[HN Gopher] Air Force Jet Was Scrambled to Intercept a UFO-Then ...
___________________________________________________________________
Air Force Jet Was Scrambled to Intercept a UFO-Then Disappeared
(2020)
Author : rmason
Score : 51 points
Date : 2022-04-09 20:46 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.history.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.history.com)
| emmelaich wrote:
| > https://notice.aenetworks.com/ > This content is not available
| in your area.
|
| I'm in Australia. Don't think I've ever had this problem with
| history.com before.
| [deleted]
| technerder wrote:
| Running into the same thing here in Canada
| phyrex wrote:
| Works for me, also in Canada
| notRobot wrote:
| Not available in my current location either. I hate what the
| internet has become.
| kul wrote:
| Lq
| dylan_b wrote:
| https://archive.ph/qcxbZ
| berkut wrote:
| That's giving me: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP in Firefox...
| recuter wrote:
| And others in the thread are geoblocked. Coincidence? These
| bastards can't suppress the truth forever!
| erdos4d wrote:
| If there is a radar operator here, I want to know if it is at all
| realistic for an attack on an aircraft to result in it simply
| disappearing from the scope. Wouldn't the falling debris of the
| plane still show up for several minutes until it fell below what
| the radar could see? If this is so, doesn't this story imply the
| larger object had to have "eaten" the smaller one (the plane, I
| am assuming)?
| WJW wrote:
| The radar cross section of any falling debris would not
| necessarily be big enough for a radar to detect, especially
| with 1953 tech on a stormy night. Also, two blips "merging" on
| a radar scope is a common occurrence when two targets are
| closer together than the pulse length.
|
| This article tries really hard to make this a UFO mystery, but
| jets fell out of the sky pretty regularly in 1953, especially
| in storms and at night. Radar technology was also not anywhere
| near what we have today and even with modern technology we can
| still just outright lose a plane. MH370 still hasn't been found
| for example.
|
| (I'm not a radar operator per se but I did study weapons
| engineering at the NL naval college and spent several years of
| my military career specifying specs for advanced naval radar
| systems)
| jhpaul wrote:
| I am not a radar operator. My understanding is that radar
| reflections are related to the size, shape, and texture of an
| object. A normal plane will be a large blob on the return,
| while, for example, a B2 stealth bomber is designed with
| special materials and angles to appear around the size of a
| large bird.
|
| So an intact jet fighter will show up as a big dot, while
| falling debris might look like many small dots, or be too small
| for the resolution of the radar display.
|
| There's also numerous sources of interference and background
| noise, including from weather. So on a stormy night it might
| not be apparent what is debris vs water.
|
| The article is really more of an advertisement for a TV show
| than journalism and doesn't give a very clear account, but it
| sound plausible that two dots converging and disappearing from
| radar could represent an in-air collision. And if over the
| great lakes during a storm, investigators would be looking
| underwater for hundreds of pieces of non-magnetic aluminum
| spread over many square miles.
| pengaru wrote:
| I know nothing of this subject and probably shouldn't even be
| commenting.
|
| From the few firsthand wartime accounts I've read of planes
| being shot down, from the perspective of radar operators they
| just abruptly disappear.
|
| Also keep in mind this would have been 1953 tech.
| tbihl wrote:
| I've mostly just operated marine commercial navigation radars,
| but having said that, I wouldn't expect the return to be very
| good. You would still have reflected energy, but it would be
| much closer to noise, so it would have to be much closer to be
| automatically detected, or even to be detectable on screen by
| my own observation. A tracker assigned to it certainly wouldn't
| maintain itself.
| rmason wrote:
| I'm not a big UFO buff but when someone told me about this
| incident in passing yesterday I had to examine further. I am
| astounded that nobody has tried to find the wreckage of this jet.
| They found the wreckage of the Edmund Fitzgerald with a mini sub
| and that was in 730 feet of water. Why hasn't someone like
| National Geographic or the Discovery Channel sponsored an
| expedition to find and film this plane's wreckage and get
| answers?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Small plane wrecks are not easy to find. When people were
| searching for Steve Fossett in the Sierra Nevada of California
| in 2007 they found a number of other wrecked aircraft that
| nobody even knew were up there. Planes disappear.
| zeusk wrote:
| They still don't have any certain idea or majority of wreckage
| from MH370, the 1950s fighter is way down the list of missing
| things.
| pengaru wrote:
| It seems plausible that one day someone will find it. Lake
| Superior should be far easier to search than say the Atlantic
| and presumably the freshwater will be kinder to the airframe
| than the salty sea.
| 14 wrote:
| It is still over 400 meters deep. That is not easy to search
| unless you have specialized equipment.
| pengaru wrote:
| History suggests technology and access improves though.
| Practically everyone takes for granted daily use of what
| was pretty specialized equipment not long ago.
| Narretz wrote:
| The Edmund Fitzgerald was 200m long. A jet crashing on the
| water surface would leave little contiguous parts in one place.
| userbinator wrote:
| Look at the attempts to find MH370, a much bigger plane, for
| comparison.
| rmason wrote:
| Except they don't know where it crashed. Here they have a
| much smaller area to search. I'm fairly certain in 1953
| that even the U.S. military lacked the advanced sonar
| that's available to the average person to use from a boat
| in 2022.
| emteycz wrote:
| Or photos of downed jets now. They're completely flat.
| Crashing into water must've spread it all around.
| boxofbonez wrote:
| Wikipedia article for the pilot indicates remains of the jet
| could have been found in 1968:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla#Reports_of_parts_...
| INTPenis wrote:
| This was the early days of jet planes so I think the simplest
| explanation is human or technical error. Rather than a covert
| attack, or aliens.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Don't rule out the complexest explanation: alien error.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Back then flying saucers were hard to operate. I wouldn't
| blame the alien.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Shouldn't the date be the date of when the article was written
| (i.e. 2020)?
| ianai wrote:
| In this use that particular practice is confusing. I thought
| this was something that happened in 2020 from the title but
| it's not.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-09 23:01 UTC)