reply to post by Savorrow
Sorry....it is that (crazy? Or, "crazy like a fox?") guy on YouTube, username "Dutchsinse", again!
What this guy does, basically (in this case, and in others posted in this thread, above) is take recorded radar anomalies.....just "noise" in the
displays, that occur for various reason, every day....and weave a tale of "something"....total fabrication and imagination, on his part.
Either he is self-deluded enough to think this is "real"...and ignorant, to boot....OR....just wants his "15 minutes" of fame, in this case, via
YouTube and the gullible masses who will flock to this sort of pseudo-science claptrap.
Any significant look into his many, and varied, "claims" and real science and experience tear them apart.
Again...he is either a willful, elaborate hoaxer or (like that "Von Helton" crackpot) he is a few slices short of a full loaf of bread......
In the OP video, it is just a line of weather cells, recorded on the weather radar and looped, for reference....to show their development. The
"anomaly" happens for the same reason ALL radars have such transient interferences....it is just garbage in the datastream....and/or certain
interference patterns that result form various locations' signals interacting together....."multipath reflections"....when waves build up, in concert,
and form a "standing wave" appearance. These are temporary, and annoying....but regarded as simple technical glitches, seen all the time and
dismissed by those experienced in radar function, and dislplay limitations.
From the measured data and a supporting literature search, it was concluded that ducting and man–made clutter (building attenuation) should be
included in the propagation loss predictions in order to improve the prediction accuracy of radar–to–radar interference and radar frequency
assignments. Even though potential multipath wave interference conditions can be identified, to account for this analytically would require an
extremely complex antenna and terrain model. Due to modeling inaccuracies, the difference between the predicted and actual radar–to–radar
Interference–to–Noise Ratio (INR) levels may be as large as 22 dB (2s standard deviation region).
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
he mentions it could be chemtrails....
And, no.....there are NO such thing as "chem"-trails. THAT, alone, discredits him ("Dutchsinse").....ZERO credibility, on anything he spouts.....he
is just another ignorant noise-maker, clamoring for attention.
edit on 4 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)