How Should People Interpret 'UFO'?

[DaveC426913]

Radars are not infallible.

I think you need some sleep.

 

[Magical Realist]

And yet they're entirely reliable. Just like cars are. You are hereby refuted.

 

[DaveC426913]

You definitiely need sleep. You've directly contradicted yourself twice on one page.

 

[Magical Realist]

You definitiely need sleep. You've directly contradicted yourself twice on one page.

Maybe you should confine your claims to technology you have actually dealt with next time. Wheelbarrows maybe?

 

[paddoboy]

No..as long as is it calibrated and maintained daily it is very reliable. Reliable enough to land jets on a runway too.

Very reliable certainly, as are Police RADAR guns, but errors and mistakes through weather conditions and such do occur.
UFO's or objects Unidentified, are probably a result of such errors brought about by various conditions etc.
Nothing man made is entirely reliable, other then the "Opportunity" Mars Rover so far.

 

[Magical Realist]

UFO's or objects Unidentified, are probably a result of such errors brought about by various conditions etc.

Except in those many cases where visual confirmation is obtained from the pilot or the tower and/or confirmed targets on another radar.

Here's what happens when a ufo is detected on a military radar:

http://www.collective-evolution.com...pens-when-a-ufo-is-tracked-on-military-radar/

 

[billvon]

LOL! Normal people hallucinate ufos. Now radars hallucinate them too even though they accurately track flying objects everyday in thousands of airports all over the world.

They also "hallucinate" airplanes all the time (due to transient returns) and "hallucinate" that they magically disappear (due to severe weather that blocks the return, or loss of transponder signal.) Talk to any ATC controller.

Reliable enough to land jets on a runway too.

Radar doesn't "land jets on runways." Pilots do. They use all the information available to them, via their eyes, their instruments and ATC. The instruments they rely on use radar, radio guidance signals that are NOT radar based, satellite based navigation, inertial navigation, physical measurement (i.e. air pressure and magnetic flux) and simple time. This is important, because radar doesn't always work. Sometimes it shows things that aren't there, and sometimes it fails to show things that are there.

I was a radar technician in the Navy.

Then you should know better.

 

[Magical Realist]

Radar doesn't "land jets on runways." Pilots do. They use all the information available to them

They also use the information provided from the radar operator. I've seen it many times.

"Precision approach radar (PAR) is a type of radar guidance system designed to provide lateral and vertical guidance to an aircraft pilot for landing, until the landing threshold is reached. After the aircraft reaches the decision height (DH) or decision altitude (DA), guidance is advisory only. Controllers monitoring the PAR displays observe each aircraft's position and issue instructions to the pilot that keep the aircraft on course and glidepath during final approach. It is similar to an instrument landing system (ILS) but requires control instructions."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_approach_radar

 

[Magical Realist]

They also "hallucinate" airplanes all the time (due to transient returns) and "hallucinate" that they magically disappear (due to severe weather that blocks the return, or loss of transponder signal.) Talk to any ATC controller.

Right..during severe weather maybe. But not "all the time" or in clear skies. Here's a good article on what causes "bogies"...

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/bogie