Very confusing. I guess he's attempting to portray the video as temperature inversion mirages. I don't see anything where the radar returns are mentioned other than a quick mention of "detection of a radar target " in the earliest part of the article. Perhaps that data would have resulted in errors in his conclusion?

IMO, this seems more like an explanation closer to how the 1980 Bentwaters case was poorly debunked using a nearby lighthouse as a ready excuse.

From what I understand of the inversion excuse for UFOs is that inversions can either be seen or picked up on radar, but not both at the same time. In this case, it appears that the objects may have not been seen at all. Inversions also appear on radar as faint lines, not solid blips.

I don't know all the specifics of this case as its still very new and very little investigation has started, however, I want everything debunked before I would throw the case out as further evidence towards the existence of UFOs. The radar returns have got to be handled along with the other data, IMO.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by heelstone]

The thing I find odd about thii is if the images truly are from the oil field, why would the military, flying on patrol, not realize this to start with? They must have flown that area hundreds of times before. This should not be anything new. If not the pilots, the air traffic controllers would know of the oil fields. It's documented and their job to know any tall structures in the area. I would also imagine, the oil stacks, being a tall structure, would have beacon lights like any other tall structure. Kinda fishy.....

[edit on 15-6-2004 by NeedTruth]

Hrmm....
Doesn't explain the course changes, the speed changes, the apparently encircling of the plane or the items pursueing the plane though, does it?
I don't buy the oil flare theory personally

it was simply swamp gas refracting the light from venus...j/k but seriously i dont think it was temperature inversion mirages.