some pretty good reasons for assuming they are complete bullsh"t.


link



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I love this. I believe 99% of ufos are military aircraft though.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: parlestonderby
It's a fair point that most these objects are "secret military aircraft". But in this particular event, it's unlikely they would complete secret testing on Lake michingan then proceed to complete more tests in land based on the radar locations of the objects. I believe the military would prefer their technology to remain secret for as long as possible and would conduct these experiments in isolated locations with minimal exposure, let alone residential areas. Plus it's unlikely they are using it as a deterrent against the enemies of America over lake michiga



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Anomalous propagation can produce all kinds of strange effects.
Around 17 minutes in the recording, the weather center radar operator talks about "instantaneous movement". Anomalous propagation can exhibit such characteristics, while physical objects generally can not. So I interpret this as strong support for an explanation of some natural phenomenon and not any kind of solid object.

I also dismiss the claim that "anomalous propagation can't do this". That translates to "not the most common variety we are familiar with", but it would be arrogant to say that we can rule out every such possibility including rare occurrences we aren't familiar with.

When there are atmospheric distortions in the refractive index of air in different places, both visual and radar effects can be observed, as happened in the 1952 Washington DC UFO case, so a visual correlation still doesn't rule out variations in the refractive index of the atmosphere:

1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident

Air Force Captain Harold May was in the radar center at Andrews AFB during the sightings of July 19–20. Upon hearing that National Airport's radar had picked up an unknown object heading in his direction, May stepped outside and saw "a light that was changing from red to orange to green to red again...at times it dipped suddenly and appeared to lose altitude." However, May eventually concluded that he was simply seeing a star that was distorted by the atmosphere, and that its "movement" was an illusion.
If the refraction is strong enough, it's even possible to pick up distorted lights from ground sources, but there was also some comment about antenna lights nearby that were flashing in a pattern similar to what was being observed.

It's certainly a fascinating case, and highly unusual whatever it was, and this explains a lot of the questions about "well if was from a natural phenomenon, why aren't the experts able to identify it?"

The answer is because it's unusual.

Bottom line is, solid objects don't move instantaneously, and to do so would violate what we know about physics. However apparent instantaneous movement on a radar screen due to the refractive index of air being in very unusual patterns wouldn't violate any known physics.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Is anomalous propagation visual from the ground to the naked eye ?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra

Is anyone claiming there was nothing in the air to be seen?

I think AP and/or radar spoofing have been presented as possibilities to explain "UFO behavior" seen on radar.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation


I asked because in this case, there was corroborated visuals from the ground. If AP is only seen on radar, then that explanation can be eliminated.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra



Is anomalous propagation visual from the ground to the naked eye ?


Yes, the answer is yes.

As far as the radar-spoofing is concerned? We know for sure that we have the technology to spoof radar. We have anecdotal stories from WWII pilots that were flying along with other aircraft that were using the radar-spoofing equipment of luminous balls of light that they could see that they called "Foo Fighters".

What we don't know is if radar-spoofing equipment that produces artifacts that can be seen by radar and the naked eye has been developed.

You can read aboout it in member mirageman's recent thread.

UFOs & the Cold War: Project Palladium


edit on 10-2-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: NYCUltra



Is anomalous propagation visual from the ground to the naked eye ?


Yes, the answer is yes.

As far as the radar-spoofing is concerned? We know for sure that we have the technology to spoof radar. We have anecdotal stories from WWII pilots that were flying along with other aircraft that were using the radar-spoofing equipment of luminous balls of light that they could see that they called "Foo Fighters".

What we don't know is if radar-spoofing equipment that produces artifacts that can be seen by radar and the naked eye has been developed.

You can read aboout it in member mirageman's recent thread.

UFOs & the Cold War: Project Palladium

I sure think it was some unknown weather thing though.

This happened in March. We know from the tape that the aurora borealis was very active that night.

Stratovolcano Galeras had just erupted in January, sending up a 12km plume, maybe the dust ended up over the Great Lakes region in March. And then there's big 'ol reflective Lake Michigan.

One can only speculate, I suppose.



Thanks, can you elaborate? You answered yes, but in what form is it visual to the naked eye? From my quick research I just see AP as a false reflectivity echo radar, but nothing about being able to see it from the naked eye.

I didn't know that about Foo Fighters being radar spoofing equipment. How exactly would these "luminous balls" work? Are they filled with helium or something?? I'm going to check out that thread. Thanks!


So it's solved: it was a combination of anomalous propagation, northern lights, a previous volcanic eruption, foo fighters and a mass optical illusion! joking!



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

Would you say Karl12 addresses this in his last 3 posts above?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra



So it's solved


No, it will always remain a mystery, but it's fun to try and make stuff fit.

