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.

 

The UFO Poll You Probably Haven't Heard Of

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


And exactly the number of years/decades of expertise in installing, repairing, troubleshooting and maintaining modern radar equipment is?




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by gguyx
And exactly the number of years/decades of expertise in installing, repairing, troubleshooting and maintaining modern radar equipment is?
The relevant question would be, how much such experience do the radar operators have? And you didn't even mention design.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Personally I think the whole thing is whack. I am sure grandma can tell when her car is operating differently or may have a mechanical problem even without the ability to accurately diagnose or fix the problem just as I sure that a radar operator can tell when their radar may be malfunctioning.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 


Even today radar can see things we cant like turbulance and can pickup other weather like clouds and temp inversions. These things become harder to indentify the lower the resolution of the radar system like in the 1950s. It doesnt surprise me operators would see blips they were not expecting. Infact it would be stranger if they didn't.

This poll is a total non-story unless your an eager believer i guess
edit on 30-8-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 

I would suggest that perhaps you shouldn't be so sure.

This is a famous case in Belgium where apparently the radar returns received worldwide attention and people kept citing the radar evidence. After much focus and investigation, the people citing these radar returns finally had to admit that nearly all of them were glitches.

The UFO files documentary starts at about 1 minute into this video:


The revelation about the bad radar data is at 8m20s and continues at the beginning of the next part:



It's not as simple as you think to determine when you have bad radar data. If it was so easy for the people using the radar to tell it was giving them bad data, this bad data never would have received the worldwide attention it did.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Thank you would you say that part of a radar operators training might include understanding of these anomalies so as to avoid confusion? What worries me is that you get an operator saying sure we get returns doing strange things all the time it's really a pretty common weather phenomenon have some UFO site edit out it's really a pretty common weather phenomenon and viola a myth is born. I just think the analogy had some major flaws in the direction of disregarding radar operator reports just as I fear the OP report may have been eschewed from more mundane sources of anomalous radar reports. Honestly though I certainly lack enough knowledge on the matter to draw any conclusion.




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks arbitrageur I wrote the above before I saw your post I am only trying to learn here in a balanced manner, which as I am sure you know can be very difficult when it comes to UFOs anyways thanks for your efforts.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
No you are wrong. They can tell such simple things and are credible witnesses only if their testimonies are indicating everything is as it should be. If their testimonies, observation, comments indicate anything unusual then they are just normal people prone to mistakes, psychological problems, confusions, below average training and inabilities to assess the situation correctly. You know, just like pilots. When they are saying there was nothing out of the ordinary they are credible witnesses with hours of flight experience and trained observers. When they claim they saw something strange, they are reduced to average joe who can't tell the reflection of sun on their mask from a flying object.

The perspective of skeptics are just as much distorted, if not more, as the hardcore believe-anything guys.
edit on 30-8-2012 by bilb_o because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 

I appreciate your balanced approach to the topic.

I agree with Yeti that older the radar system, the less capable it was of filtering out some of these "glitches". Modern radar systems still get some anomalous returns, but hopefully not as many because of improvements in radar technology over the years.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thought you might be interested to read this:

www.scribd.com...

Theres not a 90 degree heading change in this case, but there is a 70 degree one in one second.

Also, linear acceleration changes up to 21g and total forces on the UFO/vehicle of up to 50g.

And, it cant be written off as a radar 'glitch' (despite some skeptics claiming it was 'warm air temperature inversions') as it was simultaneously picked up by 2 ground based radars, and then the 2 F16's onboard sets. Highly unlikely that all these radars would malfunction at the same time with the same 'glitch'. I also think it unlikely that the Belgian airforce would have released the data without discounting obvious explanations, and the pilots, when interviewed, were convinced they were chasing 'real world' objects. And whilst the pilots at no time managed a visual, people on the ground saw the F16's turn over a triangular formation of lights. From this document:

www.ufoevidence.org...

"+/- 00 h 30: The ground witnesses see three times the F-16 pass along. During the third pass, they see the planes turning in circles at the center of the great formation initially seen. At the same time, they notice the disappearance of the little triangle, while the brightest, western point of the big triangle moves very fast, probably up. This point emits intense red signals, in a repetitive way, during the maneuver. " (translation from French, hence grammar)

this article is quite interesting too:

www.ufoevidence.org...

And from a summary of the report from the Belgian airforce on the observations of the 30th/31st March 1990

6. The ground observers reported 3 additional light spots which moved gradually, with irregular speeds, towards the first set of lights and forming a second triangle.

7. At 23.50 a second radar station, situated at +- 100 NM from the first, confirmed an identical contact at the same place of the radar contact of Glons.

8. At 00.05 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be established by either of the F16 pilots.

9. The F16 flew 3 times through the observation field of the ground observers. At the third passage the ground observers notified a change in the behavior of the light spots. The most luminous started to blink very intensively while the other disappeared. Consequently, the most luminous spot started to dim gradually.

10. Meanwhile the head of the police of WAVRE had alerted 4 other police stations in the area. All four, separated +- 10 NM from each other, confirmed the visual observations.

www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
this article is quite interesting too:

www.ufoevidence.org...

And from a summary of the report from the Belgian airforce on the observations of the 30th/31st March 1990
Thanks I'll look at the first two. Can you elaborate on what you find interesting about this Belgium case? Did you watch the video?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yeah, have seen it before- the hypothesis about 'electro magnetic anomalies' and 'temperature inversions' is exactly that- a hypothesis, and still doesnt explain when multiple radars, ground based and airborne, track the same object, which happened in this case.

Remember, with the national (and international) attention this case was getting, the authorities were under pressure to come up with a mundane explanation to avoid panic. Im sure the head of the Belgian airforce had discussed 'temperature inversions' with his radar experts (that old chestnut has been used as an excuse for UFO's since the White House overflights in 1952) before he went public, only to see the idea dredged back up again.

Again though, Arbitrageur, I think we are in danger of 're-inventing the wheel' here, as this is all data that has been poured over, back and forth, by skeptics and believers since the event. Its always going to boil down to ifs and buts and personal preference.

edit on 30-8-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)


What do I find interesting about this case? Everything!!!
edit on 30-8-2012 by Thunda because: additional text



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Thunda
this article is quite interesting too:

www.ufoevidence.org...

And from a summary of the report from the Belgian airforce on the observations of the 30th/31st March 1990
Thanks I'll look at the first two. Can you elaborate on what you find interesting about this Belgium case? Did you watch the video?


Sorry however, the actual head of the place that studied the tapes talks here about them and the idea they were false reflections is utter bunk.




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Sorry however, the actual head of the place that studied the tapes talks here about them and the idea they were false reflections is utter bunk.
That video doesn't identify Emile Schweicher as "the actual head of the place that studied the tapes" so that's your first mistake. They refer to him as someone who advised the investigating team.

But more importantly, SOBEPS is probably more pro-UFO than even you are. They never would have admitted that some kind of glitch caused the false returns if it wasn't irrefutable.

So why SOBEPs admitted it, and you don't, is beyond explanation.

Also you overlook one of the most important pieces of evidence in the video you posted...The plane was in the air trying to get a visual confirmation, and they never did. By all accounts the movement of the return was "physically impossible". So the least logical conclusion one could reach in these circumstances is that the radar returns represented real physical objects, the pilot/radar operator's refusal to admit that notwithstanding. The pilot of all people should realize that his failure to confirm it visually is a big clue. And by the way, most pilots I've spoken to have received little or no training in anomalous propagation in radar systems.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The guy on the tape is the guy who teaches everyone else how to use Radar it says that straight out. Then again I'm sure you know more than him, the and I quote "Leading Belgian expert". He also makes it quite plain that, all the differing bases received Radar lock on wholly commensurate with their own position relative to the target. Of course, you want to believe some bloke on the net with 2 GSCES in home economics and art and budgerigar over the guy who teaches Radar in Belgium that's your prerogative, seems skeptics are happy to believe any old tosh so long as it fits their particular world view.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join