Tedesco Brothers Radar Signal Paper

On the subject of papers, I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet that they've published a new one.

Unraveling Mystique: Long-Delay Echoes; Anomalous Propagation of Radar Signals under the Influence of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

Harvard University's Galileo Project is notably absent.
words fail me

from the abstract:
  • anomalous propagation of radar echo returns, mirroring established theoretical constructs of gravitational effects on light,
  • the chromatic effects captured by hyperspectral cameras
  • radio transmission norms that may be influenced by a form of quantum entanglement
  • This paper explores and investigates the potential impacts of UAP on radar transmission routes.
The first three are just nonsense that would not pass a physicist's review.
The last one is a red flag, because, first, it posits "potential impacts", not an actual impact, and secondly, as the phenomenon that would cause this impact is U=unknown, it's entirely tooth fairy science (Harriet Hall).

The abstract leaves me wondering what the findings of the paper actually are; it's very vague.
 
Last edited:
From the paper:
Portable Millimeter-Wave radars were employed at the Robert Moses State Park Shorefront, with a clear Southeast Line of Sight (LOS) over the Horizon facing the Atlantic Ocean. The three PODs shown in Figure 7, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, are hyperspectral cameras with highly sensitive environmental monitors. The name of the PODs originated from a 1970s Science Fiction drama called Silent Running, where three agricultural robots were used to monitor the environment. The three PODs have a host of unique functions: they provide quad hyperspectral camera views and recording, binary UV and IR detectors, and millimeter-wave (MW) radar. The MW radar heads have the following specifications:

I suppose that sounds a bit more scientific than saying they were named after Donald Duck's nephews. :p

1737722827141.png
 
Last edited:
On the subject of papers, I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet that they've published a new one.

Unraveling Mystique: Long-Delay Echoes; Anomalous Propagation of Radar Signals under the Influence of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

Harvard University's Galileo Project is notably absent.
I just skimmed through it. Am I imagining things when I get the impression that there are entire paragraphs that don't seem to say much of anything at all?
For instance, it seems to come to a "conclusion", then "wrap up" on the next paragraph, and then proceeds on to a conclusions section.

What is "eiating"?

Some of the writing almost seems like a parody of an actual journal submission.
Is it possible that much of this paper was not authored by a human at all, but is mostly A.I. generated?
 
tl;dr While they were parked in their RV at night, operating their 4 radar systems, the Tedescos sometimes saw signals they did not and do not understand. They speculate that this is due to some anomalies on part of the objects as well as unprecedented physical effects ("gravitational lensing"). I speculate that the reasons for this failure to understand the phenomena rest with the researchers.
 
  • anomalous propagation of radar echo returns, mirroring established theoretical constructs of gravitational effects on light,
The first three are just nonsense that would not pass a physicist's review.

Would the same thing (EM) doing the same thing (curvature of path) as established science, be just established science, rather than "anomalous"?
They've lost me. I suspect they were trying to lose me, there are deeper weeds in the not-even-wrong zone.
 
Would the same thing (EM) doing the same thing (curvature of path) as established science, be just established science, rather than "anomalous"?
They've lost me. I suspect they were trying to lose me, there are deeper weeds in the not-even-wrong zone.
what they are actually equating is refraction (bending of light in the atmosphere) and gravitational lensing (bending of light near stellar bodies) because a) they don't understand refraction, and b) it sounds cool.
They call it anomalous because it doesn't actually explain the effects they're observing, from what I can tell.

There's a decided lack of formulae and physical laws or in fact any kind of engineering in the paper—and a lack of results.

"We went ghost-hunting with gee-whiz gadgets, and found some things we couldn't explain", like a doppler radar not able to determine a speed when it sees two objects with dissimilar speeds close to each other. Must be ghosts. Or NHI. Take your pick.
 
what they are actually equating is refraction (bending of light in the atmosphere) and gravitational lensing (bending of light near stellar bodies) because a) they don't understand refraction, and b) it sounds cool.
I think "gravity anything" gets dragged in because one of the go-to explanations for how a UFO can supposedly make incredible maneuvers with stupidly high G-forces is the aliums can create/manipulate gravity to counteract such forces. So.... anything we can point to that allows us to allude to gravity and anomaly in the same sentence supports our claim that the unidentifiable distant light in question is aliums, because we know they have artificially gravity gizmos on their saucers tic tacs orbs eggs.

They call it anomalous because it doesn't actually explain the effects they're observing, from what I can tell.
But dang, it sounds all sciencey and stuff...
 
On the subject of papers, I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet that they've published a new one.

Unraveling Mystique: Long-Delay Echoes; Anomalous Propagation of Radar Signals under the Influence of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

Harvard University's Galileo Project is notably absent.
The main problem appears to be they've taken an issue recorded by Ham radio operators for a century -- long-delay echoes of radio signals under 4 MHz -- and call what they're seeing the same thing, though it happens with radar in the GHz range.

The sleight-of-hand is to point to material from the 1970s and 1980s listing possible causes for LDE for these low-MHz transmissions. And then claim that because none of those 40-year-old possible explanations regarding Ham radio transmissions address their radar experience, there are no conventional explanations for what they're seeing.

They have no citations to relevant prior research into what might cause "unusual radar returns"; they only link to a few manufacturer's pages, some pop-sci topics pages, and reddit. (And this is an active and deeply researched field.) Their claims about the effects of gravitational lensing seemed pulled from thin air -- the two sources they link to about it say nothing about the effects they're claiming, and what effects they do describe require galaxy-level masses.
 
This post https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...-sky-video-tedesco-brothers.13684/post-334491 made me aware of this paper, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=138426, by John and Gerald Tedesco who claim to be observing UAP with a combination of off the shelf radar and some custom configuration.

They claim these radar captures, namely the radial dotted lines, are possiibly due to gravitation lensing from UAP (this is somewhat my intepration, they never explicilty state this).
1737763553049.png

The above radar is the Furuno 1715, per their paper. Section 1.16 of the manual for this device draws a sample of radar interference, which looks pretty similar to what they are seeing, and gives them 3 otpions to reduce interference, as seen in the top right of all the screen shots, IR L means they are in the lowest rejection mode.
1737763915809.png

It also says radar interference may occur in the vicinity of another 9 GHZ radar, per the paper, they are using two 9 GHz radars, I assume quite close to each other, which seems bound to cause interfere. Even if it is not radiating at the same time, an unactive atenna built for 9 GHz will reradiate an incoming 9 GHz signal, its literally what its built to do, so it still may interfere without being powered.
1737764190410.png
 
They are also interviewed on youtube here about these images:

Source: https://youtu.be/vaSNgYEMufg?t=1142

They say that they see the same form of interference on both radars when these objects are present, reinforcing the idea that they are just picking up the other radar because they are using both of them at the same time. The manual for the other type of radar they are using, Furuno 1815, says that interference will jump around the screen as the antenna rotates. Per the time stamp, they clamin the patterns bounce around the screen as the radome rotates.
1737765245376.png


In summary, I think they might be measuring themselves and they dont know it. Easy way to check would be to use a higher Interference Rejection range and to leave one of the radars at home.
 
They also, through a setup that I do not fully understand, measure the doppler shift of a moving boat. In the confusing calculation below (the Doppler shift is 568 mph?), they either calculate the Doppler frequency (which they claim to measure previously?) or the boat velocity. Regardless, it is never stated why either of these numbers matter, and they are never discussed again. My real point here is that they never say why theta = 5, which to me implies the boat is about 11 minutes from running into the beach.
1737766616331.png
 
They also, through a setup that I do not fully understand, measure the doppler shift of a moving boat. In the confusing calculation below (the Doppler shift is 568 mph?), they either calculate the Doppler frequency (which they claim to measure previously?) or the boat velocity. Regardless, it is never stated why either of these numbers matter, and they are never discussed again. My real point here is that they never say why theta = 5, which to me implies the boat is about 11 minutes from running into the beach.
View attachment 76497
He's used 2.54 as the 'v' term, the velocity of the object (which looks like m/s). The 568 is the frequency difference thus caused, and not a velocity.

Code:
? (2*2.54*cos(5*Pi/180))/0.0089
%194 = 568.6145018
Pari/GP's not designed for it, but you can fake dimensional analysis by throwing in some psuedovariables for units:
Code:
? (2*(2.54 *L/T) *cos(5*Pi/180))/(0.0089 *L )
%195 = 568.6145018/T
So that's a "per-second", measurement, a frequency.

That also confirms the 5 is in degrees, and therefore I think the 5 means "the object is coming more or less straight towards us".
 
Right next to that figure 15: "One knot is equivalent to 1151 mph."
What's a factor of 1000 between friends?
And that, boys and girls, is why metric is hard.
 
And then there's the plagiarism. They're using some uncredited product images and text. For example, figure 8:
External Quote:

2312879-rId22.jpeg

The image and accompanying text are from Ducommun's SRU data sheet, see https://www.ducommun.com/engineeredsolutions/millimeterwave/subsystems.aspx .

The reference [9] to "Evarant" (actually Eravant) is https://www.eravant.com/products/by-application/radar/ranging-sensor-modules , a product catalog page, and it's unclear what (if any) information they took from it. The Ducommun products are not (and were not) listed there.
 
Does anyone know these people?
External Quote:
Acknowledgments
Kevin Kenuth, Professor of Physics at the University of Albany; Beatriz Villarroel, Professor of Astrophysics at Nordic Institute; Michael Herwig, Special Agent Counter Terrorism, FBI; Donna Lee Nardo, Senior Researcher; Robin Page, Researcher; Sue Algor, Researcher; Carl Musumeci, Researcher
Kevin Hunter Knuth
Article:
Knuth has been quoted in the media on the topic of UFOs.[6][7][8][9][10] He serves as vice president of UAPx, a nonprofit organization that aims to conduct field research about UFOs, sometimes referred to as UAP,[11] and is a research affiliate of The Galileo Project for the systematic scientific search for evidence of extraterrestrial technological artifacts at Harvard University.[12]


Beatriz Villarroel is on the advisory board of the SOL foundation, which is Garry Nolan's outfit.
See https://thesolfoundation.org/people/beatriz-villarroel/
Kevin Knuth is also on that board, as are Avi Loeb and Jaques Valée.

Donna Lee Nardo does corporate communications. She's joined the Tedescos in NewsNation/Coulthart interviews.
Article:
Donna Nardo Work
• Senior Communications Strategist at Stiff Martini Communications & Media in January 2010 to Present
• Senior Investigator and Researcher at Nightcrawler Research in August 2022 to Present
• [...]

Donna Nardo Skills
Corporate Communications, Copywriting, Media Relations, Marketing, Management, Public Relations, Social Media, Editing, ...
 
Last edited:
I just skimmed through it. Am I imagining things when I get the impression that there are entire paragraphs that don't seem to say much of anything at all?
For instance, it seems to come to a "conclusion", then "wrap up" on the next paragraph, and then proceeds on to a conclusions section.

What is "eiating"?

Some of the writing almost seems like a parody of an actual journal submission.
Is it possible that much of this paper was not authored by a human at all, but is mostly A.I. generated?

That document has some really fine scientifical gibberish.
Grammer and sentence structure are laughable in places. Somebody decided to say with 10 words what they could have said with 2 words.
Written by AI? I would assume so, but I have not read enough scientific articles that I know were written by AI.

Gravity lensing by UAP? What degree of bending are they hypothesizing? Wouldn't the gravity detectors that have been built detect the effect of a UAP generated gravity well moving around?
 
Back
Top