I think there is some serious miscommunication going on here. A reflective plasma will act just like, if it is round, a metal sphere flitting around. How do you eliminate that?! That will look exactly like a round aircraft (no fan blades or other characteristica). You simply can't eliminate that.



Doppler filters as we know very well how the ocean behaves.



And how would he know if he had never seen such a phenomenon before (and it can actually be quite spectacular and out of this world).



I think I have already told that I am well aware of the all weather capabilities of the F-16 radar. And I have better things to do with my time than to debunk just for the purpose of debunking.

So, again, are you telling me that a reflective plasma is not a surface reflector (yes, it does matter). Because if it is, it will effectively have the same radar properties as a metallic object flying around and how do you filter that out?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

My analogy deals with cause and effect. Someone saying that the stubbed toe changed color because of evil fairies is the same as someone claiming that an unidentified object in the sky is being flown by ETs. The difference is that not only do we know why the toe changed color but we have proof of why it did so. There is no proof (yet) that any UFOs are being flown by ET.

The case of the Dogon tribe has been proven to be a hoax for quite some time now. You can read about it here.

And there's nothing really mysterious about the disappearances in the so-called Bermuda Triangle. It's a highly trafficked body of water and the amounts of ships and aircraft lost is statistically no higher than any other part of the world. Also, because of the vast area involved it's not surprising why wreckage is seldom found.



I think what you're failing to realize is that those same open minded scientists you refer to carefully research all available data and perform exhaustive tests and reviews until they feel confident enough to confirm a theory as the most probable one. And even then they're willing to change their view when new information becomes available. However, they rely on empirical evidence to reach their conclusions and not on unsubstantiated claims or faulty data.



It's not naive at all since no proof has ever been brought forward. No disrespect towards skyeagle, but the only thing he's managed to prove is that UFOs exists. He's shown nothing so far that proves UFOs are craft being flown by ET. In this case, only physical evidence of an extraterrestrial being or ET manufactured object will suffice to truly end the debate.



That has become a tired excuse used by CTs to explain their belief why, if indeed the government(s) had proof of ET, the public has not been informed. Society has grown and changed in the last eighty years since that broadcast. We have become acclimated with the idea of possible ET visitation. Not only do many people believe in ETs they actually want them to be here. Frankly, that is simply a scapegoat used by believers when pushed for proof.



You have no idea how many times I've heard that in the 40+ years I've followed the UFO phenomenon. I would love to see proof that ET is visiting us. To me, that would be cause for celebration.

However, given the time I've been searching and waiting, I'm sure you'll understand if I don't hold my breath.

Quite right. How do we filter out that 'x' factor.
Seeing the claims made about the filtering capabilities of modrn warfight technology in the discussion so far reminds me of an explosive threats lesson from a few years ago.
One of the nasty little devices we were told about were 'smart mines' that could not only differentiate between a tank or other class of armored vehicle, but can even tell friend from foe and between models. How these devices did this was by 'checking' the seismic, magnetic and in some cases thermal data it was recieving against what was in its database of known vehicles. Which is all well and good, but (as the question was asked) what happens if the enemy changes tactics and starts moving round in civilian vehicles, or unveils a new vehicle design? To all intents and purposes, the data the device would force the device to conclude that the vehicle is not one of ours or theirs. Obviously the device is rendered ineffective until we have the new data to input.
Now how do we gather the required data on an incredibly rare phenomena?

You're the type of sceptic i like but i wonder what constitutes proof, you see i am in the process of gathering evidence, so let me ask you aside from a body or a craft. I mean a craft could be a military one and without a confirmed dna sample analysis from a body neither are proof. How about if it could be proved the pyramids where almost impossible to have been done by humans and other techniques where required, or if human evolution accelerated beyond evolution of other earthlife forms, would that make u consider genetic tampering, or perhaps a thousand multiple witness accounts of dealing with aliens or ufo encounters,. I think there is enough evidence to say that either et does exist or there used to be a civilisation that advance beyond us then wwas wiped out , comet or asteroid maybe. Or there is just us but that our governments run some freaky programs, and have technology they are not yet releasing for some reason
but tell me what might make you say Ok that is a distinct possibility ill consider it

Where would we be without this forum? Doing something constructive I bet. well its good that we can debate over Et`s till the cows get probed and we see the light in the sky.skyeagle has done a wonderful jod putting his point across. And I for one belive in strange things here in our place in time and space. we can only hope that soon the truth will be told to all mankind.

blobs.



You know, there's this thing about digital, signature, and data. Ever wondered how sonar can identify models of submarines? Well!

