From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:33:39 -0400 Archived: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:05:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Claimed Aircraft Losses In UFO Pursuits >From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:35:51 +0100 >Subject: Claimed Aircraft Losses In UFO Pursuits >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:48:53 -0400 >>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>The physics that I am suggesting is not as speculative as you >>would have people believe. For most of us, it's at the stage of >>rocks falling out of the sky before we knew about meteors. We >>have seen the 'rocks' but they are so much a mystery that they >>are ignored. The idea that there is a new physics we don't >>understand is supported by physical evidence, some of which >>I've summarized in the following link. >>http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/mbftech.htm >>It has to do with a technology that disrupts the cohesion of >>matter. To begin with, according to a US Air Defense general, >>many aircraft have been lost in pursuit of UFOs. Wilbert B. Smith >>was told via contact with the aliens that the saucer craft are >>surrounded by a field that disrupts nearby matter, especially >>when it is under stress. This explains why pursuing aircraft >>broke up when they got too close. This data is reliable or not, >>depending on what you think about the word of a US general and >>of that particular engineer/scientist. >William's comments prompted a typically thorough response off- >List from Brad Sparks, who permits me to forward some extracts >from his email as follows: >[Begin Quote] >This is such a concatenation of misunderstanding and slippery >definitions. The US Air Defense Command (ADC) was racking up >about 35,000 "initially" unidentified _aircraft_ per year >(almost 100 PER DAY) in the early 1950's (figures from >declassified ADC histories...). These were not _UFOs_ >(unconventional shape and/or performance) but 'unidentified' >ordinary aircraft, which might be called "UFOs" _only_ because >they were technically "unidentified" and most of them only >temporarily until further identification effort was conducted... >ADC did special identification test projects to see who or what >might be causing these large numbers of unidentified >aircraft... After various identification efforts including >obtaining additional or late flight plan info from recalcitrant >Navy commands as well as carrying out fighter interceptions, >this 35,000 number of initial unidentifieds was whittled down to >about 5,500 remnant unidentified aircraft. ... [But] "real >UFOs" constituted less than 1/2 of 1% of the 35,000 >unidentified aircraft tracked by ADC per year.... >Now here's the kicker on the supposed "aircraft lost while >chasing UFOs": About 12,000 of the 35,000 unidentified radar >tracks were subject to fighter interceptions. Fighter >interceptions were a dangerous operation especially with >failure-prone jets like the F-89, and many such intercept >missions resulted in crashes, often fatal. The crash stats were >probably on the order of around 1% or possibly 100 (rounding off >to order of magnitude) of the 12,000 intercepts per year of >initially unidentified radar tracks. Of those 100 crashes, >possibly only 1/2% were genuine UFOs (see figures above) or >less than 1 per year, say 1 every year or two. It's all in the >definitions. Are these 100 crashes while intercepting UFOs??? >No!!! >[End Quote] >I would add that even in this one case every year or two, when >an interceptor crashes during a "real UFO" incident (i.e., >generally a radar track which ends up not attributable to a >known aircraft and remains otherwise not accounted for), nothing >in these statistics tells you: a) that the crash had any causal >relation to the presence of the target; or b) that, if there was >a causal relation, it had anything to do with alien technology. >Since accidents do happen, it is incumbent on the claimant to >prove that the observed rate is significantly higher than chance >expectation and/or that in specific cases no other mundane >explanation is tenable. This is all very interesting, and thanks to Brad Sparks for his interpretation of the data. It does raise the question, though, why the Commanding General, US Air Defense Command, would say that "we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them". Was he misquoted? I would like to clarify that Smith was told that only a few aircraft had crashed because they were pursuing the UFOs. The relevant quote from the middle of one of his presentations is as follows. "The other item that Iím rather proud of resulted from a series of questions that we asked regarding accidental destruction or damage to our aircraft by flying into the vicinity of a flying saucer. We were informed that although a few of our aircraft had come to an unfortunate end by what they considered the colossal stupidity of our pilots for flying into a region where the aircraft was bound to get into trouble, they said that they are now taking corrective measures, and whenever they see one of our aircraft about to commit suicide, they just get out of the way and give him a wide berth." The complete transcript of his talk is at: http://tinyurl.com/3h83foo William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp