 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 13, 2008 at 08:00:35
FAA Release of Radar Data Signals a new 'Openness Policy' on UFOs by Michael Salla Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Significant support for the testimony of multiple witnesses of a UFO seen near Stephenville Texas on January 8, 2008 came in the form of radar data recently released by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Responding to a series of Freedom of Information requests by the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the FAA supplied 2.8 million radar returns from five sites covering the area where the UFO was sighted. A report by MUFON titled, “Special Research Report, Stephenville, Texas,” provided a detailed analysis of raw data released by the FAA. The authors of the MUFON Stephenville Report, Glen Schulze and Robert Powell, stated: “data was obtained that indicates unidentified aircraft without transponder beacons which were not military jets, were found in the same compass direction and time frame as cited by the witnesses (Stephenville Report, p. 5).” The radar returns supported witness testimonies that the object was at times stationary and also able to accelerate at tremendous speeds. Schulze and Powell claimed that some of the radar data confirmed that the object reached speeds up to 2100 mph. This was done without creating a sonic boom. They note: Much more important than the possible sudden acceleration shown by the object is its trajectory heading. This object was traveling to the southeast on a direct course towards the Crawford Ranch, also known as President Bush's western White House. The last time the object was seen on radar at 8:00pm, it was continuing on a direct path to Crawford Ranch and was only 10 miles away (Stephenville Report, p. 7). Schulze and Powell also revealed the extent of military activity in the area using log books and radar returns from Carswell Air Force Base, and were able to distinguish these from the sighted UFO. The radar returns confirmed witness testimonies of significant military aerial activity in relation to the UFO despite initial denials by military authorities. Schulze and Powell further examined the data in terms of witness testimonies of the UFO being chased by jets at a very low altitude. They concluded: 
The Selden witnesses also indicated that the unknown object returned and was being chased by jets at very low altitude. These chase jets do not show up on radar. If their altitude was below 2000 feet, as described by the witnesses, then they would have been too low to be detected by the nearest FAA radar (Stephenville Report, p. 7).
In what appears to be a notable national security lapse, they continue:
During this entire episode of over an hour, there is no indication that any of the military jets reacted to this unknown aircraft, that was without a required transponder, and that was headed directly to the Western White House.
Two questions arise here. First, why would military authorities allow a UFO to get so close to the Crawford Ranch? Second, why would the FAA allow radar data to be released that confirm an apparent national security breach at the “Western White House” involving a UFO? Answers to these questions may be found by first examining past FAA policy on releasing UFO information, and the role of senior national security officials in dictating this policy to senior FAA officials.
Earlier FAA policy concerning UFOs appear to have two elements. One was to deny witness or pilot sightings of UFOs regardless of the credibility and/or number of witnesses. The second was to remove any radar evidence that could confirm witness testimonies of UFOs. These elements of what appears to be a long standing policy of the FAA regarding UFOs is exemplified in two well documented cases.
The first concerns the 2006 multiple witness sighting of a UFO over O’Hare International Airport. In a comprehensive report of the O’Hare incident titled: “Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006,” by Dr Richard Haines, he notes:
According to the FAA nothing was detected by radar at this location or time of day or seen by air traffic controllers from the main tower. An examination of primary radar data supplied by the FAA confirmed the first claim. Nevertheless, an FAA inbound ground controller remarked about the “UFO” (UAP) … long before the object had departed. (O’Hare Report, p. 5).
Furthermore, Haines reported on the result of FOIA requests for tower logs and communications that: “clearly showed (1) three separate telephone inquiries from the United ramp tower (and management) concerning the UAP [UFO] and (2) a written notation of one of these calls in the FAA’s tower’s Daily Record of Facility Operations (O’Hare Report, p. 19). More incriminating was a series of interviews with United Airline employees by a journalist for the Chicago Tribune, Jon Hilkevitch, wherein it was alleged that they were “told to not talk about what they saw to anyone” (http://tinyurl.com/y7tv88). Was the management of United Airlines muzzling its employees because of FAA pressure, and was the FAA muzzling its own employees? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the FAA’s policy seemed to be one of dismissing testimonies of a UFO at O’Hare international airport regardless of witness reliability and quantity.
