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.

 

Radar Weather Manipulation?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Hi,
what do you think about it, can radar be used this way?
Here is fresh one:

Weird shape for a radar. It use to be circle..
I'm not one of those who can't see natural weather anymore. Now these theorists claim it's responsible for recent frost while it's rather a high pressure over the Ural pushing cold air to Europe.
However since I saw lightning map like this:

...I'm partial believer. Question is how. What kind of rays could be used? Is typical radar station capable of generating another wavelenght like microwaves?
edit on 6/2/2012 by PapagiorgioCZ because: grammar




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

I'm not one of those who can't see natural weather anymore.
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".



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Maybe some debunker could tell us something to the lighting map. It's not current event but it wasn't debunked yet.
Actually it's definitely worth it's own thread.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dogmire
 


You had to see some of those sites. They even created their own language. I could put here some funny link but it's not in english. People easily became schizo after few years of paranoid thinking. That's all.

What about the topic - radar modification yes or not?
edit on 6/2/2012 by PapagiorgioCZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 



Is typical radar station capable of generating another wavelenght like microwaves?


Short answer -- no.


A bit of research into this hoax belief returned results. The anomalies are associated with a type of radar called "NEXRAD". This was posted back in 2004, and many of the website links in it are broken:


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.


More to read, linked below.....but, once you see that Richard Hoagland was originally involved, it all is quite obvious just why this ridiculous "conspiracy" got so much traction....

History of the NEXRAD Hoax



edit on Mon 6 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 


OP: interesting pictures. Had to read a bit on the NEXRAD system which, I'm assuming is the same as this system. Going by the color scheme, it would seem to be in precipitation mode. If I understand the system correctly, the colored portions are returning signal showing density of particulate. There is a cut-off point for each dish collecting information so perhaps that point has been reached at the end of the square? Or perhaps that cut-off point has been reached at the end of the circle? And the rest is some sort of background noise that the system emits as it collates data?

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?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Wait....what???::


Had to read a bit on the NEXRAD system....



I am guessing that MY post, just above, was ignored???


THIS POST


Enjoy reading, and education.....



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 


There is a member that could probably explain it better than most and that would be OzWeatherman. I would U2U him as weather is his field of expertise. Couldn't hurt.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The BOM websitewww.bom.gov.au... has a message on its radar sites which go like this

'If you notice any circular patterns or straight lines originating from the centre of the radar location, this is due to occasional interference to the radar data. The Bureau is currently investigating ways to reduce these interferences.'

take what you like from that but this has been the subject of conspiracy theorist's everywhere for a long time.


www.news.com.au...
"THEY are the digital-age equivalent of crop circles - mysterious patterns appearing on the Bureau of Meteorology's national radar system without any explanation."


edit on 6-2-2012 by 12voltz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I think this may help out a bit, but I am taking a stab at it....


"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.


www.letxa.com...

I am not saying that is what this is,but it seems like it may be what you were seeing.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Thank you all. I appreciate your debunking.
Well I'm not 100% sure yet. IF they don't know the reason of the interferences something about Barium and Aluminium comes to my mind.
If they knew they'd fix it already, wouldn't they? It could also be due to wi-fi towers boom (if it fits by region). Or weakening geomagnetic field/cosmic rays? Is it too wild?
Not just because it's now digital. Rays are rays aren't they? Trees and birds won't fill the whole radius and they are always there so I don't see the point of having "clear sky mode". Rain, clouds, humidity, snow - it would make sense a bit more to me but it happens with sunny sky too (as I understood)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

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?


Not really, depends what the date is. But the obvious explanation is a few thunderstorms tracked east-west.

Sferics would then appear in a line if the cells remained electrificed for any length of time.

(these charts do not show just the latest sferics, but all sferics over the past 1-6 hours)
edit on 7-2-2012 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Uploading pictures seems to be not working today.
Another lihgtning lines I will put in a fresh thread with a date so you can check how that day clouds were moving.
Here is a pic of today's radar over Germany. Much bigger shape:




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 


I hope you were joking?


IF they don't know the reason of the interferences something about Barium and Aluminium comes to my mind.


Because, that will just rile up many in the "conspiracy" mindset unnecessarily.......

Your other suggestions were also, it is safe to say, "off the mark".

These images seen sometimes are merely electronic "noise"....nothing else.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 





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.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





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.


Militarily speaking you are so wrong,and here is why...


Chaff, originally called Window[1] 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.


en.wikipedia.org...(countermeasure)

Funny but there seems to be nothing about nano aluminum used by the military, or am I missing something?

You don't like to do research on things do you,because if you did you wouldn't make statements like the one you did in your post.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Hey tsurfer2000h: so wikipedia is now the authority on military obscurants? I'm thinking no...that's utterly retarded! I found you some links so you can get a grip on what's up (in the air) and expand your radar horizons on what could be showing up or not (showing up on radar.)

abstracts.co.allenpress.com...

Here from 2005 (that's 7 long years ago) see the 3rd article down titled, "Effects of aluminum nanoparticles exposure in zebrafish (Danio rerio)."


Aluminum nanoparticles are being used as propellants, explosives, rocket fuels and infrared obscurants.


www.nanotechwire.com...

Here from 2009, an example of funding to develop more and more varied nano for obscurants.



NanoDynamics Receives Phase II Army SBIR Grant to Advance Development of Nanomaterials for Infrared Obscurant Applications


www.military-training-technology.com...

Talking here about the Warfighter and obscurants. The whole thing is really quotable but I'll see if I can pick something out.


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.


The last sentence is the one I find intriguing because of this aricle from Scientific American:

www.scientificamerican.com...

and basically the title, "Study Says Carbon Nanotubes as Dangerous as Asbestos," really says it all. But hey - it's the army - let them do what they want - right?



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join