It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Skeptics say none of it is real

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Deleuze

Perhaps a derail, but how is this filtered out? Are returns from previous cycles just characteristically less powered? Radar operation is interesting to me, thanks for the great post above.

Modern radars use frequency hopping and digital encoding which helps to filter this out. They were both first implimented to defeat jamming though.

Frequency hopping is using different frequencies to transmit on. If you mix up the frequencies you transmit, you make it harder for a jammer to jam you, because it now has a range of frequencies to jam and it has to be able to predict which frequency you will transmit next. When a radar frequency hops it knows which frequency to listen to, so it will filter frequencies from previous transmissions.

Digital encoding is placing encoded signals into the radar transmission. This was also done to prevent jammimg. It's kind of like encrypting your radar. It will prevent returns from previous cycles because each transmitted radar dwell will have a unique identifying code embedded in it. A good analogy is how TCP/IP uses sequence numbers on packets so they can be correctly assembled by the recieving computer. The radar knows the order of the dwells it transmitted so it can figure out the range of returns from previous cycles.

The energy of a transmitted EM wave drops rapidly. A 5 megawatt radar might receive returns in the milliwatts from a target 100 miles out. The size of a return cannot be used to determine range however, because obviously the larger the RCS (radar cross section) of the target the more energy it will return.

As a side note, I mentioned in the radar thread under weaponry that one 'theory' for detecting stealth aircraft is to look for a 'hole' in the sky. The atmosphere will return a small amount of energy all the time, so if a truly radar-absorbing aircraft was nearby there would be a spot where absolutely no energy was returned. I've heard rumors that the stealth aircraft were designed with this in mind, so they always return a slight amount of energy to prevent detection by this method.

Edit: Oops, that thread is under Aircraft Projects...

[edit on 25-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]

[edit on 25-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime

Very interesting, thanks. Could you recommend a basic books on radar theory?

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Deleuze]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:25 PM
PeanutButterJellyTime, those are some excellent posts, thank you.

I mentioned earlier that I was into electronics, but have very little RF experience. I have mostly worked with DC, and RF is a whole different ball game. But from the training I had on cell phones, I remember that analog phone used to be a problem in a city where the signals would bounce of buildings, and you could recieve the same signal multiple times, but slightly delayed so it would sound like an echo. This sounds much like what you describing with the duty cycle returns and reflections from atmospheric layers.

I read your post earlier about the military reporting that they did not see anything with reguard to JAL Flight 1628, and I'm looking into that. But just in the searching I've done so far, I find it strange that the radar video and printout are not posted anywhere. I also don't see any sites debunking this case either, but will keep looking.

Still though, the radar was picking up something for 31 minutes, and the crew were seeing an object at the same time the radar was picking it up. I believe this case has some footing, but from for info, I realize that radar returns can be questionable. Thanks again.

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:38 PM
Yeah, I think this one is interesting because the pilots seemed to remain professional. They even turned 360 degrees to try to rule out reflections on the cockpit windows.

Here's the statement I found about the FAA radar echos:

At the FAA center in Anchorage, controllers following the flight
noted occasional second blips, or "split targets," on the screen
near Flight 1628, Steucke said.
"That happens when the transponder aboard the aircraft is not
electronically in sync with radar bouncing off the plane," he
said. "We get an intermittent blip every three sweeps of the radar
screen. It's not unusual. It has happened and it does happen.
"It was what I call coincidence that the split image happened
to fall at the right distance and the same side of the aircraft
that the object was reported by the pilot."


I know the source is, but it is a direct reprint of a story from the AP. I'm a little confused by the word 'transponder'. I think they are refering to the IFF transponder on the aircraft. I'm not going to go into IFF because it's a long topic in itself, but IFF identifies aircraft and produces video on the radar display screens. If either the radar antenna or IFF antenna were not aligned properly, then there would be a seperation of the two symbols.

As far as books about radar principles, I'd say see if you can get your hands on any of the Navy's NEETS modules. They are an excellent source of info that are provided as study materials. They aren't classified and were free to the military. You might be able to find them on e-Bay, or at an army/navy store or flea market. You can buy them here, but I just found that site on Google so I don't know how much they cost. I'd recommend 11, 12, 17, and 18 for radar study. 18 is Radar Priciples, but the others are good foundation topics that will help you understand radar better.

There's bound to be some other books about radar out there because there are civillian radar operators and techs. Try Amazon for others.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 07:56 AM
Thanks PBJtime for the link to skepticfiles, but I see there is no date of this announcement, and no sources supplied. I will look into it further. This is interesting that the FAA is reopening the case.

I also sent an e-mail to DP asking about the Callahan video to see if it's available, or if was ever analyzed. I will let you know if I get a response. Maybe if I get enough info I will do a seperate thread on this.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 03:57 PM
Cool HAL. I'd like to see the video he has and determine if it's IFF video, bogus returns, of something that truly was there.

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:19 PM
Don't like to double post, but I just found this on Reuters and thought it was interesting:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush was hustled from the Oval Office and into an underground shelter on Wednesday after a blip on a radar screen was initially mistaken for an aircraft entering the restricted airspace around the White House, officials said.

The Secret Service determined minutes later that it was a false alarm. A flock of birds or a reflection could have caused the blip. Officials said the investigation was ongoing.

Full Story

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by yekway
I say the universe is just too vast for other life forms not too be around.

Huge point, the odds for there being other life forms, by comparing the amount of "space" there is, is overwhelming

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Yes, you've got a good point, but there's a few things to think about. "Seeing is believing" and a large portion of the world hasn't "seen." Tor see a UFO themselves.

now adays thats what it takes to get the majority to believe.... seeing

Originally posted by Echtelion
The main issue is not the lack of proofs but rather the fact that there are many people on this planet that will just refuse to believe in anything that's in front of their eyes just because it does'nt go with their system of beliefs.

then uve got these ppl that wont listen to anyone but the media or the mass public. always follwing the crowd.

Great ideas everyone, summing up, the largest evidence towards there being aliens/extra terrestrials or other life forms existing in space is the odds. Space in its entirety can not possibly be home to only one planet with life, the odds of having only one planet with life out of ALL the planets in space is just to small. so small it is almost not even a number. its just to bad for the ppl that follow that mob mentality and believe what everone else believes, not letting themselvs come to their own conclusions and see the obvious.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:49 AM
Sceptics....'seek and ye shall find'

This is the main problem...none of the sceptics even bother to watch the Disclosure press conference video, or look at any of the hundreds of pieces of footage on the's all there

It usually takes a sighting to pique people's interest in this stuff....I've been investigating it since my first sighting in '77...I don't think there's any lack of evidence at all, if anything, there's a bit too much of the 'butterfly collecting' mentality. Lots of pics, footage and documentation...not enough discussion about the ramifications or reasoning of what these tricky aliens are up to (Exopolitics)

Most of these sceptics just wait for some wooden-headed Carl Sagan type scientist to tell them what their reality is...they're not going to go looking for themselves....

Maybe they can explain what's happening at my friend's place in Queensland,,,check this link

Swamp gas, perhaps ?

And no, I'm not going to use the Americanised spelling of sceptic (skeptic?)
I'll stick with the English language

Peace to all

[edit on 28-4-2005 by Ganesh2005]

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:36 PM
I can't make heads or tails of that website. There's too much going on on those pages. It hurts the eye. Is that video supposed to be UFO footage or is it some kind of weird intro they made up?

What part of Queensland is that filmed in? I've got family all over Queensland, but mainly in Cairns, Gordonvale, and Townsville. I'd be interested to know if any of them have heard about any of this stuff.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Cool HAL. I'd like to see the video he has and determine if it's IFF video, bogus returns, of something that truly was there.

I got a reply from DP, and she provided a link to a science symposium.

I guess Callahan showed the radar video on a TV while going through the sequence of events. If you click the video clip for Callahan, you can see excerpts from it, and they briefly show the radar video.

She said she would try to have a copy made for me, but I think she meant a copy of the symposium. I don't know, will let you know.

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:34 PM
Hi peanutbutterjellytime,

the ufo activity is happening on the Atherton Tablelands, our friend has been documenting it for the last five years. He's got over 50 hours of footage...he's been trying to do the website himself, so it's a bit haphazard, but worth persisting with. If you scroll to the right-hand side of the screen, there's a menu of video clips..the best ones to view are;
Orion Series
Blue Orb
I'll put the links up for the pages;

If anyone in the Cairns area wants to go and look for themselves at this phenomena just email MagIndi on the site.

More info can be found here;

Thanks for taking an interest...this stuff is real...the guy's not trying to make a buck out of this...just trying to get this info out despite intensive interference from certain 'parties'


posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:47 PM
Cool, I have some cousins in Cairns who are adventurous and I'm sure they'd love to go investigate this if they haven't already. I'll call down there over the weekend and see if they know anything about it.

HAL9000- I'm going to check out that link tonight and post my thoughts. Hopefully the radar is visible and it's not just on a projector behind him.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 04:13 AM
Hi PeanutButterJellyTime,

Thanks for checking that out, just remind them that there's lots of military shenanegins going on up there, so if they decide to go, be careful.....


posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:59 AM
The radar in the video is just a couple short spots that appear to show the airliner and three other tracks. It doesn't last long enough to determine if the tracks are only there on every third sweep or if they are continuous, I don't like the symbology they use either. I'm going to have to talk to my ex-FAA tech friend to learn a little more about it. The Navy symbology uses leaders on the tracks. It's a stright line that shows the direction of travel of the track and the length of the leader indicates the speed of the track. Most of the zoomers you see have a leader that is pointed in a random direction and incredibly long, equating to several thousand miles per hour.

I'd also like to learn about the computer system for the radar. Because of the format of the display, the raw radar video isn't there, just the symbology, or computer interpretation of the raw video. When the radar loses contact with a target, it's common for the computer to continue displaying it for a few sweeps, estimating it's position based on the last known speed and direction of the target. If the target isn't reaquired after a few sweeps, it's dropped from the display. There should be some type of indication of the track quality, which is how strong the return is. However, this is usually shown on a smaller monitor beside the main video display and wouldn't be in the radar video, unless a video camera was used to record the entire radar console.

I'd still like to see the video from a good chunk of the encounter, especially when the pilot turned his aircraft 360 degrees.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:08 AM
Thanks, for taking a look. I am going to try to get a VHS copy of the science symposium. It will be by snail mail, then I need to do video capture and host it. I will probably start a new thread investigating the incident, and when I do, I will U2U you so you can see it, probably a week or 2 from now.

I checked into the FAA re-opening the case, and I believe this was a reference to the following year 1987, due to public attention. So this is old news. There are a couple other leads I am going to look into, should be interesting to see what else I can dig up.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:08 PM
ok im going to jump on this one

first of all

Carl Sagan even said that Bluebook was a PR cover...
read his book "The Demon Haunted World"

Carl is skeptical about aliens; but he also states that the government is covering it up; obviously
Carl also states that aliens are inevitable for the most part; thats why he put the golden plaque on voyager and pioneer spaceprobes
thats why he got the SETI thing started
heck read his book; Pale Blue Dot
it shows his findings from SETI
and they found some amazing radio signals !!!
yet more "evidence"
but no one listens do they

second of all
skeptics about UFOs are being idiots plain and simple
I have personally seen a friggin flying saucer fly over my house up close
ive repeated my story dozens of times on ATS

evidence and proof dont mean a thing here because
the skeptics DO NOT WANT IT

because there is ONLY ONE WAY TO SEE A UFO

it doesnt matter if your in a city either from what i gather
*a city under size of 250,000 at least*

the ONLY way to see a UFO is to do a very difficult task
yet fufilling

this is how i saw them:::

i went outside and got on the roof of my house *or layed back in a lawnchair in backyard*

i spend NO LESS than 10 straight hours looking for it
only break is for toilet, no other breaks are allowed!

you must keep your head looking up into the sky constantly
you must keep looking north south east west
back and forth
back and forth
back and forth
constantly looking here , there, everywhere

and if you do this for 10hours straight
for seven days a week


your odds are 99.9% in the favor of UFOS

following this ingenious plan;
ive seen over 30 sightings of amazing things
with over 30 individual witnesses *at different times*

but saddly
No ONE does this
you all sit around watching TV or PC all nite and day

then you have the audacity to say "they dont exist"
ok first of all you must Shut Up with that silly nonsense

then you must take it to yourself to Go LOOK FOR IT

then and only then; will you be taken as a "reasonable skeptic"
as long as you deny it; than do NOTHING to confirm your denial, you are acting as a rediculous clown and making a complete fool of yourself to those of us who Have Seen it !

yes im upset , and i deserve to be !
i am told that aliens are not real by people who never leave their house at night and skygaze long enough to have a reasonable opinion

that is the plain simple truth

i disregaurd every single thing anyone has said about it pro or con because
it doesnt matter what anyone says or thinks!
the sacuers are friggin real!!!!!!
now i promise you one thing; as a kid growing up i thought "flying saucers" were stupid because obviously "aliens would have better spaceships than a little round disk" but then when i saw the dang thing up close!
of course i realized the saucer was real

i dont know if its gov't or aliens' or something else
but the FACT is ; UFOS are REAL

you dont believe me do you?

i am getting sick and tired of skeptics who dont GO LOOK FOR THEMSELVES
it upsets me more than just about anything else
its complete idiocy

if you go and spend 100 hours looking and find nothing;
i know a place where you will see one within 30hours! garunteed!

Odessa Texas
i would see them every night i went to look for them
that is fact i know it first hand because I DID IT!

now i want all the skeptics to realize how hypocritical they truely are
you havent spent more than 5 hours looking for them
thats proof of only one thing; your lack of intelligence

and No; sitting outside with a telescope dont work
you must use your Full Field of Vision; your Eyeballs are the ONLY thing that can work here

You must not give up! You cannot Puss out once your neck starts hurting!
Once your neck is hurting you know your WORKING FOR IT!

Point =
You dont get $$$ unless you work for it
You dont see UFOs until you look for them

stop being lazy naysayers

until you spend the next month watching the sky 10hours a night
i dont want to hear another skeptical BS claim again

like i said; if your location isnt a hot spot
and if you dont see one at ODESSA TEXAS within 100 to 200 hours of CONSTANT SKY SCANNING

ILL eat my Lunch !!!
I will give you 100$!

but when you see the spiffy UFO
then i would like 100$ from YOU!!

yes lets wager on this because i can surely get rich this way

but lest i forget
None of the Skeptics really want to see a UFO anyway
and they will ignore my comments
and they will never spend 100s of hours looking for them non-stop
they will never travel to Odessa Texas to see them theirselves!

they are just spouting hollow rhetoric

and Fermi's paradox doesnt make any sense being IVE SEEN THE DANG UFO MYSELF
Fermi obviously spoke all day yet NEVER went outside to find out the truth first hand himself either did he?

I am a Scientist and Ive seen them!
Now; if you think your so brilliant;
than why dont you go look for yourself?
what great philosophy make that unreasonable?

You cannot get paid until you work for it
You cannot find the UFO until you look for it

Speak up agian Skeptics
Ill jump down your throat so fast you cant even choak on it

edit ::: the "Skeptics" i refer to are ONLY the fanatical type denial ones
people who say "i dont know either way" that is Reasonable Educated Skeptism and i appluad you for your scrutiny

the "Skeptics" i refer to are the ones who say
"there is no way aliens exist"
and "anyone who sees a UFO needs a mental check"

regular "i dont know " type , i am not flaming or insulting you
i am only flaming those who claim there is "No way aliens exist"
sorry for the confusion there

[edit on 30-4-2005 by muzzleflash]

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:52 PM

[edit on 4/30/2005 by mercury19]

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 05:20 PM
Wow! Calm down dude! I tell you what, the next time you spend 10 hours outside looking for UFO's in Odessa, take a camera or a video camera with you. Mount it on a tripod so you can get good pictures or footage. I'd like to see what you're seeing.

What do the UFO's you see look like? How do they behave? If you spend 10 hours scanning the sky, you will see at least one satellite. I guaranty it! You'll see some meteors too, and a lot of other normal stuff that looks weird if you don't know what it is you're seeing.

I've seen a UFO myself as I said above and I'm still skeptical.

That sounds cool. There are some real interesting points to that case and I'd love to study it in detail. I'm looking forward to the thread.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:14 PM
it took me 30 minutes looking out my window before i saw something i couldnt easily explain. it was hardly conclusive of anything but still very interesting.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in