The second documented case involves a former section chief for the FAA, John Callahan, who revealed what occurred to radar and other evidence of a UFO witnessed in the vicinity of a Japanese Airline 747 flying over Alaska in 1986. After the event, Callahan requested all the data to be transferred first to Atlantic City for initial analysis by him and his team, and then to Washington D.C. for a personal viewing by the FAA Administrator, Vice Admiral Donald Engen. He subsequently describes what happened after Admiral Engen saw the data:
Well a few minutes later the Admiral calls down and says, I have set up a briefing tomorrow morning at 9:00 am in the round room. Bring all the stuff you have Bring everybody up there and give them whatever they want… They [a group of national security officials] brought in three people from the FBI, three people from the CIA, and three people from Reagan’s Scientific Study team – I don’t know who the rest of people were but they were all excited. When they got done, they actually swore all these other guys in there that this never took place. We never had this meeting. And this was never recorded. http://preview.tinyurl.com/6g7nxu
Callahan went on to disclose in his public testimony how the data was confiscated by the national security team from the Reagan administration who were concerned about public reaction to the reality of UFOs. Callahan further described how he was able to hold on to a duplicate set of data in his office which he revealed at a May 2001 National Press Club Conference. Callahan believed that the FAA was complicit in a cover up of what the radar evidence clearly showed was a UFO that backed pilot and passenger testimonies of a UFO following a Japanese 747.
For those people that say that if these UFOs existed, they would some day be on radar and that there’d be professionals who would see it, then I can tell them that back in 1986 there were enough professional people that saw it. It was brought down to headquarters, FAA headquarters, Washington D.C. The Administrator saw the tape of it. The people that we were debriefing, they’ve all seen. Reagan’s Scientific Study team, three of those professors, doctors, they’ve seen it. As far as I was concerned they were the ones that verified my own thoughts about it. They were very, very excited about the data. They had said that this was the only time a UFO was ever recorded on radar for any length of time where it is 30 some minutes. And they have all this data to look at…http://preview.tinyurl.com/6g7nxu
1 | 2
www.exopolitics.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
UFOs
I believe the the openness of other countries towards ufo sightings has finally altered the U.S. authorities penchant for secrecy. Also ufos seem to be getting much more aggressive in their interaction with humans. Witness the Bulgarian military jet that was damaged by one and the British military helicopter that had to maneuver quickly to avoid being hit by one, both recent occurrences. Perhaps we are being conditioned for a new era of ufo interaction and maybe it won't be pleasant. by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [110 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:08:21 PM  (0+)
|
|
This is odd
The radar data recorded does not normally contain primary radar returns only secondary radar is recorded. As such no UFO could be recorded unless they have a transponder onboard. by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:49:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Secondary Radar?
Your comment is muddled. Both primary and secondary source radar returns were analysed using radar sweeps from five different FAA radar sites in the vicinity of the UFO. It's the FAA's job to monitor the airspace around controlled aircraft to ensure their safety. That means observing the behavior of craft both with transponders (i.e., secondary radar returns) or without transponders (i.e., primary radar returns) flying above 18,000 feet where commercial craft fly. Also, why would only a UFO with a transponder be recorded? The skin paint marks on the FAA radar sweeps reflect primary radar returns off an object. Those which couldn't be accounted for matched civilian reports of a UFO. Glen Schulze, one of the co-authors of the MUFON Report, is an acknowledged radar expert and professional engineer. He assisted the FAA in improving its radar analysis for accident investigations. His analysis of the FAA radar data was that it confirmed the existence of a UFO over Stephenville headed towards the Crawford ranch. Read the report linked in the article to confirm that primary radar returns were used. by Dr Michael Salla (22 articles, 19 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM (0+)
|
|
More Destruction of Evidence
In his book "Dark Mission," the Secret History of Nasa, Richard Hoagland blows the cover on the long time, well planned and calculated deception of the people who have funded NASA, the American taxpayers. Hoagland details a conversion with Ken Johnston who was the "Supervisor of the NASA data and photo control department." Johnston revealed to Hoagland that while working at NASA, he passed through a "Classified" building and discovered technicians "Air brushing original negatives," preventing any future analysis of the pictures taken on the moon. Johnston goes on to tell of an order he received from Bud Laskawa, head of the Lunar research lander Records division that came from NASA Headquarters under the direction of Dr Michael Duke, "to destroy all of the original photos and copies of the lunar photography" that he had been archiving for the last few years, taken during the moon missions. The question for us today is; "What have they been hiding from us?" For a quick sample of government document destruction "Google" FBI freedom of information files UFO, and you will discover that the agency has systematically destroyed all of the UFO reports that were filed from 1948, until to day, except for a few nerwspaper clippings. As to detecting a primary or secondary radar return, a flip of a panel switch will accomplish both. . by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 519 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:32:03 PM (0+)
|
|
FAA "Open-ness Policy" pure nonsense....
Mr. Salla, As you well know, my organization NARCAP (which authored the OHare report you mention), has been directly involved with the topic of unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP, and US Aviation. We have a far different opinion and experience with this subject than the purely unsubstantiated and speculative spin and rumor-mongering that you are engaging in. Clearly you have no experience with the FAA and UFO matters. There has been no shift in policy regarding UAP reports and the FAA. The FAA simply complied with the FOIA requests made by MUFON regarding the Stephensville matter. Standard operating procedure, nothing more. We have seen nothing but business as usual with the FAA for many years. I will elaborate later in this comment. Further, In the nine years that NARCAP has been working on the issue of UAP and US Aviation we have never been refused a request for radar data and that includes some cases that one might suspect were more sensative than others. FAA provision of radar data does not occur with some ceremonial anointing as they pass over the radar tapes while nodding "yep, there's a ufo on that there tape". Most radar data requested through FOIA is provided as encrypted hardcopy. It can take weeks to sort out the data by hand using a calculator and algorithms to plot the return on graph paper.and reconstruct a few minutes of radar activity. If you want actual radar video it costs $150,000 and there is no assurance that you will get it. So the FAA didn't do anyone any favors with this regardless of your take on it. To be sure, there is bias in the system. I wrote a 30page paper on it, but I have seen no evidence that the FAA has any kind of plan in place to deal with UAP reports. Period. If the FAA is so draconion with respect to UAP reports then why, in 1978, did it relax CIRVIS and instruct pilot and controller staff to report UAP to various public reporting centers? The order in the ARTCC facilites manual is plain enough. It says that reporters can contact various UFO reporting databases like NIDS or NUFORC. If the reporter thinks it is a threat they are to call the police. This has been a standing rule since the late 1970's. So there isn't a relaxing of any policy. There is no policy. Geez, I would have thought that a scholar like you would have noticed that... Your speculations about what the FAA does with UFO reports and why is shallow and lacking a fundamental understanding about the system and the problem. Our work inside the system tells a far different story and involves many dedicated FAA staff who have offered assistance and access. Heck, when the FAA ASRS team publicly supported our effort on television the Chief of the Aviation Safety Program Office at NASA Ames research center kept the video in his office and invited all staff to watch and ask any questions. Further, our team briefed the FAA ASRS group regarding UAP and data collection in their bunker at Batelle many years ago and were very well recieved by Linda C and her staff. In fact, they refer UAP cases to us. So whatever "new open-ness policy" you are referring to obviously isn't taking this into account. How is it that you can speak so authoritatively yet know so little about what is actually going on? Clearly you do very little research into your articles. You certainly never contacted us regarding our experiences in this regard though you are very aware of our work and even cite the NARCAP OHare report, that I co-authored with Dr. Haines. Yet you don't even have the integrity to get the facts before spreading your rumors to the four corners.. I won't give you any more details since you are already quite the rumor monger but I will tell you that your opinion on the FAA and UFO doesn't hold water when compared with the experience of those of us who are actually working on the problem.... of course, why would you bother asking any of us with experience when you can so simply pontificate by decree?? The unusual nature of the Stephensville/Crawford radar return, as any radar tech knows, can be explained by a common fault in radar detection. Our folks have looked this over and are satisfied that is the explanation for the shift in the track. The actual track proceeded at 49mph towards the Crawford ranch but the data set requested ran out so we have no idea what that return did. It was likely a helicopter and it may have been related to ranch security and was not documented as a violation of restricted airspace. If the FAA had some kind of policy regarding UFOs then why did it send Callahan to retrieve the JAL materials only to find the CIA collecting them? Callahan had no agenda other than to investigate and report. If the FAA had another hidden agenda we would have a far different story. Think I will call him and ask him about this....wonder why you didn't bother to ask him yourself. In 1995 Lufthansa 405 and Ameriwest 564 both had UAP encounters that resulted in recorded conversations with NORAD controllers who confirmed the presence of uncorrlated primaries that could be related to the pilot observations. So, by your logic, the commentary by NORAD operators heralded a new open-ness by NORAD to discuss matters UFO. And when the Cessna 208 crashed outside of Mobile and the NTSB stated that the crash involed a UFO did that herald a new open-ness policy regarding UFO by the NTSB? Of course not, they retracted the report. When NARCAP provided support to the Committee on Gov Reform subcommittees as they interrogated the USAF regarding UAP and uncorreltated penetrations into USADZs, did the invitation herald a new policy of open-ness on the part of the DHS? Hell no. The majority of the meetings were classified....you probably didn't even know that they happened.... Mr. Salla, your understanding of the factors at work in the US aviation system surrounding this topic is rudimentary at best. You might be better served by remaining focused on selling your $2600 Galactic Diplomacy certification programs and dolphin swims that you claim are so "indispensible" to communicating with the many species of extraterrestrials that you claim are coming to Earth..... Ted Roe Executive Director NARCAP.org by Ted Roe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:47:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No Change in FAA Policy?
Your comments that FAA were simply following Standard Operating Procedure in the UFO Stephenville case are at odds with John Callahan, a former FAA Division Chief, who said the following about the 1986 UFO case: "This was one of the guys from the CIA. Okay? That they were never there and this never happened. At the time I said, well I don’t know why you are saying this. I mean, there was something there and if it’s not the stealth bomber, then you know, it’s a UFO. And if it’s a UFO, why wouldn’t you want the people to know? Oh, they got all excited over that. You don’t even want to say those words. He said this is the first time they ever had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO. And they are all itching to get their hands onto the data and to find out what it is and what really goes on. He says if they come out and told the American public that they ran into a UFO out there, it would cause panic across the country. So therefore, you can’t talk about it. And they are going to take all this data…" So according to Callahan, the data was simply taken away. You say that you have "seen no evidence that the FAA has any kind of plan in place to deal with UAP reports. Period". Did you bother to read Callahan's testimony backed by the FAA radar data he still has in his possession? That is evidence, why have you and NARCAP ignored it all this time to make such a preposterous claim! My analysis of Callahan's testimony is not speculation since it is based on his own public testimony, his readiness to give testimony at a Congressional inquiry, and he has the hard data to back it up. Also, you say that in the nine years of NARCAP requesting UFO/UAP data from the FAA, you "have never been refused a request". That begs the question since I never said the FAA policy was not to release radar data to FOIA requests, only UFO/UAP radar data in a well documented case involving witness sightings. Aside from Callahan's claims regarding the 1986 case, is there another case where the FAA released radar data corroborating witness testimonies of a UFO sighting? If so, I would be interested in hearing it. If not, then my argument concerning the 1986 incident as the benchmark for the real FAA policy on UFOs/UAP captured on radar and witnessed by observers stands. Also, John Callahan was on the Kevin Smith show a couple of nights ago and went over the 1986 incident in some detail and stated that the FAA will never release UFO data without clearing it with Washington first. So much for your SOP argument in the FAA responding to FOIA requests concerning UFO/UAP data. It seems you are determined to explain away the Crawford UFO data, as a "common fault in radar detection". You vaguely refer to "our folks" who have given this explanation which you accept. Who are "our folks" and why should I or anyone else consider their opinion over the detailed analysis offered by Glen Schulze and Robert Powell? You don’t even name them. Schulze's background and radar expertise is exemplary, why would you dismiss his detailed report in such a cavalier fashion? You accuse me of rumor mongering when in fact I'm offering some reasoned observations of the radar analysis provided by Shulze and Powell of a multiple witness UFO sighting, and analyzing that in relation to the earlier 1986 incident involving the radar data of a multiple witness sighting of a UFO. That in itself suggests a change in FAA policy has occurred. It seems you want I and others to believe that all is well with the way the FAA releases UFO/UAP data to the public in response to FOIA requests. Evidence of the 1986 incident suggests otherwise. Finally, Callahan did not go to retrieve the radar data only to find the CIA collecting them. The CIA involvement began after Callahan had briefed the FAA administrator in Washington DC. As for the gratuitous reference to my certification program for "Galactic Diplomacy", actually I have taught citizen diplomacy classes at George Washington University and American University in Washington DC. I was at the time regarded as an expert in Second Track Diplomacy in international affairs. Therefore I am academically qualified to train individuals for citizen diplomacy initiatives whether in an academic institution or privately as I currently do. My qualifications and CV are available online so why indulge in such gratuitous remarks over my current activities which have no bearing on the subject matter at hand? by Dr Michael Salla (22 articles, 19 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:19:21 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
