From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:10:52 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:53:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices? - >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:09:50 -0400 >Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices? >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:37:49 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices? <snip> >>What you have pointed out here contradicts my suggestion, made >>in the latter half of the ADDENDUM to my Phoenix report (see web >>site http://brumac.8k.com), that a single A-10 dropped flares 2 >>through 9 (as labelled in the report). However, there were >>several airplanes in flying home from maneuvers (I don't know >>how many). They could have been flying side by side, separated >>by several miles, so, if they all dropped flares over a short >>time interval as they headed eastward toward Davis-Monthan AFB >>in Tucson, the flares could have taken any chance "formation", >>including an arc shape. >>I recently rechecked the triangulation using the Krzysten and >>Rairdon videos. The baseline of the triangle is made by the >>distance between the K and R locations, namely about 32 miles. >>Using the sighting lines to the lights I again find a >>considerable distance (80 or more miles) to the lights. >>K (and others) have claimed the lights were north of the >>Estrella range. If that were so R would have been looking almost >>due west at the collection of lights "end" on. In this case the >>lights in the R video would not have had a "shape" similar to >>the array in the K video (the "Krzysten Arc") . However, the >>fact is that the array in the R video looks very similar to the >>"Kzysten Arc." Furthermore, R was not looking due west but >>southwest. These videos were both obtained at about 10 PM, March >>13, 1997. Hence it is likely that they both show the same >>lights, in which case, they were about 80 miles away.> >I'm going to keep asking these questions until one or both of >you answer them. Explain why these flares were released at such >an altitude as to be seen 60-80 miles away in Pheonix when the >flares are ineffective above 1,000 to 1,500 feet for ground >llumination [the reason they would be deployed in the first >place].Releasing these flares at altitudes above these altitudes >is a waste of the flare's use. The specs on the flares >recommends they be preset for release at a given altitude but >the flare ignites at 500-1,500 feet. Their use is for the >benifit of ground troops. Their other use is as a decoy. They >can be ejected from the aircraft and then ignite, squirreling >away from the aircraft in unpredictable directions to draw off >an Air to Air or Ground to Air heat seeking missiles. According to National Air Guard spokespeople in the summer of 1997, the flares were released at an unusually high altitude. Capt. Eileen Benz, spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard, and the person who discovered that flares had been dropped that evening by the Maryland National Guard (Snowbirds), flares were dropped at an altitude of 15,000 ft. Capt. Drew Sullins, spokesman for the MD Nat. Guard. said a squad of A-10 using the Bary Goldwater training range had "dumped several flares" at high altitude. The argument presented by Ledger is that it would be stupid or ridiculous to drop flares at such a high altitude for operational use, which s true if the operational use is ground illumination for ground troops. (However, for ground illumination when night vision devices are used they could be higher... see below.) However, if the flares were being dumped before landing then they were being discarded, and not used operationally, so they could be dumped at any convenient altitude (high enough so they would burn out before reaching the ground). Hence the argument that the lights couldn't be flares because they wouldn't be lit up at such a low alttude des not apply here because they weren't being used operationally when they were ejected. On the other hand, I can **imagine** why one might want to drop flares at high altitude, for whatever its worth: to provide lighting of the ground when the A-10's (or ground trooped) were using night vision devices to attack ground targets. The idea would be to light the flares at a high altitude and then fly at a much lower altitude. True, the light reaching the ground would be dimmer than if the flares were lower, but if the night vision devices were sensitive enough that might be enough light and, because the flares are high, the illumination would cover a large area.. At any rate, one might not want the flares to be below the planes because then the flares would bloom out the night vision device displays. I rush to point out that this is an "imagining" by me, and may have nothing to do with the dropping of flares that night. >And if the nonsense explanation that they were ejected as a >safety measure because the A-10s could not land with them >onboard is rejected, because they land with them onboard all of >the time, why then would these pilots be allowed to waste 200- >300 thousand dollars worth of flares by ejecting them at a high >altitude for no reason whatsoever. Nonsense or not, logical or not, that is what was reported in the 1997. As for the cost... AF pays about $500 each (in lots of thousands!) from Thiokol. >Answer these questions first, then you can have fun with the >science. Or you can continue to ignore me. Ignore you? How could we do that, young man?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp