posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:09 AM
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
[edit on 15-6-2004 by heelstone]