To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, shg@ns2.txbs.net, ncp
From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>
Subject: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 06:40:07 -0700

Greetings Lists,
We came across this one, but it is very hard to read. Can anybody see what the date was for the radar tracking, and verify the height of "200 miles" reported?

Fran

Date:         Sun, 8 May 2005 09:28:15 -0400            
From: Richard Vitello <w1rv@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

I know Brad has answered this, but I got three dates:

At the top:             12 May 1948
In the letter:          5 May 1948
On the bottom right:    24 May 1948

.regards,

Rich Vitello - W1RV


From: "Jan Aldrich" <project1947@earthlink.net>
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, ncp
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 15:21:4 -0400

Hi Fran,
 
       There is  a radar case for Aug 47 in the BB files, but it amounts to nothing.  I believe that Loedding and Beam were onto an actual radar case at Holloman, but got stonewalled.  Lt Markley's case was a visual observation.  The radar case listed in BB is a mistake.  Project Sign listed this as "not an incident" as it was only indications that the radar picked up the mountains....some "smart" guy later on in the UFO investigation made this into a UFO case.
 
Jan

Brad:Only one report is hard to read the rest are very clear.  The radar tracking was late Aug 1947 and it is in my BB UNK's Catalog.  The visual sighting of April 5, 1948, is different.
 
Jan Aldrich
Project1947
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331
(860) 546-9135
 
From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: project1947@earthlink.net, shg@ns2.txbs.net, CE, NCP
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 17:23:53 EDT


They were getting "stonewalled" as you said.  Project MOGUL's Lt Markley leaked the 200-mile height radar incident that he personally helped track with the special CPS-4 (Modified), and it was separate from his visual UFO report, both late Aug 1947.  They apparently picked up defined "targets" not a broad diffuse "mountain."  Notice that because of the "bowl" enclosure of mountains around White Sands and the curvature of the earth that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pick up reflections of distant mountains at 200-mile range even if the radar antenna was pointed horizontally (in that case it should have picked up "mounatins" at 200 miles ALL THE TIME).  The radar antenna was pointed at 70 degs elevation instead of horizontally, so they would have to be pretty stupid to confuse any returns from near zenith with something near the horizon.  This was an outright lie by Rosmovski to get Lt Col Beam and Loedding off the trail of this leak.  Rosmovski first tried to lie and deny it even happened at all (read the interview report) -- this is the tipoff that he was lying and was going to continue to keep lying to confuse and derail Beam's and Loedding's investigation.  Beam and Loedding had to go all over the country to track these Project MOGUL guys down -- even after notifying them ahead of time that they were flying out from Ohio to NM they just stiffed them and left NM despite the advance notice (actually because the notice tipped them off). 

Brad

From: "Jan Aldrich" <project1947@earthlink.net>
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, NCP
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 21:2:44 -0400

Hi Brad,
 
     The whole thing sounds like a bunch of people all pointing at the other guy saying, "I didn't see anything, he did."  However, I don't think you can conclude that Markley saw anything on radar.  He denies that he did.  He only cops to a visual sighting.
 
Regards,
 
Jan

From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:44:54 +0100

Hi Brad et al
 
A couple of qualifications:
 
1) This radar was evidently a nodding-fan heightfinder and the resolution is required to be narrow only in elevation. Early heightfinders were often just surveillance antennas turned on their sides so the narrow width of the beam would discriminate targets in altitude instead of azimuth. The beam would be many degrees wider in azimuth. E.g. 10 degrees corresponds to about 35 miles at a range of 200 miles. So we needn't be talking about even a single mountain but a whole range of peaks, and you could still have a "target" echo that was as well-defined as the limiting resolution of the equipment.
 
2) The boresight elevation of the antenna at the time was 70 degrees but this is the angle of the main beam. There are sidelobes due to the spillover radiation. A typical antenna might emit something like 1/000th of the power of the mainlobe as spillover, pointing basically sideways, and when the antenna is turned on its side as a heightfinder this spillover reflects from the ground and modifies the gain into a series of long lobes. It's possible that the pattern had a long lobe many degrees away from the boresight near the horizon. Note that 1/1000th of the main beam power doesn't sound like much but a mountain (or mountain range) would have a very large echoing area. This mountain sidelobe echo could be comparable to that of a target with 1/000th the cross-section of a mountain in the main beam.
 
3) Remember that the apparent height is calculated from the antenna boresight elevation and the range, whatever the true elevation of the target in the sidelobe.
 
4) A displayed height of 200 miles = 200/sin 70deg = ~213 miles slant range. The normal 4/3-earth radar horizon at this range is approximately 20,000 ft, so only mountain peaks above this altitude could normally be picked up. But if there was anomalous propagation this "normal" horizon could be easily be halved.
 
5) Brad may be right that White Sands is completely surrounded by nearby mountain elevations that prevent this theoretical horizon being observed in any direction, in which case it's back to square one. My topographical maps of the area are not sufficiently detailed but I think this ought to be checked before declaring mountain sidelobe echoes impossible.
 
Martin

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 07:53:37 EDT

SEE BELOW

In a message dated 5/9/2005 2:41:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk writes:

Subj: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: 5/9/2005 2:41:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Sent from the Internet


Hi Brad et al

 
A couple of qualifications:

1) This radar was evidently a nodding-fan heightfinder and the resolution is required to be narrow only in elevation. Early heightfinders were often just surveillance antennas turned on their sides so the narrow width of the beam would discriminate targets in altitude instead of azimuth. The beam would be many degrees wider in azimuth. E.g. 10 degrees corresponds to about 35 miles at a range of 200 miles. So we needn't be talking about even a single mountain but a whole range of peaks, and you could still have a "target" echo that was as well-defined as the limiting resolution of the equipment.
 

B1:  The CPS-4 height-finding radar apparently had only a 4-degree wide beam not 10 degrees.  However it was pointed almost straight up (70 degs elevation) and picking up "targets" at about 200 miles altitude.  There is "nothing" that should be "out there" to reflect a near-perpendicular incidence radar beam in 1947.  There are no "mountains" 200 miles high or 1,000,000 feet tall. 

B2:  More importantly, to address your counterargument headon, I contend that a "mountain range" target would be broad and diffuse, not a discrete "target" like some aircraft or spacecraft.  If we choose to ignore the fact the radar was pointed out into space we still have the problem that there is no mountain range "target" smaller than the 14-mile horizontal resolution of the CPS-4 radar beam at 200 miles.  You can pull out any relief map and look around in all directions from Alamogordo for some isolated mountain (smaller than 14 miles in width) or two that could stick out at around 200 miles from Alamogordo and THERE ARE NONE.  And even if there were it would still run into the problem that Alamogordo is in a bowl or valley between multiple mountains ranges at about 15-50 and 100+ miles away, trapping and blocking radar beams from getting out to 200 miles (with one exception to be mentioned below).  Why weren't these mountains at 15-50 and 100 miles away picked up on the radar???

B3:  The only "hole" in the multiple array of mountains around Alamogordo that I can find after many hours scouring topo maps is to the SSW over El Paso.  But at 200 miles range in northern Mexico there is no isolated mountain or two that sticks out that could possibly be discrete "targets."  Just a gradually sloping plateau of increasing elevation and HUNDREDS OF MILES IN EXTENT.  Such a broad plateau should have formed numerous broadly diffuse targets at many different distances besides just the 200 miles distance and OBVIOUSLY LOOKING LIKE GROUND CLUTTER. 

B4:  And that brings up an even more devastating problem:  Why on earth would a radar beam reflect BACKWARDS from such a gradually upward sloping terrain????  It would if anything almost entirely FORWARD SCATTER the radar energy further out into space NEVER TO COME BACK!!!!!

2) The boresight elevation of the antenna at the time was 70 degrees but this is the angle of the main beam. There are sidelobes due to the spillover radiation. A typical antenna might emit something like 1/000th of the power of the mainlobe as spillover, pointing basically sideways, and when the antenna is turned on its side as a heightfinder this spillover reflects from the ground and modifies the gain into a series of long lobes. It's possible that the pattern had a long lobe many degrees away from the boresight near the horizon. Note that 1/1000th of the main beam power doesn't sound like much but a mountain (or mountain range) would have a very large echoing area. This mountain sidelobe echo could be comparable to that of a target with 1/000th the cross-section of a mountain in the main beam.

B5:  If we were talking about METAL TARGETS like aircraft and UFO's then YEAH maybe we could get get a WEAK RETURN from a remote sidelobe off of such METAL TARGETS if possibly 1/1,000th strength of the central beam's peak power (but most sidelobes are just several degrees off central boresight not 70-90 degrees off or at right angles!).

B6:  But as I pointed out in B4 above, how on earth could you get ANY DETECTABLE RETURN off of a NON-METALLIC MOUNTAIN that is sloping AWAY from the radar beam so if it scatters ANYTHING it is scattered still farther out into space???  The mountain surface is not at right angles, it's NOT a CLIFF FACE. 

B7:  Most devastating of all, why the heck didn't they IMMEDIATELY pick up a MASSIVE POWERFUL RETURN from this hypothetical mountain 200 miles away just as soon as they lowered the antenna boresight down from 70 degs (nearly overhead) to the HORIZON????  If they could "see" this when the radar sidelobe projected so little power through a supposed sidelobe, then why didn't they see this alleged (actually bogus and nonexistent) "mountain" EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK when they had FULL POWER not a mere sidelobe????  Now they would not have some purported hypothetical sidelobe only 1/1,000th (or whatever) of the main beam power but would have the MAIN BEAM POWER directed STRAIGHT AT THE PURPORTED 200-mile distant "mountain." 

B8:  Project MOGUL had almost a YEAR in which to discover this purported "mountain" 200 miles away and should have been able to tell AMC's Lt Col Beam "Why we quickly found out which mountain it was as soon as we lowered our antenna beam and we can find it now ALL THE TIME.  It's Mount Whatever-the-Hell in Northern Mexico at 204 miles [or 196 or whatever] miles and it is 10,000 ft high, and X miles SSW of El Paso, blah blah blah." 

3) Remember that the apparent height is calculated from the antenna boresight elevation and the range, whatever the true elevation of the target in the sidelobe.
 
4) A displayed height of 200 miles = 200/sin 70deg = ~213 miles slant range. The normal 4/3-earth radar horizon at this range is approximately 20,000 ft, so only mountain peaks above this altitude could normally be picked up. But if there was anomalous propagation this "normal" horizon could be easily be halved.
 
5) Brad may be right that White Sands is completely surrounded by nearby mountain elevations that prevent this theoretical horizon being observed in any direction, in which case it's back to square one. My topographical maps of the area are not sufficiently detailed but I think this ought to be checked before declaring mountain sidelobe echoes impossible.
 
Martin

B9:  SEE ABOVE.  I am more interested in the fact that the GROUND range of a 70-deg beam with a 200-mile high target is 200 miles/tan 70 = 73 miles.  In other words the target would have been hovering in space 200 miles high over a spot about 73 miles away from Alamogordo Army Air Field (later Holloman AFB).  Considering that 200 miles is a rounded number, it could easily be 210 or even 220 miles and then the ground range could be 76-80 miles or more. 

B10:  You see, the Foster Ranch debris field (and any fairly close-by anomalous site) was about the same distance, about 85 miles away from Alamogordo.

Brad

From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman

Brad wrote:
B1:  The CPS-4 height-finding radar apparently had only a 4-degree wide beam not 10 degrees.  However it was pointed almost straight up (70 degs elevation) and picking up "targets" at about 200 miles altitude.  There is "nothing" that should be "out there" to reflect a near-perpendicular incidence radar beam in 1947.  There are no "mountains" 200 miles high or 1,000,000 feet tall.
M. I think the words used include "objects" and "ghost pip". As I said, the theory assumes echoes in sidelobes at low elevation not at the main beam elevation. They would obviously display at the main beam elevation.

B2:  More importantly, to address your counterargument headon, I contend that a "mountain range" target would be broad and diffuse, not a discrete "target" like some aircraft or spacecraft. 
 
M. It probably would be diffuse, but it might not be. Also I don't see any description of an echo presentation that says "aircraft or spacecraft" to me - just a vaguely described echo of some kind that apparently didn't move but appeared and disappeared in place. A mountain summit area might be neatly "selected" by appearing above the anaprop radar horizon. In any case we are guessing as to the echo presentation based only on inferences about someone's usage of the word "target". I don't think that's necessarily reliable.
 
If we choose to ignore the fact the radar was pointed out into space we still have the problem that there is no mountain range "target" smaller than the 14-mile horizontal resolution of the CPS-4 radar beam at 200 miles.
 
I'm not "choosing to ignore" this, and I don't wish to echo a combative tone either, but I specifically pointed out the elevation angle question in relation to sidelobes, and once again the point is that only eminences that rise above the expanded radar horizon would return echoes.
 
You can pull out any relief map and look around in all directions from Alamogordo for some isolated mountain (smaller than 14 miles in width) or two that could stick out at around 200 miles from Alamogordo and THERE ARE NONE.  And even if there were it would still run into the problem that Alamogordo is in a bowl or valley between multiple mountains ranges at about 15-50 and 100+ miles away, trapping and blocking radar beams from getting out to 200 miles (with one exception to be mentioned below).  Why weren't these mountains at 15-50 and 100 miles away picked up on the radar???
 
I don't know what was or was not picked up exactly, but maybe they were. Every radar site has its local fixed ground echoes that operators expect to see. If you happen to know that the azimuth your RHI antenna is pointing is usually free of local mountain echoes then, with the antenna elevated as well, a mountain echo might not spring to mind.

B3:  The only "hole" in the multiple array of mountains around Alamogordo that I can find after many hours scouring topo maps is to the SSW over El Paso. 
 
Yes I could see that was a possibility on my own maps. But again, as I said, if it is truly the case that there are no possible radar lines of sight to areas of high ground at around 200 miles then the theory evidently doesn't fly.
 
But at 200 miles range in northern Mexico there is no isolated mountain or two that sticks out that could possibly be discrete "targets."  Just a gradually sloping plateau of increasing elevation and HUNDREDS OF MILES IN EXTENT.  Such a broad plateau should have formed numerous broadly diffuse targets at many different distances besides just the 200 miles distance and OBVIOUSLY LOOKING LIKE GROUND CLUTTER.
 
Again, I don't find this "discrete target" or targets in the documents. Markley speaks of several "echoes" or "objects"; Rosmovski was the actual observer, and he does describe a single "ghost pip", but then he's the one who himself explained it as a mountain echo in what Col.Beam (nicely named!) calls a "side wave" = sidelobe. (Incidentally I have no idea what the radar "crazing" is that was "caused by the gypsum sands" west of Holloman. Maybe Rosmovski said something about "grazing angles" and that got garbled?)
 
The isolation of the echo would be as much a function of the cut-off due to the radar horizon as of the terrain itself. I wouldn't care to guess exactly what the scope "should have" looked like if shifting AP conditions had brought some remote terrain into view. Anyway surely the whole point is that whatever it did or did not look like an unwary operator would not expect ground clutter on an RHI scope elevated to 70 degrees - this is where the sidelobe echo comes in. Arguably, Rosmovski was pretty savvy and suspected a sidelobe echo, whilst others less experienced made the incident into a mysterious rumour.
 
Other evidence may persuade you that Rosmovski was fibbing because he really believed he tracked a UFO, but considered on its own merits as a radar case this one is pretty weak.

B4:  And that brings up an even more devastating problem:  Why on earth would a radar beam reflect BACKWARDS from such a gradually upward sloping terrain????  It would if anything almost entirely FORWARD SCATTER the radar energy further out into space NEVER TO COME BACK!!!
 
M2) The boresight elevation of the antenna at the time was 70 degrees but this is the angle of the main beam. There are sidelobes due to the spillover radiation. A typical antenna might emit something like 1/000th of the power of the mainlobe as spillover, pointing basically sideways, and when the antenna is turned on its side as a heightfinder this spillover reflects from the ground and modifies the gain into a series of long lobes. It's possible that the pattern had a long lobe many degrees away from the boresight near the horizon. Note that 1/1000th of the main beam power doesn't sound like much but a mountain (or mountain range) would have a very large echoing area. This mountain sidelobe echo could be comparable to that of a target with 1/000th the cross-section of a mountain in the main beam.
 
B5:  If we were talking about METAL TARGETS like aircraft and UFO's then YEAH maybe we could get get a WEAK RETURN from a remote sidelobe off of such METAL TARGETS if possibly 1/1,000th strength of the central beam's peak power (but most sidelobes are just several degrees off central boresight not 70-90 degrees off or at right angles!).
This is misleading. We can't say anything conclusive about the antenna design here, but as I said the typical spillover radiation emitted basically sideways (as seen along the rotation axis in plan) might easily be comparable to the first sidelobe over an angle of maybe 10 degrees. With the antenna over on its side this means there's a lot of energy radiated towards the ground and the actual gain pattern is determined by the way this reflects and interferes with the main beam, so you get vertical lobing. I have no idea what the VPD of this radar would be in this particular case, - it's dependent on the free-space pattern, the height of the antenna above ground, the nature of the terrain and a whole bunch of stuff none of us has any information about.


B6:  But as I pointed out in B4 above, how on earth could you get ANY DETECTABLE RETURN off of a NON-METALLIC MOUNTAIN that is sloping AWAY from the radar beam so if it scatters ANYTHING it is scattered still farther out into space???  The mountain surface is not at right angles, it's NOT a CLIFF FACE. 
 
You don't only get echoes from perpendicular metal surfaces. Backscattered ground echo from all kinds of topography is quite commonplace, especially in AP conditions.

B7:  Most devastating of all, why the heck didn't they IMMEDIATELY pick up a MASSIVE POWERFUL RETURN from this hypothetical mountain 200 miles away just as soon as they lowered the antenna boresight down from 70 degs (nearly overhead) to the HORIZON????  If they could "see" this when the radar sidelobe projected so little power through a supposed sidelobe, then why didn't they see this alleged (actually bogus and nonexistent) "mountain" EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK when they had FULL POWER not a mere sidelobe????  Now they would not have some purported hypothetical sidelobe only 1/1,000th (or whatever) of the main beam power but would have the MAIN BEAM POWER directed STRAIGHT AT THE PURPORTED 200-mile distant "mountain." 

B8:  Project MOGUL had almost a YEAR in which to discover this purported "mountain" 200 miles away and should have been able to tell AMC's Lt Col Beam "Why we quickly found out which mountain it was as soon as we lowered our antenna beam and we can find it now ALL THE TIME.  It's Mount Whatever-the-Hell in Northern Mexico at 204 miles [or 196 or whatever] miles and it is 10,000 ft high, and X miles SSW of El Paso, blah blah blah." 

Your repeated argument that they would have to have seen any distant mountain echo on radar in the same place all the time and would therefore be familar with it supposes that the same propagation conditions always obtain. They don't. Blah blah blah.

3) Remember that the apparent height is calculated from the antenna boresight elevation and the range, whatever the true elevation of the target in the sidelobe.
 
4) A displayed height of 200 miles = 200/sin 70deg = ~213 miles slant range. The normal 4/3-earth radar horizon at this range is approximately 20,000 ft, so only mountain peaks above this altitude could normally be picked up. But if there was anomalous propagation this "normal" horizon could be easily be halved.
 
5) Brad may be right that White Sands is completely surrounded by nearby mountain elevations that prevent this theoretical horizon being observed in any direction, in which case it's back to square one. My topographical maps of the area are not sufficiently detailed but I think this ought to be checked before declaring mountain sidelobe echoes impossible.
 
Martin
B9:  SEE ABOVE.  I am more interested in the fact that the GROUND range of a 70-deg beam with a 200-mile high target is 200 miles/tan 70 = 73 miles.  In other words the target would have been hovering in space 200 miles high over a spot about 73 miles away from Alamogordo Army Air Field (later Holloman AFB).  Considering that 200 miles is a rounded number, it could easily be 210 or even 220 miles and then the ground range could be 76-80 miles or more. 

B10:  You see, the Foster Ranch debris field (and any fairly close-by anomalous site) was about the same distance, about 85 miles away from Alamogordo. 

Well if you have a strong motive to read lots into this "report", then fine. I don't personally feel so overexcited by the strength of the the evidence for a radar UFO in this case. I'm struck by the fact that we have absolutely zero information on even the direction the echo (echoes) was (were) seen in, or for how long, or what the scope presentation was like. All we really know is that the observer who reported the incident wrote it off as a distant ground return.
 
Incidentally you can check out a book on your own shelf - Condon Report p.701 (Vision hardback edition). Radar heightfinder measurements of thunderstorm clouds studied by R.L.Smith in 1962 showed anomalous echoes at heights of 70,000' much too high above the storm tops. These echoes were eventually understood as ground clutter picked up in the heightfinder sidelobes. Obviously the two cases are only approximately parallel and this proves nothing. We just don't have enough to lift the case out of "insufficiemt info" IMO.
 
Martin
From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:27:19 EDT


Martin,

SEE BELOW. 

B20:  But let me preface this by saying that I am not necessarily arguing that there was a real object at 200 miles height above the earth, in outer space, at all.  I do not "believe in ETH" anyway, but I do recognize this case however weak it is, is nonetheless unique and unprecedented potentially DIRECT evidence of extraterrestrial UFO's (contrary to my anti-ETH position) since there were no manmade satellites or anything else at 200 miles up in space in 1947 and nothing even today that can stand still motionless at 200 miles. 

B21:  What I AM arguing is that certain AF operations, like Project MOGUL which did the tracking of the 200-mile high stationary object, BELIEVED that there was an object at 200 miles up and went to some effort to COVER IT UP by outright lying about it (but was caught redhanded and had to admit it) and by extraordinary evasion of official inquiries.  Two fairly high-level AMC people (Lt Col James C. Beam and Alfred Loedding the "brains" behind Project SIGN) make special arrangements in advance to fly out from Ohio to NM to interview Dr Peoples about the incident and then only when they arrive they find out Dr Peoples has conveniently LEFT and flown off to New Jersey, evidently to evade interview, and Lt Markley is strangely unavailable.  Not only is this incredibly rude behavior but it is potentially reportable offenses by personnel all under AMC's Commanding General McNarney, in effect defiance of Gen McNarney's orders making Project SIGN a Priority 1-A project, excusable only if superseded by higher classification orders, which is my point here.  MOGUL personnel had to leak the information in the first place, from one AMC unit (Project MOGUL) to another AMC unit (Project SIGN), since it was never officially reported as it should have been reported.  This in itself is very strange since this was all INTERNAL to AMC, Air Materiel Command (which is why I think is the only reason it leaked in the first place).  One would think that AMC units would be more cooperative amongst themselves than to lie and hide personnel from interview.  One gets the impression there was a behind-the-scenes struggle by AMC personnel on whether to tell the SIGN investigators the truth or how much of it to let out, because SIGN investigators had stumbled onto a highly classified operation.  This blatant evasion of an official investigation is virtually unprecedented in UFO history.  If one wanted to find telltale signs of a coverup this is exactly the kind of thing one should look for, all hidden in classified files never meant to go public. 

B22:  These are in effect "hostile witnesses" making "admissions against interest," making their admissions of greater evidential weight than in ordinary circumstances where the stakes are much less, and making their attempts to deny or explain away the admissions against interest as merely efforts to cover up and thus are strongly suspect as false.  Project MOGUL acted as if there were high stakes involved and made this a dramatic case, thus unintentionally signaling its belief in its true importance, when if they really truly thought among themselves in the privacy of their own thoughts and discussions that it was merely a ghost echo of a distant mountain then they could have short-circuited the whole thing right at the start in April 1948 when the 200-mile-high radar track first leaked to Project SIGN by SAYING THE HELL SO (and by telling Lt Markley first of all, but he was NEVER told this bullshit, because they thought they could trust him and could speak freely to him as a fellow project officer and never imagined he would reveal what he knew).  It took MONTHS of effort by Project SIGN to track down these lying and evasive MOGUL personnel, when SIGN was busy with many other matters, the amount of effort at pursuit and the amount of effort at evasion testifies to the high stakes that were involved.  Project MOGUL demonstrated hostility and evasion with its repeated lying to the SIGN investigators (even on the whereabouts of its own Director and other personnel) and pulling dirty underhanded tricks of making Lt Col Beam and Loedding fly all the way out to NM and then jerking them around (I suspect Dr Peoples knowing in advance that Lt Col Beam and Loedding were coming all the way from Ohio then DELIBERATELY flew off to NJ without telling Lt Col Beam and Loedding, just to FRUSTRATE THEM and get them to lose interest without even having to talk to them or give them a madeup cover story;  Lt Col Beam finally gets Peoples IN ALABAMA). 

B23:  When they do finally get hold of Rosmovski, in NJ at AMC's Watson Labs in JUNE 1948, he first LIES his head off denying that ANY SUCH 200-mile tracking ever occurred.  THEN when that didn't wash in view of Lt Markley nailing him cold with a signed statement with details of what Rosmovski had said in private (and under security control) to Lt Markley back in Aug 1947 about the 200-mile high stationary targets, Rosmovski resorts to confabulating a desperate excuse obviously trying to explain away the whole thing as a "ghost pip" and mumbles about side scattering and "gypsum sands" and other rot and sheer nonsense ANYTHING to get Project SIGN off his back and to DROP THE WHOLE MATTER as just a MISTAKE.  You can feel the tension and the drama oozing from the official reports of the interview and the chasing done to get the interview.  And one must also consider that Lt Markley as an AF officer was subject to court martial and thus perhaps felt more pressure to tell the truth, whereas Mr. Rosmovski as a civilian contractor was not subject to miliyary discipline and court martial, and hence could get away with lying with less fear of adverse consequences than an AF officer.  Thus much more evidential weight should be placed on Lt Markley's statement than in ordinary situations, and Rosmovski's statements must be sifted carefully to distinguish his admissions against interest (which should be given much greater weight) and his self-serving statements benefitting his interests (which should be discounted). 

B24:  And that leads into another aspect that I can't get into here:  And that is that the CPS-4 radar had been specially "modified" for the specific purpose of extending its 90-mile range to some 250 miles and to point it straight up into outer space to look for targets -- and then it did exactly what it was specially designed to do. 


In a message dated 5/9/2005 11:41:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk writes:

Subj: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: 5/9/2005 11:41:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk
Reply-to: shg@ns2.txbs.net
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Sent from the Internet



Brad wrote:


B1:  The CPS-4 height-finding radar apparently had only a 4-degree wide beam not 10 degrees.  However it was pointed almost straight up (70 degs elevation) and picking up "targets" at about 200 miles altitude.  There is "nothing" that should be "out there" to reflect a near-perpendicular incidence radar beam in 1947.  There are no "mountains" 200 miles high or 1,000,000 feet tall.


M. I think the words used include "objects" and "ghost pip". As I said, the theory assumes echoes in sidelobes at low elevation not at the main beam elevation. They would obviously _display_ at the main beam elevation.


B25:  Martin, I can't cram the entire discussion into one long paragraph, and most readers on this list are unfamiliar with radar concepts so certain points need to be reiterated before they are completely lost (e.g., that the "targets" or single alleged "ghost pip" was displayed as if nearly overhead at 200 miles up).  You started out with target resolution, not with sidelobes, so that's what I'm addressing here, then sidelobes below.  But one thing that concerns me is that because I cannot cram all argument into one lead paragraph, that the arguments that I make that ARE relevant but occur farther down the page are not getting considered HERE where they are needed. 

B26:  Let me further explain for the other readers that IF the "target" is NOT 200 miles in HEIGHT nearly straight up but a ghost echo of a distant mountain on the distant horizon from an extremely weak sidelobe or backlobe of the radar antenna, then that mountain would have to be at 200 miles DISTANCE instead of HEIGHT.  Oftentimes when experts start talking about "anomalous" this, and "ghost echo" that, laypeople may assume that just anything goes and anything is possible it's all just a jumble of technical mumbojumbo.  But that 200 miles HEIGHT if in error does not just become any number, it MUST by the laws of physics then be a 200-mile DISTANCE and that then must correspond to a particular mountain that can be located by examining topo maps of the region. 

B27:  And the radar beam has to have a place where it can get through the nearby mountain ranges that almost completely enclose the White Sands valley in a bowl where the CPS-4 radar was located (at the North Hangar of then Alamogordo Army Air Field in Aug 1947 later renamed Holloman AFB in 1948).  And there has to be an explanation why these NEARBY MOUNTAINS do NOT get picked up by the radar beam while ONLY the distant mountain supposedly does (please don't discuss anomalous propagation HERE but only far BELOW where there is room to discuss it).  And then an explanation why the alleged distant mountain was only detected once or twice in the alleged (not even known to exist) hypothetical weak backlobe of the radar but NOT detected when the main power beam was aimed STRAIGHT at the mountain as the antenna repeatedly rotated (please don't respond until the next sentence is read and then only well BELOW where there is room) --  Any CPS-4 operator who suspects a sidelobe or backlobe reflection instead of a real target (and who can't instantly see the return is OBVIOUSLY WEAK) can simply TILT the ANTENNA to a different elevation angle and see if the target disappears, or see if it reappears and reappears STRONGLY when the main high power beam is pointed STRAIGHT AT the actual "target" and that "target" turns out to be a mountain at a specific distance and indicated altitude that is radically DIFFERENT from the initial target display.  THAT way the CPS-4 operator would know IMMEDIATELY if anomalous propagation had played a trick.  To track the MOGUL balloons the radar antenna HAD to be pointed almost HORIZONTALLY instead of vertically, so the MOGUL people certainly knew how to adjust the tilt control and they certainly did it ALL THE TIME when continuously trying to adjust the tilt of the radar antenna trying to keep their balloons within the center of the radar beam, since they had trouble detecting their balloons by radar (and eventually gave up in favor of transponders).  Height-finding data was of extreme importance to Project MOGUL because the whole purpose of the assertedly TOP SECRET project was to try to get instrumented balloons to stay within the special acoustic channel at around 50,000 ft where they thought that acoustic shock waves of a Soviet nuclear explosion would optimally be transmitted worldwide. 

B28:  So let me stress once again that all Project MOGUL had to do to explain this was to say it was just a radar sidelobe or backlobe echo from a SPECIFIC NAMED MOUNTAIN at X miles distance (around 200 miles, let's say 196 or 204 or whatever) at Y azimuth or compass heading with a peak height of Z thousand feet (10,000 ft or whatever).  Please do not respond to this without dealing with the NEXT paragraph too, as I would anticipate a response claiming that well they just didn't bother or just didn't get around to it, and that response won't wash but the explanation why it won't wash would make this paragraph too long, and already I have too many long paragraphs.

B29:  Project MOGUL constantly had to refer to aeronautical charts covering wide regions of many hundreds of miles in order to track the whereabouts of their errant constant-level balloon flights and to do it in REAL-TIME so Communications Officers such as Lt Markley could radio the CHASE PLANES and ground-based CHASE TEAMS on where to go or look if they lost sight of the balloons.  So MOGUL personnel like Rosmovski were not only familiar with the process of projecting their radar tracks over long distances onto aeronautical charts but it was a REQUIRED part of their jobs.  Hence when Rosmovski found a target at 200 miles height when the antenna of his CPS-4 (Modified) was pointed up at 70 degs, if he truly believed it was simply a backlobe or sidelobe reflecting off a distant mountain he should have easily found the mountain on his aeronautical charts which he was used to doing all the time and SPECIFIED WHICH MOUNTAIN AT 200 MILES DISTANCE.  Rosmovski however NEVER SAID to Lt Markley it was a ghost reflection of a distant mountain in the first place -- if he had then the whole damned thing would never have been reported to Project SIGN at all.  Lt Col Beam and Alfred Loedding would never have had to bother chasing MOGUL personnel all over the U.S. trying to hunt down what was OBVIOUSLY an extremely important radar tracking of very sensational import. 

B30:  Also your italicizing is completely lost on the first conversion to ASCII text.  I had to add underscores to preserve it (and probably missed some).  I use CAPS for emphasis in ASCII text email instead and don't give a rat's ass what people think of it. 


B2:  More importantly, to address your counterargument headon, I contend that a "mountain range" target would be broad and diffuse, not a discrete "target" like some aircraft or spacecraft. 

M. It probably would be diffuse, but it might not be. Also I don't see any description of an echo presentation that says "aircraft or spacecraft" to me - just a vaguely described echo of some kind that apparently didn't move but appeared and disappeared in place. A mountain summit area might be neatly "selected" by appearing above the anaprop radar horizon. In any case we are guessing as to the echo presentation based only on inferences about someone's usage of the word "target". I don't think that's necessarily reliable.
 


B31:  Well then we should easily be able to find a suitable "mountain summit area" -- maybe a Pike's Peak ! ! -- at around 200 miles range at a direction where the radar beam can get through the mountain barriers surrounding Alamogordo on almost all sides.  Project MOGUL should have been able to find that suitable "mountain summit area" back in 1947.  Take out a chart compass and draw a 200-mile circle around the radar station.  Look for holes in the surrounding mountains to let a radar beam through, hugging the horizon for long range, because the earth's curvature drops miles below the 0-degrees horizon level at long distances like 200 miles -- again assuming only for sake of argument that the 200 miles was not straight up into space as was originally reported but was some sidelobe or backlobe of the radar illuminating an alleged mountain in the distant horizon. 

B32:  For all the reasons of this being testimony of "hostile witnesses" making "admissions against interest," the issue here becomes what was against interest and what was of self-serving interest.  It was self-serving interest for Rosmovski to explain away what he had first tried just (unsuccessfully) lying about never even happening at all, then resorting to FALLBACK STORIES when that didn't work.  Hence we can make reasonable inferences about the radar echo presentation:  It had to be like an "aircraft" target echo presentation because it was in Project MOGUL's self-serving interest for it to have been merely "vague" or "intermittent" or "diffuse" or "weak" radar echoes on the screen AND THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO right from the outset.  But Rosmovski NEVER said the radar echo presentation was "vague" or "intermittent" or "diffuse" or "weak."  The whole problem eas to explain how an apparently normal-looking aircraft-like target could be up at 200 miles altitude, and that was why it was reported to Project SIGN in the first place. 



If we choose to ignore the fact the radar was pointed out into space we still have the problem that there is no mountain range "target" smaller than the 14-mile horizontal resolution of the CPS-4 radar beam at 200 miles.
 
I'm not "choosing to ignore" this, and I don't wish to echo a combative tone either, but I specifically pointed out the elevation angle question in relation to sidelobes, and once again the point is that only eminences that rise above the expanded radar horizon would return echoes.


B33:  You misunderstand what I was saying Martin.  I wasn't being "combative."  If I had infinite time and unlimited space to reword things just right maybe I could have said "If for sake of argument only, we choose here to set aside the fact that [etc.]," but ad arguendo was what I was trying to say and that's it, nothing more.  And now don't interpret the word "argument" as being "combative" either!  :)  Again, I don't want to cram a whole sidelobe/backlobe argument HERE, but it should be dealt with BELOW where it belongs. 


You can pull out any relief map and look around in all directions from Alamogordo for some isolated mountain (smaller than 14 miles in width) or two that could stick out at around 200 miles from Alamogordo and THERE ARE NONE.  And even if there were it would still run into the problem that Alamogordo is in a bowl or valley between multiple mountains ranges at about 15-50 and 100+ miles away, trapping and blocking radar beams from getting out to 200 miles (with one exception to be mentioned below).  Why weren't these mountains at 15-50 and 100 miles away picked up on the radar???
 
I don't know what was or was not picked up exactly, but maybe they were. Every radar site has its local fixed ground echoes that operators expect to see. If you happen to know that the azimuth your RHI antenna is pointing is usually free of local mountain echoes then, with the antenna elevated as well, a mountain echo might not spring to mind.


B34:  If all sorts of ground clutter and diffuse echoes of terrain at 15-50 and 100 miles were picked up along with the hypothetically very similar 200-mile targets (if actually due to MOUNTAINS) then THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID SO instead of forcing Project SIGN to send key personnel all over the United States hunting them down for interview for gawd sakes!  And when finally tracked down they SHOULD HAVE SAID SO!!!  They should have said "Gosh we get these mountain reflections off backlobes and sidelobes all the time and we know what they look like.  In fact all we have to do is point the antenna straight towards the right direction on the HORIZON and we get the SAME TARGETS we picked up at what we THOUGHT was 200 miles up, ONLY STRONGER now because we point the main beam at it and now showing at 200 miles DISTANCE instead of HEIGHT thus proving the true identity of the target.  And by golly it turns out there IS a MOUNTAIN out about 200 [or 196, or 207 or WHATEVER] miles at around azimuth X degrees, to the West of here [or wherever], and it is 10,000 [or 12,000 or WHATEVER] feet high."  That's all they needed to say.  The fact they did NOT indicates:

(a) they were hiding something (hold on till we get to "c")
(b) they were hiding something that had inadvertently leaked out, and
(c) they had not thought through a good cover story because they kept thinking they had already successfully thrown Project SIGN off the trail WEEKS OR MONTHS EARLIER and then Rosmovksi was caught off guard at Watson Labs in Red Bank, NJ, when SIGN found him there on June 3/4, 1948 (apparently this time not telling anyone in advance that they were coming, no advance teletypes or letters are in the file for that trip as there were for the May 5 trip to NM). 



B3:  The only "hole" in the multiple array of mountains around Alamogordo that I can find after many hours scouring topo maps is to the SSW over El Paso. 

Yes I could see that was a possibility on my own maps. But again, as I said, if it is truly the case that there are no possible radar lines of sight to areas of high ground at around 200 miles then the theory evidently doesn't fly.

But at 200 miles range in northern Mexico there is no isolated mountain or two that sticks out that could possibly be discrete "targets."  Just a gradually sloping plateau of increasing elevation and HUNDREDS OF MILES IN EXTENT.  Such a broad plateau should have formed numerous broadly diffuse targets at many different distances besides just the 200 miles distance and OBVIOUSLY LOOKING LIKE GROUND CLUTTER.
 
Again, I don't find this "discrete target" or targets in the documents. Markley speaks of several "echoes" or "objects"; Rosmovski was the actual observer, and he does describe a single "ghost pip", but then he's the one who himself explained it as a mountain echo in what Col.Beam (nicely named!) calls a "side wave" = sidelobe. (Incidentally I have no idea what the radar "crazing" is that was "caused by the gypsum sands" west of Holloman. Maybe Rosmovski said something about "grazing angles" and that got garbled?)
 
The isolation of the echo would be as much a function of the cut-off due to the radar horizon as of the terrain itself. I wouldn't care to guess exactly what the scope "should have" looked like if shifting AP conditions had brought some remote terrain into view. Anyway surely the whole point is that whatever it did or did not look like an unwary operator would not expect ground clutter on an RHI scope elevated to 70 degrees - this is where the sidelobe echo comes in. Arguably, Rosmovski was pretty savvy and suspected a sidelobe echo, whilst others less experienced made the incident into a mysterious rumour.
 
Other evidence may persuade you that Rosmovski was fibbing because he really believed he tracked a UFO, but considered on its own merits as a radar case this one is pretty weak.

B4:  And that brings up an even more devastating problem:  Why on earth would a radar beam reflect BACKWARDS from such a gradually upward sloping terrain????  It would if anything almost entirely FORWARD SCATTER the radar energy further out into space NEVER TO COME BACK!!!
 
M2) The boresight elevation of the antenna at the time was 70 degrees but this is the angle of the main beam. There are sidelobes due to the spillover radiation. A typical antenna might emit something like 1/000th of the power of the mainlobe as spillover, pointing basically sideways, and when the antenna is turned on its side as a heightfinder this spillover reflects from the ground and modifies the gain into a series of long lobes. It's possible that the pattern had a long lobe many degrees away from the boresight near the horizon. Note that 1/1000th of the main beam power doesn't sound like much but a mountain (or mountain range) would have a very large echoing area. This mountain sidelobe echo could be comparable to that of a target with 1/000th the cross-section of a mountain in the main beam.


B5:  If we were talking about METAL TARGETS like aircraft and UFO's then YEAH maybe we could get get a WEAK RETURN from a remote sidelobe off of such METAL TARGETS if possibly 1/1,000th strength of the central beam's peak power (but most sidelobes are just several degrees off central boresight not 70-90 degrees off or at right angles!).


This is misleading. We can't say anything conclusive about the antenna design here, but as I said the typical spillover radiation emitted basically sideways (as seen along the rotation axis in plan) might easily be comparable to the first sidelobe over an angle of maybe 10 degrees. With the antenna over on its side this means there's a lot of energy radiated towards the ground and the actual gain pattern is determined by the way this reflects and interferes with the main beam, so you get vertical lobing. I have no idea what the VPD of this radar would be in this particular case, - it's dependent on the free-space pattern, the height of the antenna above ground, the nature of the terrain and a whole bunch of stuff none of us has any information about.

B6:  But as I pointed out in B4 above, how on earth could you get ANY DETECTABLE RETURN off of a NON-METALLIC MOUNTAIN that is sloping AWAY from the radar beam so if it scatters ANYTHING it is scattered still farther out into space???  The mountain surface is not at right angles, it's NOT a CLIFF FACE. 


You don't only get echoes from perpendicular metal surfaces. Backscattered ground echo from all kinds of topography is quite commonplace, especially in AP conditions.


B35:  Those backscattered ground echoes are WEAK and DIFFUSE (spread over a WIDE AREA MANY MILES in extent) and NOT SHARP AIRCRAFT-like target echoes. 


B7:  Most devastating of all, why the heck didn't they IMMEDIATELY pick up a MASSIVE POWERFUL RETURN from this hypothetical mountain 200 miles away just as soon as they lowered the antenna boresight down from 70 degs (nearly overhead) to the HORIZON????  If they could "see" this when the radar sidelobe projected so little power through a supposed sidelobe, then why didn't they see this alleged (actually bogus and nonexistent) "mountain" EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK when they had FULL POWER not a mere sidelobe????  Now they would not have some purported hypothetical sidelobe only 1/1,000th (or whatever) of the main beam power but would have the MAIN BEAM POWER directed STRAIGHT AT THE PURPORTED 200-mile distant "mountain."

B8:  Project MOGUL had almost a YEAR in which to discover this purported "mountain" 200 miles away and should have been able to tell AMC's Lt Col Beam "Why we quickly found out which mountain it was as soon as we lowered our antenna beam and we can find it now ALL THE TIME.  It's Mount Whatever-the-Hell in Northern Mexico at 204 miles [or 196 or whatever] miles and it is 10,000 ft high, and X miles SSW of El Paso, blah blah blah." 

Your repeated argument that they would have to have seen any distant mountain echo on radar in the same place all the time and would therefore be familar with it supposes that the same propagation conditions always obtain. They don't. Blah blah blah.


B36:  Go back up to paras. B27 and B29, where I point out that Project MOGUL radar operators had to TILT the radar antennas in REAL-TIME to help track their targets so the admittedly "pretty savvy" Rosmovski who knew about sidelobes and anomalous propagation would have been able to see INSTANTLY what the situation was by tilting the radar antenna WHILE THE ALLEGED ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION CONDITIONS STILL EXISTED (if they existed at all, it's all hypothetical).  In fact Lt Markley implies that the unidentified targets at 200 miles altitude were ONLY detected "WHEN ... the angle of elevation of the Radar antenna was approximately 70 degrees from horizontal," and apparently were NOT "seen" when the antenna was pointed at lower angles like say at the "HORIZONTAL."  Again this is pulling an admission against interest out of Lt Markley, who while more forthcoming than Rosmovski was nevertheless making only grudging admissions (and being weasel-worded and somewhat evasive, as against totally evasive).  As I see it, Lt Markley DID personally see the 200-mile high targets on the CPS-4 radar screen but relied on Rosmovski for the details, and by Markley evading a direct interview with SIGN investigators he gave only a limited story where he could not be "cross examined" to clarify.  Markley took advantage of the initial error in the report that SIGN heard that Markley had seen the "excessive speed" UFO on radar when it was actually his visual-only sighting that involved a high-speed disc object.  Markley used this understandable confusion of two separate incidents to make a weasel-worded denial that he had seen a HIGH-SPEED RADAR target and thus evade discussing what he DID SEE on radar, at that point changing the subject to what Rosmovski TOLD HIM HE (Rosmovski) had seen on the radar. 



3) Remember that the apparent height is calculated from the antenna boresight elevation and the range, whatever the true elevation of the target in the sidelobe.

4) A displayed height of 200 miles = 200/sin 70deg = ~213 miles slant range. The normal 4/3-earth radar horizon at this range is approximately 20,000 ft, so only mountain peaks above this altitude could normally be picked up. But if there was anomalous propagation this "normal" horizon could be easily be halved.

5) Brad may be right that White Sands is completely surrounded by nearby mountain elevations that prevent this theoretical horizon being observed in any direction, in which case it's back to square one. My topographical maps of the area are not sufficiently detailed but I think this ought to be checked before declaring mountain sidelobe echoes impossible.

Martin

B9:  SEE ABOVE.  I am more interested in the fact that the GROUND range of a 70-deg beam with a 200-mile high target is 200 miles/tan 70 = 73 miles.  In other words the target would have been hovering in space 200 miles high over a spot about 73 miles away from Alamogordo Army Air Field (later Holloman AFB).  Considering that 200 miles is a rounded number, it could easily be 210 or even 220 miles and then the ground range could be 76-80 miles or more. 

B10:  You see, the Foster Ranch debris field (and any fairly close-by anomalous site) was about the same distance, about 85 miles away from Alamogordo. 

Well if you have a strong motive to read lots into this "report", then fine. I don't personally feel so overexcited by the strength of the the evidence for a radar UFO in this case. I'm struck by the fact that we have absolutely zero information on even the direction the echo (echoes) was (were) seen in, or for how long, or what the scope presentation was like. All we really know is that the observer who reported the incident wrote it off as a distant ground return.


B37:  The "strong motives" are not mine but Project MOGUL's in repeatedly lying to and evading Project SIGN investigators in 1948.  Again, as I said in paras. B20-24 at the start, I don't "believe in ETH" and I am less interested in what the actual radar targets were all about than I am in what was being covered up, and why, and what the AAF/AF was THINKING (even if wrong even if they soon changed their minds) in August 1947, and April-June 1948.  The AAF/AF is tipping off what they really think by its policy BEHAVIOR, which can reveal things at extremely classified levels that are not going to be explicitly revealed in words in print or conversation and cannot be entirely covered up. 

B38:  Rosmovski tried to imply that the 200-mile high target or alleged "ghost" pip was to the WEST without directly saying so (he talked about radar reflections off the "gypsum sands" to the WEST at what I agree must be the phrase "grazing" angles not "crazing" someone misheard it phonetically).  I interpret that to mean as a grudging admission against interest that he was trying to hide something and that he thought he could rationalize that a target actually in EAST might be falsely explained away as due to a radar BACKLOBE off to the WEST and that way it's just MISLEADING and not a COMPLETE LIE.  In either case West or East, the 200-mile high target was certainly NOT to the South where the only hole out of the mountain barriers exists that I can find (over and beyond El Paso into N Mexico).  And remember a cardinal direction like East is actually ±45º so it can be NE or SE, etc.

B39:  As I said in B9, an approximately 200-mile high target at 70º elevation angle is about 70-80 miles away ground distance.  Guess what lies about 80 miles to the NE of Alamogordo?  ROSWELL DEBRIS FIELD VICINITY.  In August 1947 just a MONTH later. 


From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:17:50 +0100

Brad
 
I understand why you don't want interpolated comments to fragment and de-contextualise what is a complicated and subtle argument. I couldn't respond comprehensively without writing a long essay and I don't have time. Suffice to say that your hypothesis is interesting and kind of plausible but there are still several places where I'd have to say "Well, yes, but . . !" In the end, an implied echo position at ~80 miles ground range W of the radar _could_ be a cunning feint to cover up a true position E of the radar, and that position _could_ be related to an incident a month later 80 miles NE of the radar etc. But _if_ the two ground locations were the same I'd then like to see a good reason why whatever was at 200 miles directly above this spot in May would be geostationary for at least weeks, non-ETH, and causally related to a debris field directly below it in June. What "falls" 200 miles through the atmosphere on a straight plumb-line radius through the center of the earth? Interesting questions . . .


From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:52:12 EDT

Martin,

My impression is that the unidentified target at 200 miles height was seen only on one day, not for "weeks," in Aug 1947 a month after the Roswell incident, not in "May," with the possible ground zero about 80 miles to the NE of Alamagordo, not far from the Roswell Debris Field.

Brad


From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:03:32 +0100

Brad
 
Yeah, sorry I got the dates mixed up in haste. But the point remains: The rough area of the Roswell debris field is about 80 miles from the radar, and the approximate point on the ground 200 miles directly underneath this apparent radar target is _somewhere_ on a 500-mile circumference circle also about 80 miles from the radar, but a month later. Even if these two ground positions are the same, what is the causal connection being proposed here? 
 
There is only the vaguest possible suggestion of a radar azimuth in the report - west - and that has to be extracted by inference. It is in the wrong direction for Roswell, so we then speculate that this obscure clue is actually a devious double-bluff which must mean that the echo was really in the east, and east is within a 45-degree error bar of the position of Roswell (NE). This seems like tortuous special pleading to me without a strong independent reason to suspect that strange objects (non-ET you say) ought to have been hanging stationary 200 miles above the Roswell site a month after the event. I evidently just don't understand the background that compells you to construe things in this way.
 
Actually I'm not even convinced that the documents do establish that Rosmovski's radar echo occurred in Aug 1947. This date is given for one of Lt. Markley's visual observations, which had occurred "on several occasions" prior to May 1948. But nowhere is it explicitly stated (I think) that this visual event coincided with the radar event, only that Markley was working with Rosmovski and that Rosmovski told him he had seen an unidentified stationary echo. Markley himself (to be relatively trusted, you suggest) points out that there appears to have been some conflation of his own purely visual sightings with the radar report, which he says he only had second hand from Rosmovski. Aren't we perpetuationg this conflation? Note that Markley does remark in connection with his Aug 1947 sighting that they were experimenting with an SCR-270 radar at this time in Aug 1947, but does not take the opportunity to even mention the CPS-4 radar at all. Why, if this was involved? The only other date given anywhere is 05 April 1948 for the three-man visual about which Beam and Loedding interviewed Dr. Peoples' staff. Beam and Loedding were reportedly there to assess whether the "frequency" of events in the area warranted attention and were trawling through a number of events on a variety of dates. So unless I'm missing something (it wouldn't be the first time!) the connection to Roswell looks pretty thin to me both in space and time.
 
Best
Martin

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:53:25 EDT


Martin,

It is Markley himself who specifies it was a CPS-4 (Modified).  He was there and just because he was not the radar operator sitting in front of the screen (that was Rosmovski) but the Comm Officer next to him communicating the radar plots by radio doesn't make him a 2nd-hand witness, as much as he tried to insinuate that to weasel-word himself into a lower profile on the case. 

Project MOGUL had the use of at least 5 radars modified for extended range, 2 SCR-270's, an SCR-584, a CPS-4 and a CPS-5, and I have teletypes from Project MOGUL in July 1947 describing their tracking of V-2's up to 100 miles height using 4 of these radars all listed in the message(s).  So I don't understand your point about how mention of the SCR-270 negates the existence of the CPS-4. 

The date MUST be August 1947 because Project MOGUL soon thereafter dropped the use of radar skin-tracking and went to transponders using entirely different equipment, and thus the date cannot possibly be 1948.  MOGUL only experimented with radar tracking of its balloons in the Summer of 1947 and thereafter dropped it as unworkable. 

There is no "causal" relation being suggested by time-travel or otherwise between Roswell in July 1947 and an unidentified stationary radar target hovering at 200 miles altitude possibly over the Roswell Debris Field in August 1947.  However, if you were familiar with Roswellology, you might have noticed that the most credible testimony by "admissions against interest" comes from the CIC/OSI agents who reported that Dr Lincoln LaPaz had been enlisted in August 1947 to determine the trajectory of the Roswell object, and that "they" or an object came back seeming to be looking for the crashed vehicle (even though none of the CIC agents testified to finding a crashed ship or alien bodies, which in my mind makes their testimony highly credible because they "admit against interest" there WERE unexplainable traces in the desert and that LaPaz was involved in trajectory reconstruction, just not a spaceship or dead bodies).  The radar tracking might have led them to jump to such a conclusion that an object had returned to look for the crashed or exploded object -- even if the radar track was all just an anomalous propagation target -- what I am concerned about is what THEY THOUGHT it was IN 1947, not what it ACTUALLY WAS.  I am convinced that they later changed their minds.

Anyway there is a lot more involving radars and visual networks in that region in that time period that puts this 200-mile event into a connected context, but which I cannot go into here.

Brad

 

From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:17:08 +0100

Brad
I'm not saying that Markley's remarks "negate the existence of the CPS-4" - I'm talking about dates. Yes I know Markley refers to the CPS-4, but not in the context of the report of his own (visual) sighting, and _that sighting_ is what is dated to August 1947. The Rosmovski radar report does not explicitly have a date, and my point was that Markley does not mention the CPS-4 or Rosmovski in the context of his August 1947 sighting. He does mention them, but with no date attached, and in the context of a request for info which is not date-specific but is interested in the overall frequency of incidents up to and including the recent events of April 1948. In the incident where a date is supplied (or approximately - "latter part of  Aug 1947") Markley is talking about his visual and only mentions radar _at all_ to say that they were working with the SCR-270. If the CPS-4 radar echo was coincident with this visual why ignore that fact and talk about the irrelevant 720? I don't see any evidence _here_ (and BTW you now have to correct the spelling of "Hollowman" to Holloman to get that NICAP page up) that these events happened at the same time, that's all I'm saying.
 
That being so, it seems to me there is no longer any evidence of a coincidence in time with Roswell (or with the La Paz study that you now mention), and the remaining coincidence in space alone is VERY tenuous indeed. In fact there is no spatial coincidence at all - even the most favourable and very speculative interpretation of the radar echo would put it 200 miles from the RDF. That's 200 miles straight up! Why should that be significant (neither launch nor impact trajectories being vertical of course)? Well I assume you are implying that the AAF believed an ET surveillance of the RDF might have been underway. Or did somebody want somebody to believe in ET surveillance so it would be brushed off, to cover up something else? I can buy such scenarios in principle, but I just don't see evidence here. As there is no good evidence of coincidence in time or space it seems simpler to me to conclude that neither the radar echo nor the investigation of it had anything specific to do with Roswell. But I look forward to one day reading the strong case you can make for a connection. I think you must have a very comprehensive "alternative history" of this era, and probably all eras, that needs to see the light of day.
 
Martin

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net

Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:57:31 EDT


Martin,

The impression I get from Markley's statement is that he was trying to explain the actual origin of the excessive-speed UFO incident in August 1947 and how it got confused with the 200-mile high motionless UFO incident in the same time frame August 1947, where he was the direct witness of the former and could supply more specifics and was only an indirect witness for the latter and recommended that Rosmovski be interviewed.  You can argue for one paragraph of the statement technically being construed alone (without reading the next paragraph) as having a dateless 200-mile incident but construing that paragraph with the next paragraph's Auguat 1947 date, as I do, is a construction supported by the external facts outside that document that Project MOGUL abandoned use of radar after the Summer of 1947, so the 200-mile high radar tracking could not have been made in 1948.  And a Summer 1947 date thus supports the impression I get of Markley's purpose as stated above. 

Quite technically, one could also argue that the 200-mile high radar track might have occurred in July 1947 AT THE TIME OF THE ROSWELL INCIDENT (after all I have teletype documentary proof that Project MOGUL had the CPS-4 in July 1947), since only a post-Summer 1947 date is eliminated by MOGUL's abandonment of radar tracking at the end of Summer 1947 so any date DURING the Summer is open.  But I've taken the more reasonable route of interpreting Markley's paragraphs together and construing an August 1947 date. 

The only "gypsum sands" were to the WEST of the Alamogordo (Holloman) base.  A backlobe radar explanation based on the purported reflective properties of such "gypsum sand" will only work for radar "ghost pips" to the W or to the E and about equally probable since the angular difference is not much greater when dealing with a radar target that is ALMOST STRAIGHT UP.  So you only have two choices, W or E, and ±45º azimuth.  Because of Rosmovski's proven lies and evasiveness I interpret his mention of the "gypsum sands" to the W as an implication that the 200-mile radar target was slightly over to the E, where by weasel-wording he didn't have to outright lie this time (after just getting caught in the lie) just mislead a little.  I could be wrong but that's how I interpret it.

My policy history study has turned up quite a lot on this issue as well as on later eras.

Brad

From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:50:15 +0100

Brad
I agree this is a possible interpretation, I just don't find it unambiguous on the internal evidence. But if there is a subtext revealed in collateral evidence then so be it. I take your point about the bracketed dates of use of radar for MOGUL purposes (although, is it necessarily the case that the CPS-4 was physically removed and/or completely disused when the main balloon-tracking function was abandoned?).
 
One point about the radar reflection issue: You shouldn't infer that "reflective gypsum sands" implies a diametrically opposite mirroring of a target detected behind the radar in a backlobe. As I read it what Rosmovski is talking about (garbled by Beam and Loedding) is what I was talking about before - the constructive/destructive interference of wavefronts due to "grazing" angle reflections from the level terrain in the direction the antenna is pointing.
 
Remember this is an RHI like a surveillance fan beam turned over on its side. When the antenna is angled steeply up there is spillover radiation (not a reciprocal backlobe - this would not interfere with the freespace pattern of the main beam and would have no part in generating the lobe structure) coming out maybe 90-100 degrees from the elevation angle of the main beam (which would be "sideways" if you flipped the antenna back over onto a surveillance axis) and scattering off the ground. This radiation is bounced back up where it interferes with the main beam and generates a vertical pattern of lobes and nulls that we can't begin to calculate because it will change all the time with varying boresight elevation (unlike with a fixed elevation surveillance set) and depends on other variables like the height above ground etc.
 
But sometimes it might happen that the antenna is sited such that at a certain critical boresight angle the bottom lobe of the resulting coverage pattern becomes very extended (this is exactly how extended low cover is deliberately produced in many surveillance radars). Normally you might not get much echo from this side(bottom)lobe, or if you do it might be familiar clutter - you ignore the splotch of 50-mile echo because that's the San Andres mountains and they always show up. But if you have this extended lobe occurring in AP conditions energy might be ducted to remote reflectors and produce echoes that you wouldn't normally expect.
 
Now of course, if the radar really was facing the nearby San Andres mountain barrier to the west then to understand how a sidelobe echo could return from a mountain 200 miles away near the Arizona border we'd have to assume some pretty unusual propagation conditions. But they aren't necessarily impossible. If San Andres crest is (say) 5000 ft above local datum and 50 miles away then its elevation at Holloman isn't much over 1.0 (one) degree. This is low enough for a layer of refractive index discontinuity above the mountain level to intercept radar energy from Holloman at a grazing incidence (another possible origin of the Beam/Loedding "crazing" solecism) and duct or forward-scatter it to around 200 miles where high peaks thereabouts - like Whitewater Baldy at around 11000 ft MSL - to pick one, could conceivably return isolated echoes.
 
I'm not saying this did happen. But it might have, and Rosmovski, the man on the spot, said it did. He obviously knew enough to make such a phony explanation convincing if he wanted Beam and Loedding off his case. But if so then it was a _plausible_ lie.
 
Martin

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net


In a message dated 5/12/2005 3:47:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk writes:

I agree this is a possible interpretation, I just don't find it unambiguous on the internal evidence. But if there is a subtext revealed in collateral evidence then so be it. I take your point about the bracketed dates of use of radar for MOGUL purposes (although, is it necessarily the case that the CPS-4 was physically removed and/or completely disused when the main balloon-tracking function was abandoned?).

<BIG SNIP>


Martin,

Sorry I can only give a quick response -- very late here!  Rosmovski was exclusively MOGUL so if he was working the CPS-4 at Holloman/Alamogordo it was only for MOGUL and thus the date could not be after Summer 1947 when MOGUL dropped radars and went to transponders.  That's why he had to be interviewed at Watson Labs in NJ in 1948 where most MOGUL work was done. 

I understand your radar AP points but I find it unbelievable that Rosmovski being so "very savvy" didn't just turn the antenna tilt and make the 200-mile high target disappear if it was just a ghost of a 200-mile distant mountain, given that the antenna tilt control was used almost constantly.  All those sensitive nulls and peaks you mentioned would evaporate with the slightest change in tilt. 

Brad


From: "Martin Shough" <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <shg@ns2.txbs.net>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:25:49 +0100

Brad wrote: "Sorry I can only give a quick response -- very late here!  Rosmovski was exclusively MOGUL so if he was working the CPS-4 at Holloman/Alamogordo it was only for MOGUL and thus the date could not be after Summer 1947 when MOGUL dropped radars and went to transponders.  That's why he had to be interviewed at Watson Labs in NJ in 1948 where most MOGUL work was done."
 
M. OK, fair enough

Brad: "I understand your radar AP points but I find it unbelievable that Rosmovski being so "very savvy" didn't just turn the antenna tilt and make the 200-mile high target disappear if it was just a ghost of a 200-mile distant mountain, given that the antenna tilt control was used almost constantly."
 
M. Maybe that's exactly what he did. Maybe that's why he suspected (perhaps increasingly as time went by and he thought about it) that it was only a ghost.
 
Brad: "All those sensitive nulls and peaks you mentioned would evaporate with the slightest change in tilt."
 
M. True. There are several unusual circumstances required, which may make the theory sound unlikely. But it goes without saying that whatever happened (UFO or ghost echo) was a bit unusual.
 
Martin.


From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Radar Case at Holloman
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:10:34 EDT


In a message dated 5/12/2005 4:23:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk writes:

M. True. There are several unusual circumstances required, which may make the theory sound unlikely. But it goes without saying that whatever happened (UFO or ghost echo) was a bit unusual.
 
Martin.



Martin,

Again as I say I don't know that the radar pip was real or not, and as you say there is not enough data to be sure (we need exact dates, times, locations, circumstances, all of which are covered up).  A good case can be made either way.  But the larger historical context indicates they (the AAF) THOUGHT something was "up" so to speak, whether in reality or anomalous propagation, and they ACTED as if it was real, for a while. 

Brad