• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

UFOs Over Ireland (2018)

Coal said:
It does though. If there was corroborating radar data, then it would suggest something was really there.
Click to expand...
Well... the point of stealth craft is that they don't show up on radar or present an easily-identifiable radar trace.
 
markrkingston1 said:
(a) Does civilian air traffic control still use skin paint (i.e. actual radar signal return) as a primary indicator of aircraft presence or is transponder signal now usually the primary indicator of aircraft presence? If the latter then lack of marker on a radar screen doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all, other than that the object was either not squawking at all or was not squawking on a frequency or with a scheme that the civilian radar understood.
Click to expand...
They use both.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Well... the point of stealth craft is that they don't show up on radar or present an easily-identifiable radar trace.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the first thing anyone would be doing is asking ATC for what they saw on the radar at/in the same time/place. And I've seen nothing to suggest this has been done. It's pretty much "Some folk say they saw something from a plane, it must be aliens".
 
Coal said:
I'd suggest the first thing anyone would be doing is asking ATC for what they saw on the radar at/in the same time/place. And I've seen nothing to suggest this has been done. It's pretty much "Some folk say they saw something from a plane, it must be aliens".
Click to expand...
Yes, it should be the first thing to have been checked.
Maybe people WANT to believe, as in Mulder's poster?
 
Mythopoeika said:
Yes, it should be the first thing to have been checked.
Maybe people WANT to believe, as in Mulder's poster?
Click to expand...
It's been said here that we (FMB'ers) 'want to believe" which I'd venture to suggest is true as otherwise, why turn up?

However, there's wanting to believe and approaching such things in a rigorous way and 'believing as a doctrine' cf. 'needing to believe' which is nicely summed up by the 'We don't know so it must be aliens' kind of tag-line. The latter category are no more credible than the 'Church of the Latter Day Saints' and both categories are unwelcome door-knockers.
 
Mythopoeika said:
markrkingston1 said:
(a) Does civilian air traffic control still use skin paint (i.e. actual radar signal return) as a primary indicator of aircraft presence or is transponder signal now usually the primary indicator of aircraft presence? If the latter then lack of marker on a radar screen doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all, other than that the object was either not squawking at all or was not squawking on a frequency or with a scheme that the civilian radar understood.
Click to expand...

They use both.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Being a detail person I am curious about the the exact functionality? Specifically what I mean is:
(1) Do you know if both skin paint and transponder signals are normally shown simultaneously on the same screen, meaning that an operator will instantly know if they have a target that is not transmitting with a transponder signal and is visible by skin paint only?
(2) Or are skin paint targets only shown if the operator selects that mode?

I realise that the answer to this question could depend on the type of traffic that a radar and/or particular operator are dealing with.

I have heard several mentions on tv (hardly authoritative, I know) that, increasingly, skin paints are only shown when an operator specifically chooses that mode.
 
Coal said:
It's been said here that we (FMB'ers) 'want to believe" which I'd venture to suggest is true as otherwise, why turn up?
Click to expand...

I turn up to find the truth, whatever it is. Surely the classic Fortean approach is one of open minded scepticism, i.e. to discover the true nature of reality?

Coal said:
'We don't know so it must be aliens' kind of tag-line.
Click to expand...

There are many true-believer ufologists who seem to think this way but I don't think it's a pattern of thought that has been demonstrated in this thread.
 
markrkingston1 said:
I turn up to find the truth, whatever it is. Surely the classic Fortean approach is one of open minded scepticism, i.e. to discover the true nature of reality?
Click to expand...
Yep. So where's the radar data? First port of call surely? First, check the obvious and likely.

markrkingston1 said:
I have heard several mentions on tv (hardly authoritative, I know) that, increasingly, skin paints are only shown when an operator specifically chooses that mode.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I'd suggest that radar displays are increasingly if not completely digitised. The 'old days' image of a sweep round a CRT is not really required although a line representing the antennae sweep provided a useful visual indication of ageing of the onscreen data. It's also handy as it gives context to the 'line' across the screen that appears if one picks up another transmitted signal from a different radar.

So 'skin paints' and transponders could co-exists at the flick of a software switch. I'd be surprised, from a 'fail to safe' point of view, if skin-paints were NOT shown by default as transponders can fail, but the big bit of metal (or birds, whatever) in the sky is 'there or not'. Anyone know for sure?
 
Coal said:
Yep. So where's the radar data? First port of call surely? First, check the obvious and likely.
Click to expand...

Don't ask me, I don't have access to it. ;)

There's the problem of course: Most of the people commenting on this story either can't get the data, or don't know how/where to ask for it, or can't be bothered.

If you really want to see the radar data, if any, then go for it (please!). And I agree it would be very informative if there is a radar correlation but, as I mentioned, I don't think it would be meaningful at all if there was no radar correlation.

Coal said:
So 'skin paints' and transponders could co-exists at the flick of a software switch.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I would expect. But to be able to properly analyse a radar recording, it seems to me that one needs to know what modes of operation the radar is capable of and what modes are or were used by its operators. Only when you know that sort of information can you properly make sense of any radar data you've got.

Coal said:
I'd be surprised, from a 'fail to safe' point of view, if skin-paints were NOT shown by default as transponders can fail, but the big bit of metal (or birds, whatever) in the sky is 'there or not'. Anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...

That would certainly make sense but I've learned not to make that sort of assumption without actual evidence. It really does need someone who knows for sure to comment.
 
markrkingston1 said:
Thanks.

Being a detail person I am curious about the the exact functionality? Specifically what I mean is:
(1) Do you know if both skin paint and transponder signals are normally shown simultaneously on the same screen, meaning that an operator will instantly know if they have a target that is not transmitting with a transponder signal and is visible by skin paint only?
Click to expand...

They can, yes. It depends on the software that they are using and what the settings are. The software I work with can show ADS-B and AIS markers (secondary radar) overlaid over the top of primary radar video (aka skin paint).

markrkingston1 said:
(2) Or are skin paint targets only shown if the operator selects that mode?
Click to expand...

On the software I work with, any of these things are on separate layers and can be turned on or off by the operator.
 
Mythopoeika said:
They can, yes. It depends on the software that they are using and what the settings are. The software I work with can show ADS-B and AIS markers (secondary radar) overlaid over the top of primary radar video (aka skin paint).

On the software I work with, any of these things are on separate layers and can be turned on or off by the operator.
Click to expand...

Wow, someone who knows what they're talking about. ;) Excellent, thank you.
 
Scribbles said:
I tend towards John A Keel's thoughts on UFOs, that they are manifestations just like Big Foot, Fairies, Mothman etc. Although manifestations from what or where I have no firm thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'm with this school of thought too, Keel, Vallée, Holiday, et al. It just seems to make sense, all these things have a sort of weird intangible, projected quality. But as you said, from what and from where is the question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top