UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 19

Re: Radar UFOs Over DC Area? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:55:50 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:01:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Radar UFOs Over DC Area? - Ledger

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:46:45 -0400
>Subject: Re: Radar UFOs Over DC Area?

>>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?


>>>- 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."


>>>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.


>>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!

Actually the C-150 incursion into restricted airspace was only 6
days ago on May 12, Bruce. It was a student pilot with an
instructor onboard who should lose his instructor rating-at
least. When in training the instructor [onboard] is always the
Pilot in Command. Loss of radio is no excuse, not in that area.

Re the "cloud" target. It would have to have been one
concentrated cloud moving pointedly across the sky at a speed,
against the prevailing winds, not comfortable to the computer
that predicted it for the ATCs consuls. What the controllers see
aren't primary radar but computer generated screen tracks and
transponder codes from primary radar data and computer programs.
They also show "unknowns" as an ignorable inverted "Y" which are
usually assumed to be trucks on the freeway or boats on lakes or
rivers for example moving too slow to be aircraft. Regular
returns from watertowers and large buildings etc. are
permenantly marked on their screens.

Frankly, the cloud explanation is very weak if not outright

My guess is they had something, perhaps another aircraft,
probably a composite construction giving an intermittent return
and that they couldn't find visually and had to use the cloud
explanation to save face. The public wouldn't know any

Cloud is of course seen by radar but as a noise return on the
primary screens spread a considerable distance across a
particular quadrant or two, not a tight little target moving
purposefully across the sky. A little cloud isn't going to show
up on radar to begin with and certainly not as a soolid
trackable solid return.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com