It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am curios what you mean by this line. There was something lost in translation I guess. Who are the "one of those" and why they "cant see natural weather anymore".
I'm not one of those who can't see natural weather anymore.
Is typical radar station capable of generating another wavelenght like microwaves?
There are those that believe that NEXRAD is involved in a large conspiracy. Exactly what the conspiracy is depends on who you listen to, but the theories go from death rays to transmitting energy through the atmosphere to controlling the weather to a Strategic Defense Initiatve (SDI) type of missile defense. All of this is silly, of course, and I've addressed it here. But a brief history of how this hoax unfolded is instructive. Unlike most conspiracy theories and hoaxes in the past, this one unfolded on the Internet before our very eyes. Not only is tracing its history interesting, it is instructive on how such hoaxes start, mutate, and gain a following.
"Ground Clutter" is caused by the radar beam hitting objects near the radar, such as trees, buildings, insects, and hills. It results in a generally circular arrangement of random returns within a radius of about 25 miles of the NEXRAD site. Modern NEXRAD anomaly supression algorithms do a fairly good job at removing most of the ground clutter; without these algorithms the returns near the radar site would be overwhelmed with this ground clutter. However, even with the ground clutter removal algorithms it is not uncommon to see ground clutter which the software was not able to remove (such as in the example above). Note that ground clutter is far more common when NEXRAD is in "Clear Air Mode" since in this mode the radar is much more sensitive and able to pick up faint returns that would otherwise be ignored. Hence, ground clutter will often be seen in a radar image that would otherwise be completely without any radar returns.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
The lines of lightning are bizarre. I have to confess I know zip about lightning except that, like electricity, doesn't it take the path of least resistance?
IF they don't know the reason of the interferences something about Barium and Aluminium comes to my mind.
Is it too wild?
I'm thinking no...it's not too wild. Who knows what an out of proportion nano aluminum particle reflective area might return using current software. Especially if it's unusually saturated at the point of return translated to graphics. One of the original points for all this spraying, militarily speaking, was to fool enemy radar.
Chaff, originally called Window by the British, and Düppel by the Second World War era German Luftwaffe (from the Berlin suburb where it was first developed), is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminium, metallized glass fibre or plastic, which either appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns. Modern armed forces use chaff (in naval applications, for instance, using short-range SRBOC rockets) to distract radar-guided missiles from their targets. Most military aircraft and warships have chaff dispensing systems for self-defence. An intercontinental ballistic missile may release in its midcourse phase several independent warheads, a large number of decoys, and chaff. Chaff can also be used to signal distress by an aircraft when communications are not functional. This has the same effect as an SOS, and can be picked up on radar. It is done by dropping chaff every 2 minutes.
Aluminum nanoparticles are being used as propellants, explosives, rocket fuels and infrared obscurants.
NanoDynamics Receives Phase II Army SBIR Grant to Advance Development of Nanomaterials for Infrared Obscurant Applications
Specifically, the company has explored the potential to aerosolize carbon nanotubes for obscurant purposes. He explained that while you wouldn’t want to use nanoparticles as a visual obscurant, the ability to take a cubic meter of carbon and stretch it so that it retains its strength in a thinner, more reflective form holds promise for scattering light in the ultraviolet frequencies. And like their potential polymer counterparts, carbon nanotubes are environmentally and toxicologically benign.