Originally posted by karl 12
Its quite a long read, and it is from one year later, but heres another very interesting multiple radar/visual incident from over South
Hi Karl, thanks for mentioning that case. While it's interesting, I think the facts of that case highlight some of the points I was trying to make
about how "radar confirmations" can be unreliable. That doesn't mean I know what it was, only that we probably shouldn't put much faith in the
radar as I note below.
I read that case in the project bluebook files from a report filed on 17 August 1953 a few days after the incident so it has a lot more credibility
for accuracy than the "glorified" version you posted which is from May, 1967, nearly 14 years later.
There are many discrepancies, and maybe this is a little picky, but starting with the date, he didn't even get that right. Besides the date, here are
some of the discrepancies he left out of May, 1967 retelling of the incident:
After the initial sighting, when the object was moving south, there was one object seen but TWO "blips" on the scope. This radar does NOT match the
visual sighting and furthermore,
"He could not get a decent track because of ground clutter in the area".
So there's a lot of ground
clutter, not a good track, 2 objects instead of one, and I'm left feeling not at all convinced that this is a good solid observation of a ground
radar confirmation of the visual sighting due to all these discrepancies. But it gets much worse.
After the object headed south, the observer noted that it was right back at it's original location, but there's no mention anywhere of how it got
there? If it turned around and headed back north again, nobody reported that, and the absence of such a report further calls into question the already
questionable radar sightings because he "never got a good track on it" in the first place.
Then it started heading N-NW and they got 4 "good blips" which they photographed but the camera "malfunctioned" whatever that means as there's no
specifics about the type of malfunction, I guess that might happen though every time I've ever had a camera "malfunction" it's been due to
And yet another inconsistency was noted:
"The last blip occurred at 70 miles and at this point the aircraft was returned to base.(This does not
exactly correlate with the pilot's report in paragraph ..)"
In his 1967 version of events, Ruppelt notes:
"The pilot followed it 120 miles, with the light staying a couple miles ahead; and then, with fuel
running low, the jet returned - with the UFO trailing him! "
But there's no mention of the UFO trailing the pilot in the August 1953 report,
just a notation that about the time the first F84 landed and the second F-84 took off, the ground observer called a third time to say the object was
back again. So maybe Ruppelt "ASSUMED" the UAP followed the pilot back but can the pilot really see behind them? I didn't think so. And there's no
mention of a visual sighting of the object following the pilot back, not any such radar notations, and what's more, the third time the object is
right back in its original spot
"Nothing was on the scope (there was possibly a target in the ground clutter)."
So the first time we had 2
blips instead of one, and not very good blips at that, now we can't find any good blips, but still have ground clutter like the first time. The more
this story goes on the less I trust any of these radar observations as any type of confirmation, and if you viewed them as reliable, when they DON'T
get a target as in this case, does that then confirm there's NO object in the air? I don't know but at best it's very questionable and unreliable
per the facts in the report...
But it still gets worse. The object heads N-NW again until it's off the scope, then the pilot heads back to the base. By the way I think the
implication that the pilot requested to break off the pursuit because he was "scared" is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst. This battle
hardened pilot had been in fights with other planes which had been shooting back at him and did he ever request to bail out of the battle because he
was scared? Would any air force pilot do that? So to imply that he wanted to break off the pursuit because he was scared really set my BS detector off
as some kind of dramatization most likely to be inconsistent with the facts, especially when you find out what the rest of those facts are.
So the 2nd F-84 returns to base, and there's an object there for let's call it the 4th time except this time it's at 8000 feet instead of 16000
feet like the first two times, but like the third time, there's no object on the radar scope. Ruppelt left out a lot of these inconsistencies in his
glorified 1967 retelling of the story. So once again, a visual sighting with no radar confirmation. Does this confirm there's no real object, or
Well Ruppelt left out some other details too from his interview with the first pilot:
"He continued his course keeping the object at 11 oclock
for a better view After about 30 seconds it disappeared then reappeared for another 30 seconds at the end of which it abruptly faded and was not seen
OK this object is sounding less "real" all the time
Then he interviewed the 2nd pilot:
"He thought it was a star or planet but as he looked away it appeared to "jump" 15 to 20 degrees in
He was sure the light was no reflection from inside the aircraft but such a jump sounds like a possible reflection from atmospheric
phenomena could be the cause.
But if you want to believe the radar confirmation, here's the most damning evidence of all from Ruppelt's report which he omits from later
retellings of the incident:
"As the pilot turned into the light on his initial sighting he turned on his radar gunsight. As he swung onto the
target the warning light came on.....The light remained on until the chase was broken off. After the chase, on the way home, the light blinked on and
off several times indicating a possible malfunction . The sight was not checked by maintenance on return and had not been
checked since. Why, I don't know."
Well that radar "confirmation" would certainly be a lot more satisfying if it weren't for the fact he also got multiple "radar confirmations" on
the way home when the light was blinking on and off even though there was nothing there!!!! So the ground radar was extremely unreliable and it
appears the aircraft radar is even moreso with indications of a possible malfunction. If anything this incident deepens my previous observation that
we don't always hear the full truth about these incidents, even from people like Capt. Ruppelt who should know better.
So, if that was supposed to convince me that there are some good radar confirmations, I'm afraid it had exactly the opposite effect. There may be
some good confirmations by radar of visual sightings somewhere however, but I don't think that's one of them.
[edit on 9-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]