From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #43 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 24 March 1994 Volume 05 : Number 043 In this issue: Re: UFO's in Michigan Code Name Speculation Re: UFO's in Michigan See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brent L. Bates ViGYAN AAD/TAB" Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 07:59:50 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO's in Michigan Talk about OBVIOUS cover up. I wonder sometimes how stupid some of these government bureaucrats think the general public is. We have a 911 tape of the NOAA people talking about it and MANY creditably witnesses. Yet they still try cover it up by saying it is a WEATHER pattern?!! That is as bad as the Air Force trying to classify shuttle data AFTER it has been PUBLISHED in SEVERAL AIAA reports. (Strange, but TRUE) Brent L. Bates Phone:(804) 864-2854 M.S. 361 FAX:(804) 864-8469 NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 E-mail: blbates@aero36.larc.nasa.gov or B.L.BATES@larc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 10:42:28 PST Subject: Code Name Speculation >> PAVE PAWS is a Phased Array Warning System >Ok, speaking of this, what is 'PAVE'. This name seems attached to >everything from radars to FAE bombs. My impression is that was a bookeping thing. "pave" prgrams were either from one fiscal year (but obviously not, since they cover a wide range of years) or from one or another specific adminstrative or funding activity. FWIW, this just came up in rec.aviation.military and the same assertion: that PAVE represented a particular funding source, HAVE another one, etc. Its not as simple as Air Force == PAVE, etc. Each service has multiple research funding orgaizations, and some of it is cross service. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 11:10:11 -0800 Subject: Re: UFO's in Michigan Doug Tiffany writes: >I was listening to that same station again this morning that reported >the strange lights in the sky. > now the NWS says >that they did see something on their radar, but it had nothing to do >with the lights in the sky. Well that's fine. Since we're not talking about a military agency here, I don't think they would mind providing the data (radar tapes and audio tapes) for further study by radar knowledgeable people. I would expect that since this was a highly published and unusual event, that the data would be kept for their own educational purposes, especially since their operator is recorded on the tape as saying: "These are huge returns! I've never seen anything like this, not even during storms. There, um, these aren't storms." What worries me though is that this is exactly 2 weeks after the incident and radar tapes are kept for 2 weeks in some locations and then destroyed, OR that since their operator said "these aren't storms" the radar tape was sent to the "appropriate" agency, and therefore it might be "no longer available", if you get my drift. But I would expect that there are atmospheric scientists and radar meteorologists that would be interested in an opportunity to view this radar tape since it is very anomolous, to say nothing of the public. In fact I wouldn't worry about a coverup unless they are not responsive to attempts by knowledgeable people who are legitimately attempting to study this incident, expecially since this seems to be a completely non military matter. By responsive I mean that I would hope that the radar tape, and the radar operator would be made available, and that they would make their facility available for further experiments (at their convenience) to help pin down the radar visual nature of the inident, if needed. For example, an experiment to recreate the incident, or aspects of it. These experiments could probably be done during operational periods even. >It was probably a storm fron moving at Mach 5. There ARE a whole slew of anomolies that do appear to propogate at unusual indicated speeds when one takes just them alone, as indicated on a radar scope. Some are weather related and in this case we have a weather radar operator and a doppler radar, from what I understand. But if there is truly a set of eyeballs on the same thing at the same time, and you can verify that, then that is different. In fact, the radar technical literature that reports on the effects of insects, birds, etc on radar, contains accepted experiments conducted just like that, where a person watches with eyeballs and a radar operator watches the scope. In fact some of those experiments have been used in the past as anti-UFO arguements, for example in the Air Force's own Condon Report published in 1969. If this incident was a genuine radar/visual sighting, then that really narrows down the domain of possible anomolies. In this case, if you can prove that the eyeballs and the radar operator were both watching the same thing, the light, then you have to explain where the energy that caused the light, and the motion of the light came from. This is why someone interested in a coverup (I'm not saying coverup yet) would like to throw out the light, Because if you do that, there are umpteen zillion radar anomolies they can choose from to explain the case. And it won't be the first time that such a thing was done, but these days the unclassified equipment is better and there are tapes. I understand that the Muskegan Chronicle FOIA'd and obtained from NOAA at least the audio tape (complete?) of the policeman and the radar operator talking. Now for the radar tape, and access to both people, and maybe an experiment by the right people to recreate the incident, if needed. Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #43 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).