COMMENTS: I would downgrade it to a "0." There is not one piece of data inconsistent with interference from another radar and McDonald could not exclude radar interference. No other radars picked up these blips because they were not real targets even though their geographic coverage overlapped with Patuxent.
One problem with the transcription of McDonald's notes is that it's a little difficult distinguishing editorial comments by you transcribers from McDonald's actual notes. Something should be done to distinguish editorial remarks, maybe by putting them in bold face.
On the reading of McDonald's notes, I haven't gone through them thoroughly and you guys
have done a good job, so here's a few corrections:
"Suyka and 2 other Navy CTOs (Control Tower Operators) track two large unknown returns
( largest they'd ever seen on scope). Approaching NATC, 10 miles apart at 6000"
"[Fran, I don't know what this next "word" is: it is apparently a four letter thing --- could be three --- which looks like an abbreviation of something.... like "lcts"... the "t" and "s" are certain. The "c" could easily be an "e" as JEM does that all the time]."
COMMENTS: McDonald spelled Sujka's name correctly so "Suyka" should be corrected throughout this transcription to read "Sujka."
The next word after 6000 is "kts" the abbreviation for "knots" so it should read "6000 kts."
"Note #3: The AF said there were malfunctions of radar but to this date March 5, 1965 they have never checked our radar & not anything like above has been seen since.
"I also now have permission to release this information and you may use my name.
"B. R. Suyka
"6000 NMPH = about 7200 MPH"Above all verified by CDR Corson USN Operations officer Patuxent Riv. MD"
COMMENTS: Sujka's conversion calculation is totally incorrect, 6000 NMPH (knots) is NOT "about" 7200 MPH, it is about 6900 mph to the nearest rounded hundred mph. This further casts doubt on the reliability of Sujka's observations and interpretations when he can't even properly convert knots to mph.
"No other 'malfunctions' before or after that [ Fran there's an arrow at this point pointing upward to end of this word and "Dec.27" written next to it.]"
COMMENTS: Actually it's a plus sign (+) and the text is an insert so that the whole sentence should read (it's also Dec. 29 not 27):
"No other 'malfunctions' before or after that + on Dec.29"
What McDonald is evidently assuming for the moment is that Sujka's date errors are due to possibly TWO separate incidents, first on Dec. 19 then secondly on Dec. 29. McDonald probably later realized it was just a date error by Sujka.
"Flanagan & Pinkerton, who had much experience, said they'd never seen anything like. Sujka said size was main thing that was unusual about blip was its size was about 3 times average PB-A ( Patrol Bomber Lockheed Turboprop, similar to _____ [Fran: word here is something like "Electric" "Elastic"] )."
COMMENTS: It's a P3-A rather than "PB-A" [actually P-3A but McD got the hyphen in the wrong place] and "similar to Electra"
"Claimed that Navy controllers were inexperienced & probably a malfunctioning [ word is something like "adt" or "set"]."
COMMENTS: The word at the end is "set," -- "a malfunctioning set." The word "the" is missing: Should read "Claimed that the Navy controllers...."
By the way, at the very bottom of the page there is a dated entry that has been cut off except for the very tops of the text, the date looking like "4/24/67" (not sure about the "24").