Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:36:41 -0600
From: francis ridge <>
Subject: [Current Encounters] Thoughts about Patuxent


A number of us have some thoughts we'd like to share:

A). McDonald thought enough of the case to investigate it;

B). NICAP thought that the case was a good case; probably because they believed Sujka; and, by the way, Sujka's boss also apparently believed him, as he was ignorantly willing to approve of release of news to the press and the later letter to NICAP;

C). They led JEM to the case because they believed that they weren't wasting his time;

D). Sujka believed what he said, and the other people directly involved apparently did too;

E). The USAF gave an off-the-cuff insulting "explanation" without checking anything before doing so. This was pretty much Standard Operating Procedure ever since the George Gregory days, and allows one good reason to ignore anything they said;

F). Sujka said that they never checked his radar set, and the only checking done (by themselves) indicated that it was working properly. That aspect of the USAF opinion is therefore not correct;

G). Sujka describes his fellow radarman as very experienced, and another guy who looked in on the scans also. So though he himself didn't have huge long-term experience, others did, and therefore the "inexperienced operators" part of the USAF opinion is also not correct;

H). Sujka describes his and two others' view of the readings as like nothing that they'd ever seen. Although this in itself proves nothing, it does say that something "rare" manifested on the scopes. What that "rare" thing was is, if we are intellectually honest, "unknown";

I). we are left with the Sujka theory that the radar returns were caused by a large solid object(s) bouncing back signals (concurred with by his buddies on site), or the opposite theory that this was a well-known radar phenomenon caused by the operation of other equipment in the area;

J). To the Sujka theory we have the added soft possibilities that the other obvious interfering equipment operators were actually communicated with during the event and offered no such possibility from their view. There is also the enigmatic report of the Coast Guard asking about a visual sighting that they seemed to have had, and then quickly denying it once PNAS got involved.

K). To the other theory we have the fact that unusual false signals occur. To support that theory with something more than the pure theoretical, however, we should pursue some actual fact-based information, such as appropriate weather conditions or some actual known equipment operation. The weather was suspected by the guys, but they seemed not to see it as an anomalous propagation situation. As to equipment: such could be "secret" of course, but if so, it was the only time in the memories of these operators wherein it produced such effects. In short there is no actual evidence for the contrary hypothesis.

L). The claim that a trace coming in radially and retreating back along its identical course is a dead-giveaway may in fact be true, but there are two minor quibbles: 1]. Sujka said that the thing did not do that --- instead of retreating 180 degrees it went back at 160. Perhaps the in and out lines were NOT identical as desired. Also, a very minor issue: UFO visual cases will come in and retreat on their same course all the time.

To some of us this case, without a thorough McDonald follow-up, or even a USAF one, is simply a "?" which could easily have been a UFO, but we can't say so.

We have much to do, and this faction has a right to say what we feel, just as others who looked at this case. But, again, nothing more can come from wasting more time unless something new should surface.