UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Donald Menzel on Radar (and Astronomy): a UFO connection?

Donald Menzel, Harvard professor, UFO debunker, and CIA operative, provided a paper on radar and astronomy, in which one can find clues to what the U.S. military was doing with radar experimentation in 1947:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1947ASPL....5..135M/0000145.000.html

Radar was "blamed" for the alleged Aztec crash of 1948 and recent loony (?) talk at Kevin Randle's blog suggested that the Roswell incident was the result of an alien (extraterrestrial) craft being downed by radar.

At any rate, Menzel offers a few asides that could (possibly!) allow for radar-caused-flying disk crashes.

RR

17 Comments:

  • I don't see how radar could have brought down the so-called UFOs. Based on Menzel's paper, the Army appeared to be interested in using the Moon as a radio/radar relay apparatus.

    The issue that Menzel described was of a possible solar (Sun) source that rendered radar receivers useless for a particular period of time rendering radar capability vulnerable during wartime, or normal surveillance.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • And MJ-12 member!

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • Tim:

    See Page 143.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • Rich, my post mostly pertained to pg. 143.

    So Menzel describes the formation of sun spots or solar flares or a form of solar radiation rendering radar capability inoperable.

    Jansky's unwittingly discovering radio signals from deep space, ie the CMB would have had no bearing on UFOs.

    The ionization of the Earth's atmosphere in conjunction with airborne objects? That's a no-go, otherwise we would be screwed with high altitude flight and missile launches...tracked by radar.

    I don't see the argument made, even discretely by Menzel. Your treading in Rudiak territory...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • It's the suggestion(s), Tim.

    Menzel was CIA. He wasn't about to spill the beans overtly.

    He's giving hidden clues, to whom or for whom, I don't know.

    But he's trying to say something.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • Then, pray tell, what is he getting at overtly?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • That the elements of radar can be disruptive.

    And the U.S. military (Army and Navy, the later particularly) were experimenting to see how that disruption could be employed.

    I'll provide supplementary material as I go along.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 13, 2015  

  • Have to go with Tim on this one.

    Menzel speaks to radar disruption of tracking, and interestingly he notes how the early war days of radar were during a low sunspot cycle.

    Other parts of the paper are a waltz down memory lane of communications. Here he speaks to the possibilities of radio telescopes that may look at stars and moon bounce to improve ship to ship radio.

    This in 1947 and 13 years later ham radio operators were playing with moon bounce ham radio for fun...

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • You fellows surprise me...

    You know, or should, that CRTs, MRIs, and X-Rays disrupt nearby electronics and the human body (a physical entity).

    And you know (or should) that Wi-Fi routers are affected by and affect microwave ovens, recording devices and appliances in the home.

    You also know, or should, that the military was experimenting with radar as a disruptive device during WWII.

    (I'll provide documentation of the Naval Research and White Sands experiments for the Army and Navy prior to 1947.)

    And you know or should that men who hold secrets (Menzel, Ruppelt, et al.) need to (psychologically) spill those secrets and often do in subliminal ways when writing or talking.

    I was turned away from the loony talk at Randle's blog by a few fellows who didn't know what they were talking about when it came to radar's possibilities in the alleged Roswell flying disk crash.

    But now, I get, here, narrow thinking and a lack of imagination or knowledge about what the U.S. military was doing with radar (and still is) in the post WWII era.

    Although I hate to go down the radar path, I'll provide papers and documentation I found, years ago, about all the experimentation with radar disruption.

    You fellows stun me with your ill-knowledge about this and Tim not aware, in his field, that men (and women) are suffused with a need to unburden themselves of secrets they hold, even if they only use subterfuge or less than candid language means to do so.

    UFO researchers lack the fundamental inquisitiveness that might resolve the UFO mystery.

    While I often rag on David Rudiak, I admire his out-of-the-box thinking.

    My complaint with his approach derives from his ET bias, which skews his creative observations.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • The concept of an interstellar craft travelling light years with a presumably shielded fuel source and with the added protection required to shield the goofy Roswell biological inhabitants of same, along with the enormous radiation fields in interstellar space could be brought down by WW2 era radar??
    It's back filling the Roswell hoax with B movie detritus.Has your visitor count gone up as a result?
    Lol..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • Rich, Menzel's paper is quite clear, at least to me, that he is talking about using the Moon to bounce radio and radar signals.

    You seem to miss other interesting nuggets from the paper: using radar to measure proper motion, radial velocity, and astronomical distances in space.

    BTW, I'm well aware that some people need to unburden themselves, yet some remarkably take secrets to the grave...I see no hidden agenda in Menzel's paper, nor do I see a hidden methodology for Menzel to "unburden" his soul.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • I'm not cojoining the Roswell incident with radar, Bruce.

    It is just co-incidental with Menzel's paper.

    I thought my remarks about such loony talk at Randle's blog made that clear.

    Apparently not

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • It was not clear enough. All of this is based on material objects.
    The recent experiments with psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern in relation to the observer’s anticipation is individually based. If a global consciousness field exists and we add thousands, perhaps millions of individuals can this create a macro-quantum wave collapse? The “receptors”who witness the results are attenuated to the identical anticipation by establishing coherence to the larger field. The movement from atmospheric based phenomenon to ground level phenomenon I suspect is a transference of projected shared anxieties that moved from nuclear to environmental annihilation fears. If this is true, then a hoax could generate a proxy and vice versa that has nothing to do with extraterrestrials.
    Maybe, maybe not...

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • Here is a tidbit from wikipedia regarding rumors of radar being used as a weapon:

    "In 1935 Watt was asked to pass judgement on recent reports of a German radio-based death ray and turned the request over to Wilkins. Wilkins returned a set of calculations demonstrating the system was basically impossible. When Watt then asked what might they do, Wilkins recalled the earlier report about aircraft causing radio interference. This led to the Daventry Experiment, using a powerful BBC shortwave transmitter as the source and their GPO receiver set up in a field while a bomber flew around the site. When returns were clearly seen, funds were immediately provided for development of an operational system.[16] Watt's team patented the device in GB593017."

    As a side note, my last assignment with AF Systems Command was in the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System...we took packets of encrypted radio signals and were able to send short, high speed burst (packets) of radio traffic rendering the signals difficult to intercept. Its in use at this current time.

    I'm well versed in the current application of the technology. I had also worked in the North Warning Systems office where we were refurbishing to old DEW line radar equipment...I'm well versed on current radar technology.

    My Master's thesis was on new technologies required for arctic communications equipment to support the new DEW line sites. My research covered the history of the technology and it's eventual maturity.

    With the above said, Menzel's paper (a good paper) covers the possibilities of radio wave length usage for future applications...none which hints at secret usages that could have accounted for allegedly bringing down flying saucers in New Mexico.

    The crux of the paper was the moon as a possible method for bouncing radio signals and its application for ship borne communications and finding that solar flares can interrupt radar operations

    I'll wait for your promised supplemental material on this matter

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • I'm familiar with your military background Tim and know you are not a dolt.

    However.....um....always a word to defuse real expertise....we have no idea what might affect a thing from another world, dimension, or time.

    The dismissing experiments you cite apply to Earth-on-Earth machines or phenomena.

    They don't or can't apply to things not Earthian.

    That's the flaw in your thinking, and I say that hesitantly so as not to offend, but it is a conjectural flaw.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • Yes, Rich, that appears to be the fall back position for a lot of folks..."We can't ascertain the technology of ET so we can't pass judgment on what they can or can't do."

    I've always rejected such thinking...I still do...adamantly, I must add. Hoyle's anthropic principle sums up my thinking on the matter of perceived alien technology.

    It would appear that everyone has a rudimentary idea on how ET operates, yet we have not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that ET has stumbled his/her/it's way onto our planet.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

  • I don't think ET has arrived, then or now, as you know....Earth is too inconsequential, in the context of the Universe and even our own Galaxy.

    But what ever UFOs are, they can't be used as the plowboy of radar experiments or any other kind of experiments undertaken with Earth's constructs or materials.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 14, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home