That Off-Malibu Ocean Structure Is Giving Off Radio Signals...

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: signalfire

Two of my biggest UFO experiences were in that area, on the beach, in Zuma Beach.

One was when a giant football field long UFO came out of the clouds down to about 300 feet above the water on a rainy night when my girlfriends friend and I were sitting on a lifeguard station there at 3:00 talking about my relationship with my GF. That was the most memorable.

Went over us and had little 'escort' lights up higher in the sky. My friend gouged her arm on a nail on the station from us running away. The UFO buzzed right over houses there, I'd say only 100 feet, with no sound, and it was transparent then opaque, going in and out of the visible spectrum. One of the scariest experiences ever. We thought we were gonna die.

No, not unless you were making uranium clandestinely.

I've seen other strange things around there. Specifically out on the water on late night drives. I used to hang out in Santa Monica-Malibu-Zuma a lot in my 20s ( Mid 1990s) Zuma isn't exactly Malibu but it's the same area.

But, there are also weird hidden military installations all around there, some things not even on maps. Could explain weird signals, but to me, not what I saw.

That's right on the path for a test vehicle taking off from Edwards to go to San Nicholas Island.

I think you saw some test craft with active optical stealth on it. Major military research subject, and since there is no civilian application (like radar stealth), it's all seriously classified, because a compromise could allow anti-aircraft missiles to be tuned to get around the stealth.

a reply to: Urantia1111

He may have been less than polite in his wording, but he was still right. The source of the transmission is more likely than not above water.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: signalfire

Two of my biggest UFO experiences were in that area, on the beach, in Zuma Beach.

One was when a giant football field long UFO came out of the clouds down to about 300 feet above the water on a rainy night when my girlfriends friend and I were sitting on a lifeguard station there at 3:00 talking about my relationship with my GF. That was the most memorable.

Went over us and had little 'escort' lights up higher in the sky. My friend gouged her arm on a nail on the station from us running away. The UFO buzzed right over houses there, I'd say only 100 feet, with no sound, and it was transparent then opaque, going in and out of the visible spectrum. One of the scariest experiences ever. We thought we were gonna die.

I've seen other strange things around there. Specifically out on the water on late night drives. I used to hang out in Santa Monica-Malibu-Zuma a lot in my 20s ( Mid 1990s) Zuma isn't exactly Malibu but it's the same area.

But, there are also weird hidden military installations all around there, some things not even on maps. Could explain weird signals, but to me, not what I saw.

I had a UFO experience (not sure of what exactly - mostly huge unnaturally bright lights and silence) a bit west of there at LA/Ventura county line.

And don't forget the "Battle of Los Angeles" in February 1943 along the coast south and west of Zuma.

Could it be related to this?

patch.com...

HOTSPOT NAMED 'AL-QUIDA FREE TERROR NETTWORK' POPS UP AT LAX

a reply to: MKMoniker

A prankster with poor spelling related to SWR broadcasts?

You sir just made my day.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: signalfire

originally posted by: Phage
The 12 meter band is a high frequency band (about 25 MHz) very popular with amateur radio operators (Hams). Funny thing about high frequency radio. It doesn't not propagate through water very well at all.

You know that knowing the direction of a radio signal does not tell you how far away its source is, don't you?

No, I don't know anything about radio, Phage. I left that up to Mr. Emmett there, and any experts here. Just thought it was a fascinating finding. Did you listen to the recordings?

No, he didn't. His primary function here is to debunk out-of-hand the idea that we're not alone in the universe in whatever form members may post it. He's pretty famous for it actually.

On topic, I'd say since humans are thus far incapable of exploring much of what's under the ocean, it would be a fine location for any kind of extraterrestrial installation that wanted to remain undetected. They should know better than to use radio signals though.

Maybe he's just smarter than the lot of us and already knew enough to answer. After all, was he wrong on any of his points? A calculus professor doesn't need to look at a students math problem if the student has already answered incorrectly. It won't have an affect on the answer. Facts are facts. I don't always agree with Phage but he is smart so after I research certain issues, I see he is right. It's hard to argue with him.

So on topic, is anyone capable of determining if sound is still present and where it is coming from? I'm more interested in those photographs on the site and the obvious cover up. I'm dying to see what this really is.

originally posted by: Nyiah
ROTFL. yeah, dismiss Phage & common sense why don't y'all. He's right, and a simple google search can back him up easily there. The high frequency bands do not propagate through water well.

So you are saying they do propagate water, sure you say not well but you do say it can happen.
Interesting you side with Phage despite giving evidence for the other side so to speak.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
I'm more interested in those "photographs" on the site and the obvious cover up.
I'm dying to see what this really is.

perhaps you or I need to reexamine the images posted of the supposed mile X 2mile X 500' thick roof...supported by 600' columns

that underwater panorama of the 'entrance' looks like a image composition to me & Not a photograph

...the google images of land is the only actual photograph (from space)...

but the huckster/storyteller lumps all the images under the respectable tag of being 'photos' instead of ( 'a photoshop') a more correct designation as an Image...

the intentional misleading of the incredulous reader is a dead give-away that this is one tall-tale
I leave it to the Mods to designate the thread as a Hoax...with the OP creator just another victim

Thanks for the ham links!!!!I

Y'all had more stuff than our ARES site.

Alien hams are much more fun than Ebola.

73

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: Nyiah
ROTFL. yeah, dismiss Phage & common sense why don't y'all. He's right, and a simple google search can back him up easily there. The high frequency bands do not propagate through water well.

So you are saying they do propagate water, sure you say not well but you do say it can happen.
Interesting you side with Phage despite giving evidence for the other side so to speak.

Nobody ever said they don't, nice try. I'll give this a layman's whirl & anyone is free to come in & correct me if I'm not understanding or explaining something correctly.
The lower bands are used for a reason rather than the higher bands, and even the low bands have some issues under water when it comes to maintaining signal quality. Higher bands are much more vulnerable to attenuation, and therefore, a higher percentage of what was being sent from Point A not making it to Point B.
The following is a PDF that should help illustrate why radio propagation underwater is not that spectacular.
web.mit.edu...

Underwater acoustic channels are generally recognized as one of the most difficult communication media in use today. Acoustic propagation is best supported at low frequencies, and the bandwidth available for communication is extremely limited. For example, an acoustic system may operate in a frequency range between 10 and 15 kHz. Although the total communication bandwidth is very low (5 kHz), the system is in fact wideband, in the sense that bandwidth is not negligible with respect to the center frequency.

Sound propagates underwater at a very low speed of approximately 1500 m/s, and propagation occurs over multiple paths. Delay spreading over tens or even hundreds of milliseconds results in frequency-selective signal distortion, while motion creates an extreme Doppler effect. The worst properties of radio channels — poor physical link quality of a mobile terrestrial radio channel and high latency of a satellite channel — are combined in an underwater acoustic channel.

I'm gonna call this a hoax. The photos of the "entrance" in the continental shelf are taken at angles that create a visual illusion. I'm sure divers will prove there is no entrance under the Malibu beach.

originally posted by: signalfire
a reply to: SecretKnowledge

That was the conclusion of the radio operator; I'm not sure how he would know that except by the strength of the signal and the tight locality of the it.

To know the distance to the source, it's a good idea to know the transmitting power. That's the way the BCT-12 BearTracker works, all of the police network repeaters in the cars operate with exactly the same power, so it is a fairly simple thing to determine distance based on signal attenuation, direction is a bit harder unless you have fairly specialized antenna system. I doubt the radio operator looking for signals from an unknown source in the general direction of the pacific ocean off-malibu, knows the transmitter power of the signal in question.

Cheers - Dave

Heres the problem with 'unknown' radio waves.

ET would not be using radio frequencies.

The simple fact any civilization capable of FTL would not use such a thing.

Mainly because radio waves/frequencies take a LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Time to go from point a to point b in space.

The obvious answer is that is terrestrial in nature.

Sorry people ET was not 'phoning' home.

With two receivers, or one in two locations, triangulation is easy. Range of a radio signal isn't that hard to determine. Even the 70's mobile cb's could do it. We used to have fox hunts with them. Somebody, the fox, would drive somewhere and then just key the mic and make noise. Read the paper, talk about whatever, as long as he kept broadcasting. You start with the highest sensitivity you can mange with your unit and start driving around looking for the signal. When you find it you start playing with the sensitivity. When it fades you change direction. If the signal gets stronger you turn down the sensitivity again. You keep doing that until you get to a point that you hear him no matter what. Then you turn the sensitivity back up and remove your antenna. You start the search again with a much tighter radius. When you get to no antenna and no sensitivity and you can still hear him - you are probably within a hundred feet or so of your target. At any given time, based on the signal strength and the sensitivity you can get a fairly good estimate of range. It just takes practice.

well since the NSA CIA and USAF like to say
"Hey look at the aliens !" every time someone gets too close
to Dark high tech, I bet this is just the Department of Naval Intelligences turn.

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: StoutBroux
I'm more interested in those "photographs" on the site and the obvious cover up.
I'm dying to see what this really is.

 

perhaps you or I need to reexamine the images posted of the supposed mile X 2mile X 500' thick roof...supported by 600' columns

that underwater panorama of the 'entrance' looks like a image composition to me & Not a photograph

...the google images of land is the only actual photograph (from space)...

but the huckster/storyteller lumps all the images under the respectable tag of being 'photos' instead of ( 'a photoshop') a more correct designation as an Image...

the intentional misleading of the incredulous reader is a dead give-away that this is one tall-tale
I leave it to the Mods to designate the thread as a Hoax...with the OP creator just another victim

Well Udio, as the OP, may I point out that the radio recordings were 'real' as far as one can tell, and the Malibu formation is another issue entirely. So my OP question was, 'what are these radio signals, can anyone recognize them, and given the description, how far away could they be coming from?', not so much the other issue of 'WTH is that Malibu thing and is it being faked?' In fact, just explaining the oval shaped top of it which seems beyond dispute would be tricky. I titled the OP the way I did to hopefully get the attention of the radio operators in the audience before the thread got buried, as some are wont to do. It might have been a bit theatrical on my part, but had the desired effect, and after all that is what Mr. Emmett there was alleging.

Why does everyone want to call 'hoax' straightaway? Is that what ATS is for, and not discussion? It's akin to simply shutting down a conversation that is both intriguing and enlightening (I'm sure many people have learned things about radio from this thread they otherwise wouldn't have known); debunkers love to use ridicule to stop conversations or inquiry. But that's how people learn and I see no harm done. Plenty of harm is done by shushing people or going around yelling 'hoax' because certain people are uncomfortable with a given train of thought or idea.

While I have been hoping the last few months that someone would take a submersible down there and get some good video of the area, I haven't heard of that occurring yet. If anyone has, please post the link.

We talked to Robert Stanley, (see the source material) today and I'll email him and see if he is still in contact with Emmett, the radio operator; he seemed quite elderly but maybe he's still available. It would make a helluva interview Failing that, maybe we can get a precise location for where the signals were tape recorded and someone nearby can check to see if they're still available.

Meanwhile, anyone got a submersible able to go down to 500 feet, was it? I can pretty much guarantee anyone getting video of that would be able to sell it for some good bucks, if you managed to come back alive.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

So what's it mean when you have a steady strong signal day and night but when you move just 100 feet down the road, it's gone? How are radio signals made so directional, given that you're looking out onto an ocean and there's no mountain in the way?

originally posted by: signalfire
So it's possible that the old gent didn't know he was hearing something more modern than his 1930s-1980s experience (modem?) sounds? Is radio used for modems, even by the military? He seemed pretty clear that it was right there as he emphasized the continuous strength of the signal day and night, which he regarded as unusual.

Yes, radio is used for communicating data, and when you do, you often use some sort of modem for the slower speed stuff, although for higher rates you'd modulate the signal more directly, but FCC rules won't generally allow you to use some sort of bandwidth hog like OFDM. So, this being a world-recognized amateur band for transmitting data, slow scan video, RTTY and the like, it's not unusual to see it being used for something that sounds just like that.

And yes, the military does a lot of low-rate modem transmissions on HF.

I think the last time this came up, I suggested much the same thing. a 30's era HAM would work mostly CW or AM, and less packet radio or slow video. Might not recognize it when he heard it.

originally posted by: Taggart
So you are saying they do propagate water, sure you say not well but you do say it can happen.

Like many things in life, you have to understand what's going on before you understand the 'shades of grey' in the answer.

In this case, there are a lot of reasons WHY you don't use 25MHz to transmit underneath a saline ocean. And the easiest answer to give a layman is "you don't do it".

Because if you want to know the 'why' or 'when can I bend that rule' involves a lot of math and physics that you really can't explain in a forum post.

But among them are -

you have a huge impedance discontinuity at the transmitting antenna with a lot of problems right off the bat trying to get your transmitter to load into it

there are these pesky little things called "Maxwell's equations" that tell you that you are going to lose most of the E-field component to the water right off the bat. So efficient production of a radio wave from your near-field is going to be another problem. One that shows up as a very awfully crappy radiation efficiency.

Maxwell is also going to tell you that you are going to lose a metric ton of signal per meter to the conductivity of the seawater, which will be dissipating your radio signal as heat. Whupping out my old 48GX, if you take the conductivity of ocean water off Malibu as about 5 mhos/meter, you are going to be losing your 25MHz signal to dissipation at the rate of about 193 dB/meter. That's just awful.

You're also going to have another problem at the surface. That ocean/air boundary presents ANOTHER major discontinuity in impedance. And when you get those, what happens is that you get what power you have left after dissipation loss being divided in three ways. One is, it just reflects back into the water. And for an impedance step of this magnitude, something over 98% of it will do this. Some of it will go into a boundary wave that just travels along the water-air interface. And a paltry bit of what is left will radiate into the air.

But by then you've lost 99.999.......9% of it. So, there's a reason that you don't use 25MHz to do this. Or radio at all, if you can avoid it, because it's just not a good choice due to all the problems.

originally posted by: signalfire
a reply to: Vroomfondel

So what's it mean when you have a steady strong signal day and night but when you move just 100 feet down the road, it's gone? How are radio signals made so directional, given that you're looking out onto an ocean and there's no mountain in the way?

It's local and very low power? Maybe you have something radiating some stray signal in the house?

That would be MY first impression. It certainly wouldn't be "...therefore, aliens".