UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:33:50 -0300 Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:42:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Gore UFO? >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:25:24 -0500 >From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: Gore UFO? >>Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:04:54 -0300 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca> >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Re: Gore UFO? >>>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:10:13 -0500 >>>From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>Subject: Re: Gore UFO? <snip> >Show my age...it was Mode IV for altitude readout when I was >doing it. Actually they use something called Mode M. Everything but the pilots's shoe size shows up on the scope. >If it occurred in a terminal area and AF 2 was not at enroute >altitude I would say it is a lot more likely that it was a small >aircraft. If AF 2 was at enroute altitude for a 747 with >priority flight following I think it was a lot more likely that >the other "object" was anomalous. Even without altitude readout >on the controller's scope, the controller would have been able >to easily compute the speed of the anomalous blip. The higher >up you go the faster you must travel to maintain altitude. The >difference between the speed of traffic at an enroute altitude >and the speed of a small plane at a much lower altitude would >have been readily apparent to the controller, i.e., say 100-200 >knots versus 350-450 knots or higher. If, in fact, AF 2 was >enroute, I think the controller would have said something to >that effect and it would not have necessitated such a drastic 60 >degree turn. >If, however, AF 2 was ascending or descending, all bets are off. <snip> >Agreed! But you don't normally get those kinds of advisories if >you're enroute. >>Hey it's still a UFO until it's not. Don't they call them RIs >>[radar intercepts] or something now? >I don't know. I've been out of it for so long I don't know the >current terminology. >One of the things that bothers me about this instance is the lack >of publicity about it. Usually, if Air Force Whatever has to >divert from its path for any reason, it is all over the news. >Not this time. I would think that if it was a "normal" event >involving a lite plane or unauthorized access to controlled >airspace or something like that, the authorities wouldn't rest >until they had found whoever did it. I've heard very little, if >anything, about this incident, which makes me believe that there >is something out of the ordinary about it. Doesn't have to be a >UFO in the classic sense. Could be something relatively normal. Actually you bring up a good point here which as a private pilot myself I'm surprised I didn't think of, and that's the usual automatic jump to the "light aircraft is in the wrong" scenario. If it had been a light plane for instance the FAA would have been all over it, likewise the press. If not a UFO then maybe something more embarrassing like an AF jet in the wrong place might fit the bill. The press in their usual ignorance about anything to do with flight-witness the JFK jr.thing-would have had the pilot of any light plane, hung out to dry by now. As for your concern about it's being a non-event, I've certainly seen nothing about it up here. Of course the screen has been full of the Saratoga crash. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com