From: email@example.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:06:27 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:23:39 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > From: firstname.lastname@example.org > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:04:36 -0600 (CST) > Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:36:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > Did you get this info from the Phoenix New Times article? Yup, > http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996/062697/news2.html > I found this article misleading in several details. > Any large commercial airport will have both primary and secondary > (transponder) radar. Planes which do not generate transponder > signals will still show up as radar blips but without IDs next to > them. There are are ways to filter out some of the stuff picked > up by primary radar, such as things that are not moving (ground > clutter) or already-identified aircraft, but full radar would > always be turned back on in case an aircraft has a transponder > malfunction, and particularly if it was suspected that an > unauthorized aircraft without a transponder might be nearby. > Mark Adkins (email@example.com) says he has confirmed this by > email with local pilots who have flown without transponders yet were > pointed out by radio to nearby pilots by Sky Harbor air traffic > control. > If the writer of the New Times article couldn't get this straight, > how much confidence can we have in the rest of the article? Touch=E9, It seemed necessary to cite the parts of the that reflected testimony from the ATC's and Air Force spokesman as they corresponded to your post but the rest of the article took liberties. A subjective skeptical interpretation. > Regarding Luke Air Force Base's less-than-spotless record of > veracity, some apparent lies may simply be due to inaccurate > press reports, ignorant spokespersons, or insufficiently probing > questions. At times, it's like trying to find the right keywords > to get info from a computer database. For example: > None of our planes were in the air that night > - Oh, you expected us to check for visiting planes too? > We got no phone calls about the incident. > - Oh, you expected us to check with the night switchboard operators > to see if there were any calls when our office was closed? This seems overly convenient here. If we question the veracity of Air Force's testimony regarding this incident, there is a volume of evidence to suggest that the false statements made by the Air Force were probably the result of official duplicity rather than erroneous remarks resulting from inaccurate or a lack of pertinent information. That is, if we take Bill Greiner's testimony into consideration and we assume that the Luke spokesperson would have know damn well that the switchboard was saturated on the evening of the 13th. Jared.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp