Two laJdrs were in operation. Both tracked a number of targpts,
most of which were stationary and so intermittent in nature as to
pr.event lock-on (see Case 16). Significantly, none of the radar targets
was behaving in the manner described by this witness (i.e., moving
steadily south at high altitude). Therefore, this incident is can""
sidered to be primarily a radar contact.
The probable nature of each of the three types of radar contact
made is examined below.
(1) 111e stationary, intermittent targets. ~1ost of these can be
identified with terrain features, peaks or ridges, that would normally
be just below the radar's line of sight. 1£ the atmcisphtOr'ic conditions
were such as to render these points just barely detectable by the
radars, they would probably appear as intennittcnt, stationary targets
of the type described.
(2) The object at 2;;,000 ft. that "drifted east three or four
miles in about 10 minutes" was apparently moving with the prevailing
upper winds from the west; it may have been a weather balloon, or
some similar device.
(3) The circular track executed by the Holloman radar was
interpreted by the r~dar en~~incers on the base as being a noise
track. This seems quite libly, ltespite svme apparent discrepancies
noted in the report. If thi~ track represented a real target, it is
strange that the Elephant MOUl'tain radar never picked it up, in spite
of the fact that the apparent track passed within about 6.5 mi. of
the second radar's location.
190-N. Detroit, ~1icl1., March 1953, nl>out lOvO to llOG LST
(exuct date and time unKnown). Weather: "perfectly clear." A
USAF pilot and a radar operator, flying in an F-94B fighter on a
praetic\:, t"raining mission, were directed by cr: [ radar at Selfridge
AFB to intercept some unknown targets which appcRred to be over
Two laUctrS were in operation. Both tracked a number of targ~ts,
most of which were stationary and so intermittent in nature as to
prevent lock-on (see Case 16). Significantly, none of the radar targets
was behaving in the manner described by this witness (i. e., moving
steadily south at high altitude). Therefore, this incident is con-
sidered to be primarily a radar contact.
The probable nature of each of the three types of radar contact
made is examined below.
(1) 111e stationary, intermittent targets. ~1ost of these can be
identifh'd with terrain features, peaks or ridges, that would normally
be just below the radar's line of sight. If tho atmc)sph"ric conditions
were such as to render thes 0 points jus t barely detec tab Ie by the
radars, they would probably appear as intermittent, stationary targets
of the type described.
(2) The object at 2~;,OOO ft. that "drifted east three or four
miles in about 10 minutes" was apparently moving with the prevlliling
upper winds from the west; it may have been a weather balloon, or
some similar device.
(3) The circular track executed by the Holloman radar was
interpreted by the r'idar engineers on the base as being a noise
track. This seems quite lik"31y, despite slim:;: apparent discrepancies
noted in the report. If thi~ track represented a real target, it is
strange that the Elephant MOUl'taln radar never picked it up, in spite
of the fact that the apparent track passed wi til in about 6.5 mi. of
the second radar's location.
190-N, Detroit, ~1icl1., March 1953, nbout IOUO to 110G LST
(cxnct date nnd ti.me unknown). Weather: "perfectly clear." A
USAF pilot and a radar operntor, flyin~ in an F-948 fighter on a
practice training mission, were directed by G(:r radar at Selfridge
ArB to intercept some unknown targets which appeRred to be over
22~