From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Feb 02 2002 - 20:01:00 MST
Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> At 11:46 AM 2/2/02 -0500, Mike wrote:
>
> >Or he was fabricating an excuse why he slept overnight in the woods (or
> >spent it stoning out) when he was supposed to be on duty.
>
> Sorry, this speculation has zero correlation with the reported incidents
> over two days, allegedly with radar contact, photographs, a Lt Col leading
> the investigation team on the second night and allegedly seeing beams of
> light blasted downward from a UFO, blah blah. James Easton and others have
> now picked the entire story apart, and it seems to be a congeries of
> confusion, misinterpretation of local light sources, group hysteria, maybe
> some genuine oddity (an early model Stealth aircraft? were they trialling
> such things in 1980? In Britain?), and lots of subsequent abduction
> bullshit, hypnosis conflation, the delicious lure of TV and conference
> appearances...
Actually, lots of the radar systems have problems with bird returns,
when the radar first locks onto one bird, then another a few miles away,
thinking it's the same aircraft, it thinks then that the aircraft is
travelling at a terrific rate of speed with a very small (bird-like ;))
radar cross section. This is a matter of calibration. I do recall that
the triangular UFO stories out of Belgium were correlated with false
radar returns of this type that were so odd that at one point the
alleged UFO flew at a negative altitude, which is obviously impossible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST