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.
A lone chemist’s quest to expose the UFO cover-up
...At the time, a lot of emphasis was placed on UFO sightings that were confirmed by radar – as late as 1989 and the Belgian UFO wave, specific emphasis continues to be placed on this “technological confirmation”. But Davidson pointed out that as early as 1945, mechanical countermeasures against radar had become publicly known – and used. It was known that these could cause blips on the radar screen, resulting in incorrect range, speed, or heading.
This was called Electronic Countermeasures and Davidson believed this method of counterintelligence was used to present the myth that “UFOs” existed.
Davidson drew the infamous equation: ECM+CIA=UFO, suggesting that the CIA were creating ECM signals on radars, so that people would believe in the presence of UFOs, as they confirmed eyewitness accounts of anomalous objects in the sky.
Furthermore, the anomalous blips were a perfect mechanism to distort the true capabilities of any new aircraft that was being test-flown – occasional sightings of which were passed off as UFOs too...
Originally posted by Symbiot
As I understand it there seems to be some confusion surrounding radar based UFO phenomenon. Not only are average citizens confused, but entire nations have been confounded by this grand illusion. Please allow me to clarify the obvious truth behind these "alien" encounters.
Although it is true that radar can sometimes pick up naturally occurring phenomena the majority of radar based sightings of craft that appear to break the laws of physics are actually stealth craft fielded by the United States. Stealth craft such as the B2 deflect radiation emitted by a radar at a variety of angles, depending on the angle of attack.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Do you mean aircraft pitch, or angle of incidence, or what? (I don't think you mean "angle of attack", which has a precise and common meaning in aviation relating not to radar but to the lift of and airflow over an airfoil.)
Originally posted by Symbiot
If the stealth craft tilts perhaps 15 degrees you'll notice that it's radar signature might jump from a thousand feet to ten thousand feet in a matter of seconds
Originally posted by xpoq47
But that’s not enough for him to give up on citing weather inversion as part of it, which the Weather Bureau denied right after the incident..
"I have interviewed five of the CAA personnel involved in this case and four of the commercial airline pilots involved, I have checked the radiosonde data against well-known radar propagation relations, and I have studied the CAA report subsequently published on this event. Only an extremely lengthy discussion would suffice to present the serious objections to the official explanation that this complex sighting was a result of anomalous radar propagation and refractive anomalies of the mirage type. The refractive index gradient, even after making allowance for instrument lag, was far too low for "ducting" or "trapping" to occur; and, still more significant, the angular elevations of the visually observed unknowns lay far too high for radar- ducting under even the most extreme conditions that have ever been observed in the atmosphere. Some of the pilots, directed by ground radar to look for any airborne objects, saw them at altitudes well above their own flight altitudes, and these objects were maneuvering in wholly unconventional manner. One crew saw one of the unknown luminous objects shoot straight up, and simultaneously the object' s return disappeared from the ARTC scope being watched by the CAA radar operators. The official suggestion that the same weak (1.7"C) low-level "inversion" that was blamed for the radar ducting could produce miraging effects was quantitatively absurd, even if one overlooks the airline-pilot sightings and deals only with the reported ground-visual sightings".
Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona
James McDonald, Statement on UFOs to U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronatics, 1968 Symposium on UFOs
The original vacuum airship concept was first proposed by Francesco Lana De Terzi, the "father of aeronautics," in the year 1670 AD. The design proposed above is of the unmanned aerial vehicle variety, but the underlying technology, like that of a conventional airship, can come in a variety of shapes and sizes both manned and unmanned. The bulk of craft utilizing vacuum lift technology would be constructed of strong yet light materials such as carbon fiber or perhaps nano-tube materials at some point in the future. Heavier materials would likely be used sparingly in load bearing areas to distribute pressure away from lighter materials, similar to truss structures on the roofs of today's houses.
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Angle of attack is the correct terminology.
Aircraft pitch determines angle of attack, angle of incidence (the difference between the angle of wing chord and the longitudinal axis) is a fixed value.