UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

My original statement is still perfectly accurate: Modern civilian radar uses transponder and ant-clutter techology that eliminates returns historically associated with UFOs. The transponder is a secondary radar system used in conjunction with the primary radar system and anti-clutter technology. Perhaps the primary rardar's anti-clutter technology can be switched off, but I doubt that's part of their routine. Maybe that's what you were trying to refer to?

your original statement is ludicrously innacurate
transponders are not a radar system they are telecommunication instruments
doppler radar can pick up differences in air pressure to enable it to spot microbursts and is so sensitive that it can pick up raindrops

how comes you don't know any of this yet claim to be scientific in your approach, seems to be an object lesson in fallacious reasoning in here for you somewhere about pretending to know something when youre just clueless about it. I withdraw my earlier claim that you were lying by omission though, clearly that was beyond your ability

Your pretensions to educate us on these tech matters are laughable. Do you really assume nobody here knows how radar works or what a transponder is? Did it ever occur to you that there might be some members of this science education community who are professional electrical engineers, air traffic controllers, or pilots?

This is what happens when you spend all your time learning pseudoscientific nonsense written by people with no expertise in anything, who instead pretend to be scientists studying outer space aliens. All the real-world knowledge you might have received from studying the actual sciences has been forsaken for a bunch of total nonsense marketed toward credulous rubes.

 

[corbin]

Recall that my point was a hypothetical to show that GeeMack's statement...

It is not possible to know something doesn't have a mundane explanation unless it is objectively shown to have a non-mundane explanation.

...is false. It is false because we can think of a possible hypothetical where the logic of his statement is contradicted. It doesn't matter that the hypothetical didn't happen, only that its not impossible.

 

[Marduk]

Recall that my point was a hypothetical to show that GeeMack's statement...



...is false. It is false because we can think of a possible hypothetical where the logic of his statement is contradicted. It doesn't matter that the hypothetical didn't happen, only that its not impossible.

cool story bro

 

[ufology]

Wrong. A transponder is not radar. It's a type of automated transceiver, something totally different.

Why do you try to come off like you know this stuff when it's so obvoius you don't have the slightest clue?

Sigh ...

"Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) is a radar system used in air traffic control (ATC), that not only detects and measures the position of aircraft i.e. range and bearing, but also requests additional information from the aircraft itself such as its identity and altitude. Unlike primary radar systems, that measure only the range and bearing of targets by detecting reflected radio signals, SSR relies on targets equipped with a radar transponder, that replies to each interrogation signal by transmitting a response containing encoded data. SSR is based on the military identification friend or foe (IFF) technology originally developed during World War II"

I'll try to be more precise in the future ... but the idea I was trying to get across is still the same.

j.r.

 

[corbin]

Its a false dichotomy.

It may be the case that we are in the situation where the data does not fit the accepted model, but that we have not yet formulated a hypothesis to explain such data.

 

[John Albert]

"Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) is a radar system used in air traffic control (ATC), that not only detects and measures the position of aircraft i.e. range and bearing, but also requests additional information from the aircraft itself such as its identity and altitude. Unlike primary radar systems, that measure only the range and bearing of targets by detecting reflected radio signals, SSR relies on targets equipped with a radar transponder, that replies to each interrogation signal by transmitting a response containing encoded data. SSR is based on the military identification friend or foe (IFF) technology originally developed during World War II"

I'll try to be more precise in the future ... but the idea I was trying to get across is still accurate.

Transponders are not radar. They're transceivers that automatically respond to received signals (the "interrogation signal") with a preprogrammed transmission, hence the name "transponders."

And the point you were getting across—that transponders somehow are capable of rendering physical objects in the sky (UFOs) undetectable on radar—is not accurate in the least. It is completely nonsensical.

 

[ufology]

Why are you still repeating Ruppelt’s fairy tale?

Again, here’s the actual so-called TOP SECRET “Estimate of the Situation”…

AIR INTELLIGENCE REPORT 100-203-79

Ruppelt was an actual head of the Project Blue Book. He was credible and he was there, which makes his words believable and yours worthless and disrespectful.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Ruppelt was an actual head of the Project Blue Book. He was credible and he was there, which makes his words believable and yours worthless and disrespectful.

j.r.

no, it just means that once again you aren't aware of the facts because you have never examined them


maybe you should have clicked on the link, but noooo, you already think you know the truth because you read it from a woo source
but great news for us, youre now claiming that UFO's are actually unknown soviet aircraft
well done

btw, what were Ruppelts exact words ?

 

[ufology]

Transponders are not radar. They're transceivers that automatically respond to received signals (the "interrogation signal") with a preprogrammed transmission, hence the name "transponders."

And the point you were getting across—that transponders somehow are capable of rendering physical objects in the sky (UFOs) undetectable on radar—is not accurate in the least. It is completely nonsensical.

The above quote is confused ... I stated quite clearly that transponder and anti-clutter technology eliminate returns historically associated with UFOs ... obviously because UFOs aren't going to be carrying a transponder and they have historically often been sporadic on military radar, which on a civilian system would come across as clutter, so they normally wouldn't show up on the primary system either so long as the anti-clutter technology is switched on.

j.r.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The above quote is confused ... I stated quite clearly that transponder and anti-clutter technology eliminate returns historically associated with UFOs ... obviously because UFOs aren't going to be carrying a transponder and they have historically often been sporadic on military radar, which on a civilian system would come across as clutter, so they normally wouldn't show up on the primary system either so long as the anti-clutter technology is switched on.

j.r.

But you've also been told that this is nonsense as well, by people who actually know radar.


1. Anti-Clutter tech makes a large group of objects appear as a large group of objects on radar rather than a single mass as they would appear on old radar without anti-clutter tech.

2. Objects without transponders aren't deleted from radar, otherwise radar would be totally worthless as an early warning system against air attack or missiles.

 

[John Albert]

The above quote is confused

On the contrary. I know what I'm talking about.

I stated quite clearly that transponder and anti-clutter technology eliminate returns historically associated with UFOs ... obviously because UFOs aren't going to be carrying a transponder

And as I said before, that assertion is wrong. Not carrying a transponder will not preclude an aircraft from showing up on radar, civilian or military.

The most obvious reason why "anti-clutter technology eliminates returns historically associated with UFOs" is because it is far more accurate at representing the material objects that are actually flying around out there, and can therefore eliminate obfuscation and false positives.

and they have historically often been sporadic on military radar, which on a civilian system would come across as clutter, so they normally wouldn't show up on the primary system either so long as the anti-clutter technology is switched on.

More nonsense that proves you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Atmospheric disturbances have also caused sporadic false returns on military radar.

Military radar has anti-clutter technology as well, and had it long before civilian airports had it.

"...so long as the anti-clutter technology is switched on..."

 

[ufology]

no, it just means that once again you aren't aware of the facts because you have never examined them


maybe you should have clicked on the link, but noooo, you already think you know the truth because you read it from a woo source
but great news for us, youre now claiming that UFO's are actually unknown soviet aircraft
well done

btw, what were Ruppelts exact words ?

Here are Ruppelt's exact words: "The estimate died a quick death. Some months later it was completely declassified and relegated to the incinerator. A few copies, one of which I saw, were kept as mementos of the golden days of the UFO's."

So again, Ruppelt was a genuine USAF officer in charge of UFO investigations and in a position to have seen the Estimate of the situation. His words therefore are therefore entirely plausible, possible and likely and therefore carry more weight than his detractors.

Interestingly, Ruppelt also writes about the destruction of other documents as ordered by USAF heirarchy elsewhere in his book.

j.r.

 

[Access Denied]

You seem to be claiming that you have some vision into the inner workings of my mind and Howard Blum's that gives you some special knowledge?

Nope, but now that you pissed me off, I’ll leave you to your special powers to figure it out.

Exactly what "fantasy world" are you talking about?

Ruppelt’s to name one…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Ruppelt

In 1960 the expanded edition of Ruppelt's book (20 Chapters) was published by Doubleday & Co.. The only change from earlier editions came in three more chapters which largely echoed the Air Force's position that there was nothing unusual about UFOs. Ruppelt seemed to have abandoned his early views that some UFO reports seemed mysterious and unexplained, and he declared UFOs a "space age myth".​

Ruppelt was an actual head of the Project Blue Book. He was credible and he was there, which makes his words believable and yours worthless and disrespectful.

Oops…

Welcome to your nightmare.

 

[John Albert]

It must really suck to realize that one of your gods has turned his back on you.

 

[Jocce]

Think of an event that has no mundane explanation. Anything - as long as it doesn't have a mundane explanation. Suppose you are sitting in your computer chair as you are now. Suddenly, you become air borne as if floating and materialize through your wall and continue floating down the street.

We know this event has no mundane explanation, yet has no non-mundane explanation yet either.

This is not to say that a non-mundane explanation will not later be forthcoming. Many discoveries were mysteries before being understood.

You seem to be making the absurd claim that something cannot for at least a period of time be a mystery.

What's absurd is that Ufologists claim that such a mystery equals "aliens" until proven otherwise.

 

[John Albert]

What's absurd is that Ufologists claim that such a mystery equals "aliens" until proven otherwise.

And that they dismiss all "mundane" explanations out of hand in a misguided bid to justify their fantastic explanations.

 

[ufology]

Nope, but now that you pissed me off, I’ll leave you to your special powers to figure it out.


Ruppelt’s to name one…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Ruppelt

In 1960 the expanded edition of Ruppelt's book (20 Chapters) was published by Doubleday & Co.. The only change from earlier editions came in three more chapters which largely echoed the Air Force's position that there was nothing unusual about UFOs. Ruppelt seemed to have abandoned his early views that some UFO reports seemed mysterious and unexplained, and he declared UFOs a "space age myth".
​

Oops…

Welcome to your nightmare.

Whatever the case may have been for the stance Ruppelt took on his abridged version, ultimately he is entitled to his opinion and it still doesn't change any of what has been said up to this point.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

And that they dismiss all "mundane" explanations out of hand in a misguided bid to justify their fantastic explanations.

The above are simply more unfounded proclaimations. There are thousands of cases where mundane possibilities were explored. Most ufology books don't go into mundane cases because they aren't what people are interested in reading about.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Whatever the case may have been for the stance Ruppelt took on his abridged version, ultimately he is entitled to his opinion and it still doesn't change any of what has been said up to this point.

j.r.

you're entitled to your opinion too
no ones buying it, but feel free

 

[Stray Cat]

It would be interesting to hear from Rramjet how he came to his conclusion that no geese were possibly in the area.

He will say it's insignificant anyway because geese don't have lights and they don't oscillate. Thus substituting the verifiable for the anecdotal.

And then:

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

The objects in my sighting were travelling at a great height directly south to north. Where to the north of Cape Otway are the goose habitats?

The objects in my sighting were indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites. What possible light source at midnight could make geese (or any bird) shine in such a manner?

Alternatively, if the satellite hypothesis is to be taken as plausible, then there will be a record of those satellites. None have been produced by the resident expert on the topic - and rest assured - if he could have - he would have.

Besides, how does "geese" or “satellite” even begin to plausibly explain four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites, travelling directly south to north, at a great height, all following precisely the same trajectory, with the leading two oscillating about a midpoint between them?

That's what needs to be explained. The precise topography of the area is neither here nor there. Nor for that matter does the precise location particularly matter. Nor even the precise date. You can choose practically anywhere and any date and the sighting would remain difficult to explain in mundane terms.

MDC here I come!!!