Hey, I removed the Galeras volcano stuff. I was a year early.

I'm a layman, too, when it comes to all this atmospheric and geo-science, I'm much more interested in other aspects of the UFO phenomenon, but I have found that I have to be familiar with this other stuff, too.



You answered yes, but in what form is it visual to the naked eye?


As light. Here is member Arbitrageur's post from above...



When there are atmospheric distortions in the refractive index of air in different places, both visual and radar effects can be observed, as happened in the 1952 Washington DC UFO case, so a visual correlation still doesn't rule out variations in the refractive index of the atmosphere:


I will try to nutshell it for you and as an exercise for myself, and then I'll be back to post it. Project Condign has a very good description and provides a diagram, so maybe I'll use that.

BRB,




posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

Thanks, same here. I'm just trying to learn what exactly people are talking about.

The Washington DC event was explained by atmospheric distortions and not anomalous propagation, which I believe are two separate occurrences.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Sounds to me like a bunch of boy scouts popping off 'Nautical Flares' as some kind of prank, I understand several troups where around there doing a badge testing and probably became over enthusiastic at the days events, and decided to launch some flares as a way to end the day.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra
The Washington DC event was explained by atmospheric distortions and not anomalous propagation, which I believe are two separate occurrences.
Both are caused by variations in the refractive index of the atmosphere.

What are Anomalous Propagations and False Echoes?

AP is a false reflectivity echo on radar (a reflectivity echo that is NOT precipitation, especially echoes produced by unusual rates of refraction in the atmosphere). In cases where the index of refraction is unusual, AP is much more likely to show on radar. In extreme cases, the air near the ground may be so cold and dense that a radar beam that starts out moving upward is bent all the way down to the ground. This produces strong echoes at large distances from the radar. Generally, the Doppler velocity of AP echoes is zero, but the echoes themselves can move around because propagation characteristics of the atmosphere keep changing.
That description sounds a lot like this case to me except for some quibble about the altitude which may just be our ignorance of the scope of this phenomenon in more unusual circumstances.

The High Superrefraction type of AP was documented to have occurred in the Washington DC case by a crew who confirmed the source of one of the radar reflections was on the ground, or more accurately, on the water:


b. HIGH SUPERREFRACTION- Superrefraction is also termed ducting if the radar beam bend down toward the earth's surface enough to actually intersect the earth's surface. When radar beams bounce off the earth's surface some of that energy will backscatter to the radar to show AP.
Here is the evidence that was happening in the Washington DC 1952 UFO case:

1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident

Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon...the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat."



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra

It's difficult for me as a lay person to really iron all of this out for myself or anyone else as quickly as I would like to be able to. I think it's all tremendously interesting, though, and I'm grateful for the motivation to dig deeper; I'll be at it for a while.

If you check out the WikiPedia entry for anomalous propagation, you will see a little section down lower that says “Other Causes”, that includes things having to do with the troposphere and the ionosphere.

As best as I can tell, this is what Project Condign is getting at for an explanation of many UAP sightings and for what J. Allen Hynek referred to as “nocturnal lights”. I tried to give a rudimentary description of it that I cribbed from PC a couple of pages back.

I have found the paper from 1995 that Project C. is citing, but I can't find a full version for free yet. Here is the abstract.



The troposphere is the seat of powerful processes which originate separation of electric charges. Thunder clouds give rise to a huge vertical separation of charges. But also known is a different electrification mechanism activated by wind, which allows for horizontal separation of charges.

In favourable conditions, when charges are displaced at long distances, image charges appear in the ionspheric plasma and an upward electric field is originated which makes the ionosphere boundary unstable. If this occurs, recombination of displaced charges involves ionosphere conductivity and gives rise to a downward electron stream ejected from the bottom of the ionosphere.

It may produce a peculiar airglow phenomenon, which consists of the emission of light in a narrow region lying at stratospheric or mesospheric altitudes. This outcome of the electrification process just mentioned shows a close connection with a special class of «UFO» sightings, that is, those referred to by J. Hynek as «nocturnal light» and which consist of bright specks of light moving in the night sky.

On the instability of ionospheric plasma originated by charge separations in the troposphere. The «UFO» phenomenon mechanism


Anyhow, I wanted to offer some of what I've discovered that might provide an explanation having to do with anomprop (?) that would produce something visible to both radar and people-vision at the same time.

Like the Hessdalen Lights in Norway that are visible to both people and radar.

As far as the atmospheric ducting and upper-atmospheric lightning? I know that it's all involved because it's a big system up there that all works together, I just can't put together for myself how.




new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join