Special Research Report Stephenville, Texas UFO

[Proto10]

I am trying to find someone that is aviation and radar smart and is willing to review this report to determine if it is credible. The report is at the below link.

http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

[The Beerhunter]

i'm a bit peshed at this hour, but the little green chap chilling out beside me trying to sell the merits of a probe says it sounds fairly feasible.

[BDiONU]

[SIZE=2]I am trying to find someone that is aviation and radar smart and is willing to review this report to determine if it is credible.
I'd say its pretty incredible and the author needs to find more gainful employment than hassling a large number of agencies, departments and the military for information. A tin foil hat may be very useful.

BD

[tbavprof]

Actually this explains a lot about the state of the world. Stephenville is a favorite PPL flight planning exercise for South and Southeast Texas flight examiners. The only thing that stands between KSEP and south Texas is prohibited area P-49, the Bush ranch in nearby Crawford.

I knew Dick Cheney wasn't human!

[Proto10]

I want to add to my original post, this is a serious request and I would consider paying a fee to a qualified person willing to review the radar analysis and comment.

Please also see article "Was the Stephenville UFO a National Security Threat?" at the below link.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/73833 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/73833)

Feel free to contact me directly.

Franklin D. Fields, Jr. Esq.
Attorney at Law
Cell: (352) 478-1176
Email: [email protected]

[av8boy]

OK. I've now read it.

I’ve been involved in aviation as military aircrew, FAA ATC (since 1982), attorney, and historian for 30-odd years, and see this report as clearly driven by the desire to achieve a particular outcome. A fundamental lack of understanding with regard to the use (or non-use) by military aircraft of MTRs, MARSA, breaking up military fast jet flights into individual components, “potential conflicts in same airspace” involving military and civil aircraft, etc makes it a painful read. Of particular interest is the unfounded assumption that an aircraft flying a racetrack pattern in the area was AWACS and therefore, HAD to have seen something. Of course, the authors were either completely unaware that the returns they observed in the racetrack patter were, in fact, along an AR and, especially in that the local MOA was active, were very likely to have been tankers, or they chose to ignore that fact. What’s more, aircraft undergoing flight test often fly endless racetracks.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have much depth in estimating degrees of arc using the “little finger at arm’s length” method (as figures so prominently in this "study,") but I do know something of aviation, and it seems to me that these guys got their hands on some FAA data and got more excited than they should have. A quick Google search for the name of the engineer who signed-off on this thing comes up with a Larry King interview on CNN where the excitement (sensationalist) factor shines. That very same search turns up the gentleman’s free-lance association with the TWA 800 conspiracy as well, so there you go…

Bottom line: RADAR is imperfect. Targets drop. Transponders crap out. Data blocks jump. Ground clutter can be blinding. Cars, trucks and birds confound the best laid plans, and things can vary based on where the MTI gate is set. Yadda Yadda Yadda. These boys have yet to convince me that they’ve got the chops to interpret ATC data. Hell, if the FAA and NTSB (and counterparts elsewhere) can get data reduction wrong, it seems senseless to take the word of rank amateurs' analysis on something like this...

Oh. And their punctuation was poor as well.

Sorry about the rushed (and poorly constructed) rant. Burned too much time reading the danged thing and now I’ve got real stuff to do!

Just my two cents.

Dave

PS A warning to the authors of this tome: don’t bother PM-ing me. I’ll just drag it out into the thread anyway.

[Proto10]

Thank you Sir for taking the time to read the report and to comment. You may be correct that the authors had a "desire to achieve a particular outcome" but you seem to be a little biased as well. Anyway, thanks again for your time. I do appreciate your remarks.

Frank

[ProM]

Admittedly I speak English English rather than American English but I found the report very hard to follow and quite frankly I gave up. It seemed to be written by someone who wanted the document to sound formal and authoritative but actually made it cumbersome and pompous.

Given that I didn't get very far there appeared to be a few fallacies regarding radar performance.

For example the distance an AWACS or any other primary radar 'sees' is not fixed but very dependent upon a lot of factors. Salemen and people ignorant of radars often quote the instrumented range of a radar as the "range", ignoring the fact that it may only be able to see something the size of a mountain at that range. In many modern radars even the instrumented range is selectable