You still don't seem to understand what I have just said. What did I say about signatures, rubber and bowling balls?

You know, I have stated before that closed-mined skepticism blinds the eyes of the mind to reality. Now, once again, can you differentiate between a rubber ball and bowlling ball striking a concrete wall? If so, then there is your answer on what I am talking about.

Now, did you review the videos I posted or not? If so, what did the lead F-16 pilot state on that video? In fact, what did the professor and the Air Force Colonel say as well?

And how do planes look like on a radar screen?



Gee... a sonar identifies models of submarines by the sound it makes, and compares it to known sounds! Too ba that, if the russkies created a new sub, them damn US submarines wouldnt be able to figure out what kind of sub it is, nor who it belongs to until after they find out about its existence!

Its too bad that your dagital, signature and data cant tell the difference between such a phenomena and an actual aircraft!

Quality control inspectors.

Here's a hint on one way controllers can diferentiate between an aircraft and a flying saucer. But, what have I beens aying all along?



From a controller's original sketch, some saucer movements July 20
on Washington radar scope are diagrammed above. At A, seven blips
appeared suddenly. Two moved ( near White House, one near Capitol.
At C, one fled a northwest bound airliner (indicated by row of blips).
Later (D) ten flocked at Andrews Field. E illustrates a saucer's right-
angle turn compared with curving turn of ordinary aircraft."




You know, there's this thing about knowledge of the real world. They have said similar things about Russian subs and eventually, it was found that we had other means to deal with them, so don't count any chickens until they hatch!



LOL!!

"Digital" is a keyword on how it is done and look what you posted!! Duh!!

Perhaps, you should determine why:

* Radar controllers

* Commercial and military pilots

* Senior military and intelligence officials

* Other military personnel

* Some Cosmonauts and astronauts

And, millions of other folks around the globe who have disagreed with what you have said.

Thanks!

I am predicting that disclosure will eventually come because a number of countries are opening up their own UFO case files, which indicates the objects are intelligently controlled crafts and government witnesses in this country have also been anxious to reveal under oath, what they know about UFOs.

Other experts have already come out on the side of ET reality and I expect the numbers to grow.

Badeskov is right.

ET and timetraveling humans from the future is not among the first explanations I would use to try and explain a UFO.

Edgar Mitchell

http://ufowatcher.blogspot.com/2007/08/ast...t-visitors.html

He is wrong because he doesn't understand why there are highly experienced commercial and military pilots, astronomers, scientist, engineers, senior miitary and intelligence officials and other military personnel, some astronauts and cosmonauts and radar operators who disagree with what he is saying.

In other words, disregard valid and verifiable data, documents and what the experts are saying on ET reality.

"UFO Reality Is Breaking Out"
RICHARD J. BOYLAN, PH.D.


A prestigious three-day international conference was held at the
Sheraton washington in Washington, D.C. on May 27-29, 1995 on the subject of
what should be Earth's proper response, when it comes out in the open that we
are being visited by cultures from elsewhere.

The "When Cosmic Cultures Meet"International Conference featured presentations by scientists, academics,
governmental spokespersons, research professionals, military officers,
journalists and religious spokespersons. This world-class conference revealed
the solid acceptance by political, academic, scientific and journalism figures
of the realism of preparing for extraterrestrial contact. I also provided a
number of compelling statements and revelations.

Arlington Institute National Security expert John L. Petersen compared
the current shift in society and culture,involving dramatic breakthroughs in
energy sources, ET contact, and technology, to the shift from the Middle Ages
to the Enlightenment.

Anthropologist-journalist Michael Hesseman likened ET contact to a
second Copernican Revolution. He also reported that Soviet KGB UFO files have
now become public,, revealing, for example, that in 1989 a UFO hovered for two
hours over a Soviet nuclear weapons storage facility, until finally a MIG
fighter came and the UFO departed.

Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack presented arresting videotapes of
his interviewing of Southern Africa fourth graders who witnessed a UFO set down
at the edge of their recess playground. Then several ETs emerged, one
approaching within nine feet of one awe-struck schoolgirl as others watched.

Washington Post journalist Ruth Montgomery related how she had received
multiple reports about UFO reality from various military officers with whom she
had spoken.


http://www.cohenufo.org/authorsc.html#Malmstrom

The Case for UFO Reality
The UFO Briefing Document, Don Berliner

Summary: If a close look is taken at the best available evidence, it is possible to deal with what is known about UFOs, and what may reasonably be assumed. The point we will make is that the evidence to support the conclusion that UFOs are unknown aircraft/spacecraft seems to be overwhelming.


Performance of UFOs

Even more striking than the shapes of UFOs is their performance: speed, acceleration, maneuverability, silence.

Speed. UFOs have been tracked on military radar travelling silently at several thousand miles per hour well within the Earth's atmosphere. An airplane attempting this would create an inescapable sonic boom before melting from friction with the air.

Extreme Acceleration. Airplanes do not visibly accelerate in the air, though they show generally impressive acceleration during take-off. Drag-racing cars and motorcycles accelerate in a manner obvious to even the least experienced observer. In the case of UFOs, airline and military pilots have reported that they fly at the same speed as an airplane, and then display acceleration common only to anti-missile missiles. Veteran pilots describe their observations with words like "astounding" and "unbelievable."

Extreme Maneuverability. While airplanes can perform abrupt maneuvers, these are generally seen only in air shows. Even then, such flying is more often described by the outside observer as "graceful" rather than "violent," though the pilot may use the latter term. Impossibilities for airplanes (but not, apparently, for UFOs) include right-angle turns at high speed, and zig-zag flight.

Silent Hovering. While helicopters and VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) airplanes can hover, they produce noises whose quality and volume positively identify them. UFOs, on the other hand, appear able to hover with little or no motion for long periods without any sound. This remains well beyond the state of known science, let alone technology.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail20.htm


WARNING

"Near approaches of UFOs can be harmful to human beings. Do not stand under a UFO that is hovering at low altitude. Do not touch or attempt to touch a UFO that has landed. In either case the safe thing to do is to get away from there very quickly and let the military take over. There is a possibility of radiation danger and there are known cases where persons have been burned by rays emanating from UFOs. Don't take chances with UFOs!"

http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/firefighters.htm

And how do they do this? Exactly what feature distinguishes it from a normal aircraft signature?



Ahh, so they witnessed an atmospheric plasma event.



Wow! I was repeating what you said, how you said it! Whats your point?

They pick it up and throw it in the trash.


'

Performance charateristics and direct visiual confirmations from aircrews and ground observers.





If you think this photo is that of atmospheric plasma, then so be it, but then again, it serves to prove why you are on the wrong side of the fence.

That you read what I wrote, but failed to understand what was written.

Is it any wonder why atmospheric experts have also said that atmospheric phenomena was not responsible for incidents such as the UFO case files I presented? That would explain why those case files remain U-N-E-X-P-L-A-I-N-E-D to this very day after extensive analysis on those case files.

Didn't you even review any of the information I presented, such as the America West UFO sighting that involved a UFO with portholes??? Duh!!

So they distinguish atmospheric plasma events from normal aircraft by performance characteristics and direct visual confirmations?




THat photo is highly suspect. Ironically, with all those erratic maneuvers it makes, it was possible to take that photo, hmm?



Its not my fault you didnt compose a coherent sentence.

That the objects were intelligently controlled, not plasma. Seems you haven't been following up on the facts, which is clearly evident.



Funny, but who said anything that the UFO was zooming around at the time that photo was taken? Haven't you been following up the specifics of that incident at all?!



If you were not in debunk mode, you would have known exactly what I had meant.

Well... if they filter out atmospheric phenomena based on comparing performance characteristics to normal aircraft performance characteristics, then this one should not have registered on radar because it clearly doesnt exhibit normal aircraft performance characteristics! If it cant be an atmospheric plasma event because radar would have filtered it out (based on its performance characteristics, which can match those exhibited by your precious radar data), then that would mean that any craft exhibiting those performance characteristics would also not show up on radar... leading to the conclusion that all the radars that observed it had a simultaneous glitch. However, seeing as this is not a likely thing to happen, its more likely that the radars just dont filter out atmospheric plasma events by their performance characteristics, thus any radar returns showing such characteristics can either be an actual craft, or an atmospheric plasma phenomena.



Whether I'm in "debunk mode" or not has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to compose a sentance.

You just don't know me very well, do you on how I deal with closed-minded skeptics??? Fair game!

Now, let's do a recap. If plasma were the case, then the F-16 doesn't use digital means to eliminate them, and there is no such thing as little green apples, which explains why are are still on the wrong side of the fence because it dipicts S-O-L-I-D objects digitally, not atmospheric phenomena (soft targets). Another fact, the case remains U-N-E-X-P-L-A-I-N-E-D to this very day, which simply means that the experts don't agree with your assessment either and why it is unexplained terrestrially to this very day. A clue that you seemed to have missed!

Now, how about getting on the right track since none of the case files in question have been explained-away as plasma!!!

Actually, as it has been pointed out to you, an atmospheric plasma event appears as a solid object on radar.

Not in the case that I am talking about.

Now once again, what did I say about the elimination of ground clutter that are solid objects and ocean waves from the scope of the F-16, in addition to other non essential information? If the pilot designates a particular target on his scope, he has already made the determination that the object is an intelligently-controlled object, which eventually, is identified as a saucer-shaped flying object with rotating lights and portholes, which are not descriptions of ordinary plasma.

Umm... yes, if it is what caused the case you are talking about, then it did. An atmospheric plasma discharge has certain characteristics, regardless of the case, and regardless of whether you say it does or not.

That you have yet to show!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Sorry, but the case files were never explained as plasma, even to this very day and that is a clue that no plasma was involved.

Facts, all facts!

It is not prudent to live in a world of denial.

What means did I mention already?

You're right! Nor were they explained as extraterrestrials! They remain unexplained!

Facts are facts, you're right!

What have I been saying all along?!

You've been saying UFOs are aliens... yet every report you display clearly says "UFO" and not "Alien craft"

I guess you didn't review the video I posted.

But, that is okay, because it reconfirms what I have been saying all along about some skeptics not doing their homework, or if so, not doing it properly. That is why you still insist that plasma could have been responsible for any of the case files I posted even though after all these years, not one of them has been tagged with the plasma phenomenon. C-L-U-E!!!

On another note:

"...Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space."

Brig. Gen. Arthur E. Exon
Former commanding general of Wright--Patterson AFB

Guess you didnt read what I said. Thats not a report.

Furthermore... where did that General say "Alien"? Perhaps I missed it...

I guess you didni't know the rest of the story.

You mean the rest of the story where he pulls out a briefcase and he pulls out proof of alien visitation? No, I havent heard of that happening whatsoever.

You know, and with all due respect, you have proven that you lack knowledge on the issues at hand; radar, plasma and other issues as well, so when you decide to do your homework, let me know.

BTW, have you reviewed any of the videos I posted?!

Its funny, because not too long ago I had a conversationw ith someone on your lack of knowledge on radar systems and all relating to this subject.

OK, I didn't really want to get into this, but by all means of respect, this thread have beyond any doubt shown that you don't have the foggiest idea of radar, it's behavoir, underlying technology and performance characteristics. Lets look at the question you posed to Stellar and I yesterday, shall we?:



Lookdown/shootdown is a capability to detect, track, engage and negate targets below the horizon as seen by the radar. Which has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever and is thus completely irrelevant. It has a whole host of modes, where some are downlook and some are uplook (which are relevant). Lets list them:

Air-to-air:
* Downlook-A coherent, medium PRF, pulse-doppler mode used for detecting low-flying airborne targets in the presence of main beam clutter.
* Uplook-A coherent, low PRF mode used in the absence of clutter to detect airborne targets.
* Air Combat-An automatic target acquisition mode which permits rapid "hands-off" target acquisition.
* Track-A submode, into which the radar is switched from any of the above three search modes.

Air-to-surface
* Real Beam Map-A noncoherent, frequency-agile mode for air-to-surface mapping; used to identify and locate ground targets and to update the inertial navigation system.
* Doppler Beam Sharpening-A ground mapping mode which employs doppler processing to enhance the azimuth resolution beyond that of the real beam.
* Sea I-A noncoherent, frequency-agile mode used for detecting ships in the presence of moderate sea clutter.
* Sea Il-A coherent, MTI mode which permits detection of moving ships in the presence of strong sea clutter.
* Air-to-Ground Ranging-Obtains accurate range data along the radar line of sight to a ground point via angle-error sensinge
*Beacon -A mode that can interrogate X-band beaconsand receive transponder replies, including coded replies. Also permits air-to-air applications such as tanker rendezvous.

That should do it for the modes just so we are clear on those.



?????? means that you basically don't know, as you can easily tell (as it is no secret anymore). The radar uses a doppler discrimination filter to eliminate anything below an absolute velocity of +/-55knots. Actual implementation is a three-pulse time-domain canceler followed by a Doppler filter realized using a 64bit Fast Fourier Transform. Thus only target data outside of the +/-55knot main beam clutter is passed through. This data is then subjected to a CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate) filter, which a basically an adaptive filter that uses up-to-date clutter data to, tata, eliminate clutter.



Easy, see tech description above.



I just did, but I seriously doubt you can understand it. Clutter and weather phenomena are eliminated using two methods. One is the +/-55knot limit on their MTI (Moving Target Indicator), which eliminates most (not very many weather phenomena move at that high speed). To aid that, the hazy return obtained from a distributed reflection (like a rain cloud) can do the rest.

A reflective plasma event moving fast does not have a distributed radar return, but a discrete surface reflection generated return, thus it cannot be filtered out. Stating the opposite is simply wrong and shows a lack of knowledge of such.



I did, and I ask again, how would he recognize something he had never seen before in his career, if ever even heard about it?!



Just read my posts. That sum up pretty well that plasma phenomena exists, can interfere with radar and cannot be filtered out. But, please, if you think I am wrong, state in 3 point the technological reason why such phenomena can be filtered out. I am all ears (well, eyes here).

Just as a disclaimer, the above is for the AN/APG-66/69 that was in service at the time of the Belgian radar data acquisition. Obviously they have been upgraded since then and the newest iteration uses SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar). But as pertains to the posted radar data, this should suffice.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

You have mentioned the 1969 report, which is irrelevant as pertaining to the Belgian Radar Data. Mirages or temperature inversions are not the cause of the data obtained. Noone has ever claimed that. And the 1969 report does not touch on plasma phenomena as described here, does it?

So, you have yet to show me how you can eliminate a reflective plasma phenomenon. Still waiting.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Oh, so now they disagree?! Maybe they would actually agree that it could be atmospheric phenomena given what we know now.

And what verifiable data, by all means of respect?! Your radar data?! I think we can shown quite conclusively that we cannot exclude atmospheric phenomena now.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited to add: Maybe they would actually agree that it could be atmospheric phenomena given what we know now.

And that, Stellar, is the crux of the matter It could be ET, it could be plasma, it could be something we have no idea exists just yet!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Emphasis mine. This is an extrapolation you cannot make. Just because it wasn't explained to be caused by plasma doesn't mean that it wasn't plasma. Just like we can't rule out ET.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Oh, so did we deviate from the Belgian Radar case (again)?! Please be specific as to what case we are now talking about and why (I will presume we have closed the book and can rule out the Belgian radar data as evidence now).



That you basically don't know how it is accomplished, just that it somehow magically is.



Oh, we are back to the portholes now. Lets see, plasmas can have geometrical shapes, have satelitte spheres which circle the main plasma thus giving the impression of rotating lights and I am sure that distributed lower intensity areas could be construed as portholes...again, from the Hessdalen report we find "goodies".

Page 19:


And since it so rarely happens it probably explains why we don't hear more about them.

Cheers,
Badeskov

It is all very simple. After extensive scientific analysis by the experts, none have been explained as the result of plasma, and that is one clue right there and as I've said before, different objects have their own unique signatures.

Sorry, but you failed to understand what I have said before about visual/radar cases, so why is it so difficult to understand why plasma has no bearing on such cases, especially after what I said about the radar?

Once again, after extensive analysis, why haven't any of those case files been explained as plasma?

What????

Are you aware that multiple dissimilar radars, both ground-based and airborne were tracking that object and didn't you review the video I posted where the pilot confirmed the multiple radar contacts? I guess not!!

Now, another question for you, in STT mode, why does the radar disregard all other contacts, including those of other aircraft and displays only one particular object and, anything to do with atmospheric phenomena?

You see, I can sit here and determine just how much you don't know about what I am talking about because you are not familiar with the technology at hand.

In other words, what you are doing is in so many words is copying Japanese language characters, but not knowing what those characters represent

The proof is in the fact that you coninue to push a failed explanation even though hghly experienced radar experts and aircrews have already excluded what you claim is factual.

Perhaps, you should convey that message to those highly experienced radar operators and commercial and military aircrews where they are going wrong, and then, relay that information to other experts who have also disregarded what you have claimed, is factual and and do so while explaining why after extensive analysis, the cases files in question remain unexplained to this very day!

I could have set up a website and planted false information to be used against me and you would have done so without knowing what was up as evident by what you are insisting.

Okay, then this question I am posing for you.

With all of that above, why are you still pushing the plasma thing???? Why did the F-16 pilot excude weather-related phenomena in that interview?

This is indeed quite true. The reason some events that could be plasma related remained "unexplained" is because although plasma events can appear as solid objects on radar, one still needs definitive evidence that this was the case for a particular sighting. This is the very same reasoning that is applied when we say that some events could be very well be ET related, but we need definitive evidence before we can conclude such.

BTW, a hypothesis (be it the ETH or plasma events) are not "thrown into the trash" based on personal preference. A hypothesis just remains a hypothesis until such time as definitive evidence (notice a pattern here?) is forth coming.