Enlarged and readable version

Updated 20200828

First of all, unlike RADAR, MADAR doesn't have a "range" or send out a signal that bounces off UAPs. MADAR is an intricate device that looks for and reports on anomalistic variations in the geomagnetic field measured in milligaus, unusual variations in magnetic compass heading, and perturbations in ambient barometric pressure. When a variation occurs in the milligaus field measurement, which is controlled by a "limits" setting, the device goes into alert mode (AlertStart) and the data registration ramps up to once per second, 60 times faster than the normal rate listed on the printout as "alert". The datalines register at this alert rate until the anomaly is no longer affecting the device, plus an additional 180 seconds, and the final line is labelled "AlertEnd" at which time the rate reverts back to once per minute and is tagged as normal or "status" once again. A typical day has 1440 (status) datalines or once every minute, Therefore, if an alert occurs, a 9 sec disturbance would create 189 seconds of additional lines that day.

So just how far MADAR may pick up a UAP, therefore, is determined by the UAP, not the DataProbe, and probably the size and power output of the UAP, possibly what the phenomena is doing and why, and the "limits" that are set on the device.  Consider the following UAP examples that may produce disturbances or geomagnetic anomalies:

1) Small, probe-like objects, reported throughout UFO history, that operate similar to today's "drones". One would think that the E-M from one of these would be quite small.
2) Then we have the more common-sized objects, many of which were described as "flying saucers" for half a century, about 30' in diameter. The E-M field generated to power a craft of this size is probably the same as the object that Project SIGN studied.
Large objects, possible mother ships or transports. These would seem to require either much more power and E-M or a different power source altogether.

How could UAP's affect MADAR?  UAPs either produce a field that is
a) omnidirectional with intensity varying by the inverse cube of the distance,
b) omnidirectional with intensity linked to the application of and rated by applied power,
c) directional (propulsion) or a directed beam (stalking phase in an abduction attempt?).
d) powerful enough to distort the earth's geomagnetic field in such a way as to create anomalies for many, many miles.

Any of these could represent the activity of more than one object in a small area or even a larger region!

But regarding "d)" listed above, you all may be aware that subtle changes in the temperature of ocean or gulf waters can greatly affect weather patterns, as well as weather itself in the United States. It has been shown that nuclear reactors could be placed in these areas to deliberately change the weather in the U.S. by heating the water slightly and using computer models to guide the change. A similar effect regarding the very low level geomagnetic field has been suggested. A UAP generating a powerful local E-M field could disrupt the GM isobars in a region and cause a distortion that would affect geomagnetic readings and compass movements a hundred miles or more away! Potential sightings of interest at larger distances from MADAR sites have already been noted.

The key to analizing and understanding any anomaly is in the data provided, which will show variation, intensity and duration.
Item "a", above, would probably best describe the source of the anomaly we would desire. Items "b" thru "d" would probably give us local alerts without visuals. In other words, "uncorrelated targets". In 1977, MADAR  detected anomalies at the Mt. Vernon, Indiana station while police were getting reports of objects being sighted up to 85 miles away and in southern Illinois and northern Kentucky. Since the visuals were NW and SE of the MADAR site, this implies multiple sightings in a region, but anything is possible.

The important thing to keep in mind is that UAP's can, and have, produced anomalies in the geomagnetic field at least 150 times. This fact is the basis for detection of UAP, and more importantly, our ultimate goal of an Early Warning System
. This we hope will alert the operator(s) and the local team so that they can go out and observe the sky and be able to take additional equipment and gather scientific data, videos, etc. Everything we experience, all the anomalies we detect without verification, all the "uncorrelated targets", are necessary training missions, dress-rehearsals if you will, to qualify and tweak the system and the procedures as we prepare for that ultimate goal.

In April of 2020 we had a major breakthrough: A MADAR/visual. Two witnesses observed a UAP at close range after being alerted by a MADAR anomaly!  This tells us the system si working and that the most important thing an Op can do is to GO OUTSIDE AND LOOK! If an Op has a cellphone cam or a night vision camera it should be grabbed on the way out the door.

It gets even better. New evidence suggests UAP can be in the area a lot longer than the initial alert time. We would suggest an Op be outside on skywatch for a minimum of 10 minutes.

All the nodes had to be upgraded to the new I-board, so everyone has this upgrade which has the green relay contacts on the top. For those who have the opportunity to go to the next step (other than getting email notices AFTER an event) they can add a
DAS or a MAVERIC arduino to the system.

Detection of anomalies and finding correlations with UAP is the main thrust of the MADAR Project and Project MATCH.

Anyone interested in direct participation in either Project MADAR or Project MATCH is  certainly welcome. Please contact me at:

Fran Ridge
MADAR Director
(812) 490-0094