The UFO Poll You Probably Haven't Heard Of

reply to post by Arbitrageur


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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.


What do I find interesting about this case? Everything!!!

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.

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.

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.

originally posted by: Brighter

Originally posted by karl 12







Great thread mate -haven't got much time at the mo but here's a relevant news clipping.

Came from Terry Hansen's website and there are plenty more interesting supporting documents here.



Cheers.

Great work again Orko.



Since the scan of the article is difficult to read, here is a transcript:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________



In an interview with the Newark Star-Ledger (December 22, 1958), a group of more than fifty commercial airline pilots blasted Air Force procedures and conclusions concerning UFOs. Here in full is the article:



Pilots ridicule AF secrecy on saucers



By John Lester

Staff Writer



A group of more than 50 top commercial airline pilots, all veterans of more than 15 years with major companies, yesterday blasted as "bordering on the absolute ridiculous" the Air Force policy of tight censorship, brush-off and denial in regard to unidentified flying objects -- flying saucers.



One termed the Air Force policy "a lesson in lying, intrigue and the 'Big Brother' attitude carried to the ultimate extreme."



Each of the pilots has sighted at least one UFO, the majority several.



All have been interrogated by the Air Force and most expressed disgust and frustration at Air Force methods and conclusions.



"We are ordered to report all UFO sightings," one said, "but when we do we are usually treated like incompetents and told to keep quiet.



"This is no fun, especially after many hours of questioning -- sometimes all night long. You're tired. You've just come in from a grueling flight, anxious to get home to the wife and kids. But you make your report anyhow and the Air Force tells you that the thing that paced your plane for 15 minutes was a mirage or a bolt of lightning.



"Nuts to that. Who needs it?"



Another said he was certain many pilots "forget" to report UFO sightings rather than undergo Air Force quizzing and ridicule. He said he is sure much valuable information is lost as a result.



Although the pilots expressed themselves freely, they asked that their names be withheld because in most instances employers had directed them, at Air Force insistence, to say nothing for publication.



The Star-Ledger has their names, however, and it was agreed that they could be released if and when the "strict silence" ban is lifted.



One of the pilots was refused permission by his company to appear on a recent nationwide telecast.



Another was ordered to "cease and desist" after he'd appeared on two recent network telecasts with his company's expressed approval.



In referring to the UFO tracking by Civil Aeronautics Authority radar men stationed around the country, as reported in this newspaper last Friday, one of the pilots explained "the Air Force can't afford to admit radar is correct without also admitting its own attitude has been incorrect from the beginning."



This pilot also pointed to a Joint Chiefs of Staff order giving top radio priority to UFO reports anywhere in the world, and specifying that any pilot who fails to maintain absolute secrecy afterwards is subject to a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.



"If the whole UFO business is to be taken so lightly, as the official Air Force policy suggests, then why are the Joint Chiefs so serious and obviously so concerned about it, and why are they going to all that trouble?"



In respect to the Joint Chiefs' order, none of the pilots were asked to reveal details of any of their sightings or questioned about them in any way.





Since the appearance of the above article Mr Lester has informed this Committee that 400 more pilots have joined the list of the original 50.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for printing the text of that article mate and good job you did as it looks like it's the last remaining copy - Terry Hansen's website was shut down after his untimely death in June, 2014.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So when there is anomalous behavior with radar equipment, the typical radar operator has no more understanding of possible "under the hood" causes of that, then my neighbor has of what's causing the anomalous behavior of her motor vehicle. Neither one fully understand all the technology and what's "under the hood", though they are both quite familiar with the controls and have experience using them.

But when they appear on ground and air,(multiple aircraft radars?) One engine can malfunction, but three, four at the same time??

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

But when they appear on ground and air,(multiple aircraft radars?) One engine can malfunction, but three, four at the same time??

Soloprotocol, fair point mate and your comment also reminded of this statement made by the first head of Project Bluebook.

"Of these UFO reports,the radar/visual reports are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located,then a jet interceptor is scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the lights and gets a radar lock only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him,there is no simple answer."

Edward J Ruppelt USAF Capt 1956

Thought this one about the responsibility of taking pilot visual sightings seriously was also relevant:

"Think for a moment, if one experienced commercial pilot reports to me that something flew across in front of his airplane, I pay careful attention; but now if a second commercial pilot reports the same a few seconds later, I become interested; but if a third pilot, a military one, confirms the same fact, I tend to believe it. In this case, do we have one UFO close to the airplanes, or we have two UFOs? If we have one, its incredible speed doesn’t correspond to anything we have now".

CEEFA's General Ricardo Bermudez 1 / 2

Below are some other relevant (and hastily cobbled together) statements about UFOs being confirmed on radar screens - there's also an interesting article here concerning Operation Bulldog and the radar confirmation of a large, fast UFO over the English channel in 1949.

"The distance from Tequesquitengo to Mexico City is 48 nautical miles and the blip of Carlos' plane was picked up on radar when 43 miles out of Mexico City. Carlos' aircraft was the only one in that sector at that time. The radar registered the separation of another blip which went in another direction from Carlos' plane, executing a 270-degree turn in a radius of 3 or 4 miles at a speed of 450-500 nautical miles per hour. I do not know of any aircraft which could execute such a maneuver.
Julio Cesar Interian Diaz, the Mexico City International Airport Terminal Radar Controller



"When you have the view of the airspace and the radar screen and you see the UFOs go around twenty or thirty miles a second – that is very real. They can turn suddenly almost 90 degrees in a second or half a second. The UFOs can go vertically straight up very quickly."
Mexico City Senior Air Traffic Controller, Enrique Kolbeck



"I was working a midnight shift in the tower when at approximately 1:30 a.m., I spotted a group of luminous objects in the air above and around Edwards Air Force Base. They had a flashing red light on the bottom, with a green, glowing light above the red. They also sometimes flashed or glowed a white light above the green light. The sightings lasted until about daylight, 5:30 or six a.m. At first I sighted one object, which was larger and brighter than the rest. At one point there were seven objects visible at the same time. The objects would be stationary for a period of time and then move very fast to another location and appeared to be able to climb straight up in short order. Good eyesight and my experience as an air traffic controller made it plain to me that these luminous objects were not planes, helicopters, stars, satellites, weather balloons or any other known aerial object. Your job as an air traffic controller calls for you to be watchful.Training told me these were not normal objects. The objects weren't supposed to be there. These were objects out of the normal, from their appearance and flight characteristics. I reported these sightings to base operations and the Los Angeles Air Defense Sector. The objects were also seen by at least five other people on Edwards Air Force Base. They were also seen by George Air Force Base tower and were showing up on radar in at least four different radar sight locations."
Edwards AFB Air Traffic Controller Chuck Sorrels



"There is no other conclusion I can reach but that for six hours on the morning of the 20th of July, 1952 there were at least ten unidentifiable objects moving above Washington....I can safely deduce that they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. By this I mean that our scope showed that they could make right angle turrns and complete reversals of flight".
Senior Air Route Traffic Controller Harry Barnes



“What I saw defied all logic and was, quite frankly, extraordinary. It wasn’t just me, more than 30 pairs of eyes of RAF staff and radar operators at Heathrow Airport witnessed the same thing. I instantly knew this wasn’t a convoy of military planes -the only craft with that rate of climb were supersonic lightning aircraft but they wouldn’t have been able to hold such a perfect formation".
RAF Wing Commander Alan Turner (MBE).



"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."
Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977



"During the 1955 Warsaw Pact exercises, a radar station in the area of Warsaw recognized two targets over the Gulf of Gdansk. The targets were moving at a speed of 2,300 km/h at an altitude of 20 thousand meters. In those days there was no aircraft with such performance. At one point it was noticed that the two objects did a 90 degrees turn, literally on the spot with no turning radius. This maneuver at such high speeds cannot be done. Most modern aircraft are unable to do so even today, and that was 50 years ago".
Colonel Ryszard Grundmanem - Former Head of Poland's 'Air Traffic, Air Force and Air Defense'



"More than 10,000 sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be accounted for by any scientific explanation, eg that they are hallucinations, the effects of light refraction, meteors, wheels falling from aeroplanes, and the like. They have been tracked on radar screens and the observed speeds have been as great as 9,000 mph."
Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding, Commanding Officer of the RAF during WWII



"Much evidence tells us UFOs have been tracked by radar; so, UFOs are real and they may come from outer space."
General Kanshi Ishikawa,Commander Chief of Air Staff of Japan's Air Self-Defense Force,1967.



"What we have, then, was a group of sightings made by men on the ground, at the missile sites scattered around the base. There was radar sightings from ground and weather's radar. There were visual sightings from the crew of the B-52, and an airborne radar sighting where the target traveled at 3,000 miles per hour. Scope photographs were taken. There were sightings made by S.Sgt. Bond the FSC at Nov. Flight, S.Sgt. Smith at Oscar-1, Julelt, and Mike Flight Team and a number of men in widely scattered locations. The object landed at location AA-43 and the entire observation lasted for 45 minutes. Fourteen other people in separate locations also reported the UFO."
Researcher Kevin Randle

Link

Cheers.

Radar/visual in September, 1952, Yaak, Montana - radar operators go outside to witness UFOs.

A newsman from Oleans, New York, a Mr. Bob Barry, interviewed a S/Sgt. William Kelly who was stationed at the Yaak radar installation in 1953. According to Sgt. Kelly, on one occasion UFOs appeared on the site's radar screens exhibiting changes of direction as many as five times a minute. Some course changes were 90 degrees and speeds were measured as high as 1,500 mph. Six blips at one time appeared on the radar scopes and the strange targets came within 10 miles of the GCI site. So close was the indicated range the radar personel left their windowless operations room to check the sky with the naked eye. Sure enough, six objects could be seen in the sky an estimated 10 miles away. When first spotted, the six UFOs were in an in-trail formation, and shortly thereafter the six UFOs changed to an in-line abreast grouping. Finally, the UFOs switched to a vertical stack. Sgt. Kelly said he remembers tracking the UFOs on the radar executing vertical climbs that exceeded the limit of the site's height finding equipment (This was probably 100,000 feet).

(UFOs: A History, 1953: Aug-Dec., Pg.5; 19. Hall, UFO Evidence, Pg. 85)

link

Sourced by RealTVUFOs.

Pretty intriguing radar/visual from the FEAF Radar Intelligence Summaries - USS Philippine Sea February 2, 1952:

A letter classified SECRET was sent on April 8, 1952, by the Commander Naval Forces, Far East, to the Chief of Naval Operations, enclosing a track chart of the UFO in question and stating, in part:

"Enclosure (1) is forwarded for information and evaluation. This is probably the first instance of a visual and radar contact on a high speed aerial target being made simultaneously in the Far East."


link

Atmospherical physicist Dr James E Mcdonald also makes some good points in this address at the14th Radar Meteorology Conference.


Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns