INFORMATION SERIES
 

ALERT TIMES & FALSE ALERTS




11 Feb 2019, updated 5 July 2019

GENUINE ALERTS
Some of the best anomalies occur in the wee hours when we are asleep and not able to cause an accidental alert. It is still advisable to place a MADAR-III DataProbe where pets can't get to them, or even rodents, etc. There are times when you are doing things and the device will go into alert, and you should take note of those times and send an email to us in the form of a false alert notice. Then there are other times when MADAR just goes into alert mode and these should be considered as potential anomalies. If MADAR is triggered, and you, or someone else, has a UAP sighting nearby, this is what we are looking for. Keep in mind that there are always stars in the skies on clear nights, and thanks to sensitive peripheral vision, aircraft can be seen very easily on most nights. The object needs to be visibly different and may exhibit anomalistic motion.

FALSE ALERTS
Other things can happen, however, and sometimes we can easily determine the cause. Let's take a recent example.  On January 31, February 8th, 9th and 10th, Node 129 had alerts at 06:24 or 06:25 UTC, which is around 1:24 or 1:25 AM, Ball Ground, Georgia time. That's four times! There are many instances in our growing MATCH Database where there are similar times at the same places, but most conspicuous are the ones where there are three or more. But even two is enough for us to "flag" them as "repeats" and sometimes purge them out of our study. To be safe, however, we need to at least conduct a sighting check so that we don't accidentally throw out a potential correlation occurring among some false data. Some oddities can be found doing MATCH "sort" studies, such as the one below.

Note in particular the 1:24/1:25 AM time repeat with Largo Node 140 and Norris City Node 115. We have since changed out the sensor on the latter and we think this graphic is now outdated.



Portion of "sorted" MATCH Database

REPEATS 
In the above we just sorted by state and UTC and several "repeats" were obvious, and these had been considered as potential anomalies. Largo shows five different days at the same time. Norris City shows one near-repeat and was kept, but Largo's hits were pulled. Interesting, too, is the sensor type. The repeats started before we produced the new sensor board or "I-board", but so far the most repeats occurred WITH the I-board at Largo.

With more than a year behind us, and 337 hits logged to-date, let's take a look at the new data. Keep in mind that earlier we had pulled the pesky repeats, but now we have kept the new new entries along with some potential repeats. The one that stands out the most is the "5:25 Alert".  Do you recall in the Apollo 11 mission the 5 "alarms" that almost cost us the landing in July of 1969?  These "5:01" and "5:02 alarms" turned out to be computer overloads, and a software/computer specialist in Mission Control gave the OK for a powered descent and go for landing. In our case we don't worry about them but simply disregard them if there are no sighting correlations to depend on.

 




This is unlikely to be a server issue as the data from the nodes have a checksum to verify correct transmission.  The server cannot "make up" data and does not store data unless it receives a valid packet from the node. While a server issue cannot be completely ruled out it is more likely to be a scheduled process on the node that is either causing interference or causing excessive CPU usage or bus traffic that interferes with communication to the sensor board.  Linux, like most OS's, has regularly scheduled processes such as log rotations and software update checks that typically occur in the wee hours of the night so as not to interfere with the normal user work schedule. If this is the cause, there is no real way to get around it, as these processes are needed to maintain a healthy system.

TOO MANY HITS
Just a brief comment on nodes having too many hits. Once a node has been adjusted to a trigger of 25 or 30, if the the node continues to have too many hits, the Op must relocate the device using an AM radio or E-M meter. In some cases this may be very difficult, if not impossible. "Radio "hams" have particular difficult shielding issues 24/7, and sometimes when power is applied to a transmitter, etc.

SOME MYSTERIES AT 142
Recently, after the new Plan 61 software was released, the number of detections hit an altime high. After some limits-setting "trigger" settings were adjusted the number of hits slowed to a more acceptable level. But Node 142 at Newburgh, IN  (MADAR HQ) has had an increase AND some weird events connected with them. Several times the hits were in the 5AM period and at least twice the GMC-300E radiation display had gone to flatline! So far there is no known explanation, but we're still looking. In one event the counter display had a comport 3 open error. These things happen, and are probably due to the antiquated pcs using XP, so we will soon be replacing that with a new microcomputer.

NOT TO MISS OUT
Just to be sure we don't miss an important clue where a UAP flight is as regular as the IFO flighty "8:20", which turned out to be Delta 556 on jet airway 29 out of Memphis in the 1970's, we won't throw anything out. UAPs COULD be "regular" in some cases. We may not punch them in as an entry to the NUFORC, but having them on a "raw" list to check for verified UAP activity, we can do very easily. 

EARTHQUAKES
The big difference between many possible correlations and earthquakes is, EQs are radically different. Cause and effect works on almost everything else, but with EQs the anomaly can precede it by as much as 30 days. Lest we connect an EQ report within a month of a MADAR hit almost anything would qualify. Using that method, we must remember that there are those who criticise us for connecting UAP with MADAR where there are a number of hours or even a hundred miles to deal with.

This is an on-going study and doesn't make determinations that more difficult. A bonified UAP is  what  we are striving for and specific characteristics and protocols will be used with potential sightings of interest and potential anomalies. Repeats will automatically be considered suspect and purged, or at least flagged.  But a sighting correlation that fits our protocols would likely be accepted as strong evidence, especially if the MADAR Op or someone close buy has a bonified UAP sighting.

Fran Ridge
skyking42@gmx.com

Information on MADAR and how to order the MADAR-III DataProbe can be found at:
http://www.nicap.org/madar.htm