From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:46:45 -0400 Fwd Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:24:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Radar UFOs Over DC Area? - Maccabee >From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 21:54:52 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) >Subject: Re: Radar UFOs Over DC Area? >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:04 -0400 >>Subject: Radar UFOs Over DC Area? ><snip> >>- from January 2003 to July 2004 more than 2,000 radar "tracks of >>interest" were detected over Washington airspace leading to 350 >>scrambles of customs aircraft based at Reagan National Airport, >>according to the Department of Homeland Security." ><snip> >>However the most ufologicially interesting example is this: >>"April 27, 2005: President Bush is taken to a White House bunker >>and Vice President Cheney is evacuated from the executive >>complex when an unidentified radar target approaches to within >>seven miles of Reagan National Airport. Authorities conclude >>that the radar blip was caused by clouds or a weather anomaly." >>Would be interesting to know the actual technical data on this >>"radar blip": duration, distance traveled, speed, direction, >>date, time, etc. The way it first was detected and the manner in >>which it was last detected and the strength. All of these >>together would provide sufficient information to estimate >>whether or not the "cloud or weather anomaly" made any sense. >>For example, if it moved at more than 100 mph, like a small >>plane, it wouldn't be a cloud. >Considering the amount of commercial, private, military and >police air traffic in and around Washington, D.C. and the very >close proximity of Reagan "International" Airport (Air Canada >has landing rights there) to the White House and the Pentagon, I >am not surprised with the large number of "tracks of interest" >during this 1 1/2 year period. <snip> >I too would be interested in seeing the technical radar data and >knowing the weather conditions that produced the false(?) alarm >of an unidentified aircraft flying towards the White House. Even >at more than 100 mph, the blips could still be due to clouds or >weather conditions in very much the same way police radar can >pick up speeding phantom cars on tree lined highways on days >with light winds. Although the tree branches would not be moving >back and forth very fast, the radar may first detect the >branches of very distant trees over the highway with the first >radar echo. This would be followed by the detection of branches >from less distant trees with the next radar echo and then the >branches of much more closer tree branches with the next radar >echo, and so on. The rapidly decreasing times for the >consecutive radar echos could create the false impression of a >real vehicle moving 100 mpg or more towards them, for example. One could speculate on atmospheric conditions that could affect the radar until the cows come home. Radar might even detect the cows coming home. However, without the actual data there is no point in carrying out an analysis based on the weather. One would think, because that target was mentioned as something "special" that it would have had some non-atmospheric characteristics. In other words, a large blobby image seeming to move probably wouldn't attract attention. But a point target on a linear trajectory would. I don't know, but I speculate that the surveillance system would include "raw" radar and perhaps height-finding radar as well as transponder "radar". If there were a point target moving at considerable speed but not transponding... alarm bells would go off (such as happened when the small plane approached a month ago). The small plane that nearly got shot down was first detected about 50 miles out, as I recall, and didn't respond to interrogation until it was almost too late!
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp