To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, shg@ns2.txbs.net, NCP
From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>
Subject: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:26:14 -0700

Greetings Lists,
Here's one where even the Air Force noted the "coincidence" or connection:
http://www.nicap.org/hood520402dir.htm

Fran

Subject: RE: Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:20:07 -0400
From: "Dunn, Steven J." <steven.dunn@ngc.com>
To: "Francis Ridge" <nicap@insightbb.com>

I guess I missed something.  What does a UFO seen on 2 April have to do with a test that wasn't conducted until 20 days later?

Steven Dunn



From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, NCP
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:32:34 EDT

In a message dated 5/12/2005 10:27:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nicap@insightbb.com writes:

Greetings Lists,
Here's one where even the Air Force noted the "coincidence" or connection:
http://www.nicap.org/hood520402dir.htm

Fran


Brad:  I thought you were going to yank the Herman Russell sighting which seems to be an exploded Skyhook balloon not 50-75 flying saucers.  The other sightings are clearly a meteor fireball, where even though distance and speed are hard to judge, some did estimate 150,000 feet altitude and 6,000 mph speed which are in the ballpark for fireballs.  Just because some witnesses didn't think it could be a meteor is irrelevant. Many witnesses did think it was a meteor and said so, and astronomers reportedly thought so too. 



Date:         Thu, 12 May 2005 23:30:29 +0100
From: daniel wilson <daniejon2000@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

    Project 10073 Record Card for report for April 2, 1952, from 6 miles SW of Lometa, Texas, says object appeared to be headed southwest but turned to 180 degrees, and was tracked on radar. Must have been some meteor. At this time in 1952 I do not think that radars had the capability to track meteors. Meteors travel from 15 to 70 kilometers per second. Perhaps the object was something else.

    Object seen at Brownwood, Texas, is given the time of 2000 hours CST (200 GMT) April 2, 1952, while the other reports are given the time of around 2040 CST April 2, 1952.

Card for Waco says object was coming from the southwest and disappeared to the northeast.


Date:         Fri, 13 May 2005 15:06:34 +0100
From: daniel wilson <daniejon2000@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

    How could an exploded skyhook balloon be seen for a total of 3 minutes and 30 seconds?The pieces should be well scattered in the wind and not be visible for much more that a few seconds. Even Project Blue Book evaluated this sightings as an unknown, and do not think for one minute that they would not have jumped on any explanation for the sighting as they have done so many times. The object was seen north northwest of Temple, Texas, which puts it in the direction of Exercise Longhorn. This does not prove a thing but it does correlate.

    Another Blue Book Unknown was recorded at Duncanville,Texas, near Dallas, on April 4, 1952. Object tracked on radar at 2160 MPH.

See: http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB9-1289


Dan...

Date:         Sat, 14 May 2005 00:33:16 EDT
From: Brad Sparks 
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

B:  The fragments of polyethylene are as light as a feather and easy to be
lofted by wind and thermals.  I do think for more than one minute that BB's
evaluations of what was or was not Unknown is not terribly reliable or meaningful
of much of anything, though if BB actually investigated a case (BB did NOT
investigate this one) and still came up with Unknown then it carries some weight.
 Sometimes they dumped Insufficient Info cases into the Unknowns. 

I want to know what's real about UFO's not what fits a partisan position.

Date:         Sat, 14 May 2005 06:53:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
Comments: To: Brad Sparks <RB47x@AOL.COM>
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Having 16 year as a meteorological tech.  I have to comment here.
Dispersion by the wind, is an assumption not an explanation.  What was the
wind at the level that the balloon exploded?  If you don't know one
assumption is as good as another.

Of course, most of my experiences with balloons indicate that they pop and
don't explode.  That is somewhere on the balloon there is a weak spot cause
by an abrasion or in manufacturing or handling and the balloon just pops.
I was in met support at Fort Sill for years, the East Range was covered
with balloons and radiosonde instruments.  Many, many had the balloons
attached, the material ripped open or the whole balloon with a hole in it.
When you find one with just the neck of the balloon attached to a
instrument/parachute then you know it exploded.

Jan Aldrich

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 06:18:08 EDT

If Skyhook polyethylene balloons, rather than rubber meteorological balloons, do shatter at high altitudes sometimes then we must deal with such events as occasionally causing sightings such as at Temple, TX, and not ignore reality.  If Skyhooks NEVER shatter and cannot possibly shatter and that can be proven then that's another matter.  I want real UFO data with IFO's excluded.  Poor UFO cases should be set aside in a special category for further investigation and not allowed to contaminate a genuine UFO database.  It is a sign of good judgment to recognize what is a good case and what is a poor case.  It drives scientists up the wall when they see amateurs with their special pleading arguing for extremist partisan positions on every two-bit pet case. 



To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, shg@ns2.txbs.net, NCP 
From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>
Subject: [SHG] Duncanville, TX; radar track
Sender: shg-admin@ns2.txbs.net

Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:46:09 -0700

April 4, 1952
2160 mph
http://www.nicap.org/duncanville520404.htm


From: "joel carpenter" <crediblesport@covad.net>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Duncanville, TX; radar track
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:55:45 -0400

Fran -

"Duncanville (Red Star) is located near Dallas, Texas. Unusual target tracked northwest of Duncanville at 70 nautical miles from radar station. No direction of flight given. This would put the object about 200 miles from Fort Hood southwest of Waco. Exercise Longhorn was still in progress at Fort Hood and areas toward Waco."

????????? I am confused. Doesn't the document at the link describe an object detected 70 miles NW of Duncanville, or almost exactly the opposite direction from Fort Hood and Waco?

Joel Carpenter

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Duncanville, TX; radar track
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:59:12 EDT

In a message dated 5/13/2005 7:56:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, crediblesport@covad.net writes:

And also the implication is that the target moved radially outward still farther away in the same direction to 260 nautical miles distance.


To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Exercise Longhorn and the UFOs
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 05:42:37 -0700

At 06:18 AM 5/14/2005 -0400, Brad wrote:

If Skyhook polyethylene balloons, rather than rubber meteorological balloons, do shatter at high altitudes sometimes then we must deal with such events as occasionally causing sightings such as at Temple, TX, and not ignore reality.  If Skyhooks NEVER shatter and cannot possibly shatter and that can be proven then that's another matter.  I want real UFO data with IFO's excluded.  Poor UFO cases should be set aside in a special category for further investigation and not allowed to contaminate a genuine UFO database.  It is a sign of good judgment to recognize what is a good case and what is a poor case.  It drives scientists up the wall when they see amateurs with their special pleading arguing for extremist partisan positions on every two-bit pet case.

I think we all agree on that. Right now the problem may be we are getting so many cases in front of us, I (for one) haven't the time to really study them. You guys are all doing a great job. Dan has found some real good cases and I have found many while in search of other information and cases. The files are piling up and many are incomplete. It is healthy to hash these things out. IFO cases and weak UFO cases will be put aside.

I'm not sure, but I think two finds were posted that were not related and somebody might have construed that the implication was that they were. I have just been posting preliminary information as I find it. For example, I posted these separately with no connection intended:

http://www.nicap.org/duncanville520404.htm
http://www.nicap.org/hood520402dir.htm

Anyway, bear with us. It is NOT what we talk about that will become permanent records on the NICAP site. What is important is how they go down. And I need all the help I can get on that, too <GRIN>.

Fran