Air traffic control says UFOs in UK 'around one a month'

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 

I agree using an internet forum as a source is risky business indeed, so I don't advocate that. At best use it as food for thought or a starting point for further research.

Since you'd like a better source and I don't blame you, this might help:

Study of Unusual Radar Observations....(p21)

Anomalous propagation (AP)/forward scatter

It is possible for special AP conditions to produce the appearance of discrete targets in the air, even without the radar being refracted to pick up surface targets such as ships. If there is an elevated layer of sharp refractive index discontinuity (i.e., abnormal changes in temperature and humidity across a narrow layer) then a radar beam impinging in the layer at a shallow or grazing angle can be reflected as from a mirror. This process is called forward scattering...
Also I think it's fair to say that many radar operators have a limited understanding of these AP phenomena, which might explain why they aren't considered in some cases.
edit on 19-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



With all due respect their is one source that i value above any internet source,(no disrespect intended), and that is a one Dr James E MacDonald , atmospheric physicist.He found a lot of inadequately investigated UFO reports including radar detected UFO cases that offered atmospheric explanations that were termed "force fit debunking" explanations.Now it can take one on a journey of either ignoring his investigation's and conclusions or accepting the real scientific reality that not ALL UFO radar cases are atmospheric anomalies, that is and was my point right from my OP in this thread,he is the kind of source that has to be included in any debate on these kind of cases and that there is a complete lack of any real serious "adequate scientific investigation's" into proving or "differentiating" between a atmospheric or non atmospheric origin for UFO radar cases is saying to me that it is premature to dismiss radar cases as possible real objects that have shown up on radar.

There was one case in the UK were an radar detected an object the size of an aircraft carrier and the pilot of the fighter jet was order to open fire on it.Seems a very big worry that the RAF in the UK could not differentiate between a atmospheric anomaly and a possible object back then.That there have been such cases not involving atmospheric anomalies has been put forward by a source in a much better scientific position than most if not all on any internet forum is profound in my view.



James Edward McDonald received his Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University in 1951, then worked there as an assistant professor in meteorology. He was a research physicist in the University of Chicago's department of meteorology (1953-54). In 1954 he joined the University of Arizona faculty, first as an associate professor (1954-56), then as a full professor in the department of meteorology (1956-71). McDonald was also a senior physicist in the University's Institute of Atmospheric Physics, and served as both associate director (1954-56) and scientific director (1956-57). He also advised numerous federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, The Office of Naval Research, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Environmental Science Service Administration.
:


link; www.nicap.org...




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
not ALL UFO radar cases are atmospheric anomalies, that is and was my point right from my OP in this thread
I never said they were and I'm sure many aren't.

But in the Turner case you cited, the pilot said he was a quarter of a mile away from the radar reflection, so it seems likely he should have been able to see an object had there been an object. It is cases like that in particular where I think unusual atmospheric causes should be considered.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 303inMyBrain
 


For posterity, here's a copy of the broadcast ...

www.4shared.com...

Courtesy of Total Recorder.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 303inMyBrain
 


Every day the secret ships of Tesla fly under the radar.
That has to be the only way the UK would be allowed to operate the ships and at
a base close to shore line and open sea. They go very fast to isolated spots in the
globe if avoiding radar is required but some people think they got stealth so what
is the point of the announcement but to cover up the use of the ships. Official
Story Official Lie about Tesla ships.





new topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join