Showing posts with label Glen Schulze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glen Schulze. Show all posts

Saturday, October 11, 2014

UFO RADAR DATA: Proof of Near Mid-Air Collision?

Bookmark and Share

UFOs Tracked On Radar 3-13-13
Glen Schulze overlayed the 3/13/13 radar data on a Google Earth map. This is the screen-grab moments before the plane with the transponder, right, broke sharply to the east upon coming within a mile of the non-responsive target over Danielsville, Pa. The unknown's pingbacks promptly dissipated./CREDIT: Glen Schulze

A near-miss stalemate


By Billy Cox
De Void
10-9-14

    When MUFON researchers requested radar records pertaining to an event on March 13, 2013, they were preparing to log a garden-variety sighting report for eastern Pennsylvania. What they got instead were indications of a startling near-collision in mid-air outside Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE).

“Needless to say, we didn’t expect this,” says Dan Medleycott, Pennsylvania State Section Director.

To wit: At about 8:50 p.m. on 3/13/13, a man and his daughter in Bethlehem, Pa., saw what they described as “at least 100 or so” round bluish objects moving in formation from north to south, in addition to a less well organized formation trailing the first. The orb-like UFOs then accelerated “from 0-80 mph” before disappearing. With winds on that evening clocked at 11 mph from the west, MUFON scratched sky lanterns from the suspect list.

The Federal Aviation Administration responded to Medleycott’s FOIA with a compact disc congested by 15,543 skin paint returns during the hour-long time window in question — 8:20 to 9:20 p.m. Lacking the radar expertise to decipher, Medleycott forwarded the results to Glen Schulze in Colorado. Schulze has more than 50 years experience studying radar and is the co-author of MUFON’s underreported Stephenville radar analysis of 2008. After filtering out the extraneous material, he found an anomaly — only, the incident ended some 13 minutes before the Bethlehem sighting. What he discovered was a more surprising sequence, beginning at 8:20 p.m.:

An object without a transponder, detected on pingbacks, shows up on a southeast course, while a plane with a beacon — Schulze labels it Beacon Code 4207 — is flying to the northwest and heading toward it. Visibility that evening is reportedly 10 miles. Acccording to the radar signatures, the two close within a mile of each other at 8:36 p.m. near Danielsville. BC4207 then swerves abruptly to the east. BC4207 pulls a couple of loops and eventually makes a 9:17 p.m. landing at ABE. But what happened to the non-responsive target? Between 8:36 and 8:37, the object goes “radar dark” in Schulze’s words, “like somebody threw a switch.

“Within a minute,” he adds, noting the antenna swept its 60-mile radius coverage every 4.7 seconds, “this cluster, for lack of a better term, just distintegrated, from 10 smaller returns to 5 to 2 to 1, then nothing. It just disappeared.”

Even weirder: The “broadspread” skin-paint returns were so solid up to that point, Schulze compared their strength and breadth to pingbacks he evaluated, years ago, from 900- by 150-foot freighters off Los Angeles.

Again, this encounter ended almost a quarter hour before witnesses reported the nearby Bethlehem UFOs not as a solitary behemoth in the sky, but as a formation of small individual objects. Schulze says the unfiltered radar data indicated a second cluster of non-responsive skin paints were aloft that night as well. “You can’t connect the dots 100 percent,” he says, “but you can say something very, very unusual was in the air that night.”

So who was the pilot with the transponder, what kind of aircraft was he/she flying, and what did they see?

Upon acquiring Schulze’s filtered data — it’s quite dramatic, and De Void would post it here if there was a way to get around the formatting — MUFON contacted airport officials at ABE. According to Medleycott, ABE suggested MUFON send them the data. MUFON declined, saying it preferred a face-to-face sit-down discussion instead. Nothing has happened on the offical end since.

“We’ve got something of high-strangeness value here, and we wanted to get their direct, personal reaction to it,” Medleycott stated. “Just sending it to them without getting that reaction seems like a misstep.”

De Void contacted ABE but hasn’t heard back, most likely because its analysts have no data to work with. MUFON published the results of what it calls Case 47000 in its October journal. After unsuccessfully attempting to locate new witnesses through the Bethlehem newspaper and the Pennsylvania State Police, and after being told by nearby Horsham Air Guard Station (suspicion of drones) that its tower "was inactive" that night, MUFON closed the case as an Unidentified Aerial Vehicle encounter.

De Void will update if events warrant.

Monday, March 18, 2013

ERIT [Radar] Returns: "The Data ... Substantiated Eyewitness UFO Accounts ... It Also Confirmed Eyewitness Reports of Jet Fighters in the Area"

Bookmark and Share

Radar Reports Confirm Eye Witness Accounts of Stephenville UFO

Plugging the holes in radar coverage

By Billy Cox
De Void
3-12-13

     De Void will cop to slow-response reflexes but this one probably takes The Clogged Artery Prize, because a nerve ending or a synapse or whatever should’ve fired back in 2011. That’s when, in the aftermath of MUFON’s published analysis of the UFO that apparently buzzed President Bush’s Texas ranch in 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration decided to exempt ERIT from public scrutiny.

ERIT, or En Route Intelligence Tool, gathers raw data from individual radar sites collecting ping returns on everything that flies in U.S. air space, and sometimes things that don’t fly at all. It’s a bit of a jumble because it can pick up everything — hills, contrails, storm turbulence, false echoes, birds, etc. In fact, ERIT picks up so much extraneous material that air traffic controllers usually don’t see it. What shows up on ATC screens instead are combined subsets of ERIT returns, filtered by the FAA, which focuses largely on planes with transponders. Low-flying helicopters and light aircraft operating away from commercial airports and below the major sky-traffic corridors aren’t required to have transponders and therefore don’t light up the screens. UFOs aren’t known for packing transponder beacons, either.

Anyhow, in 2008, Glen Schulze and Robert Powell filed FOIAs with a number of government acronyms, civilian and military, to establish the UFO’s path. The FAA supplied them with unfiltered ERIT returns. The data not only substantiated eyewitness UFO accounts of its southeasterly trajectory, it also confirmed eyewitness reports of jet fighters in the area, which the Air Force initially denied.

Later that same year, with more UFO activity reported in the Stephenville, Tex., vicinity, Powell fired off another FOIA for more of the same. And this is where it got interesting. This time, the FAA bureaucracy ruled that relinquishing ERIT material could endanger national security. In formally announcing its ERIT ban in 2011, the feds said public dissemination could illuminate vulnerabilities in American radar coverage. The FAA also left behind a paper trail of the email chatter that informed its decision, with the argument that the piecemeal ERIT returns “could be stitched together to make a complete/continuous air picture.”

Powell thinks the Stephenville report likely caught the FAA off guard. “No one had really asked for radar data for a major UFO event before,” he says. “The FAA is a giant bureaucracy that doesn’t want to mess with UFO data. They’re really only interested in known pings, like what you’d get from an airliner with a transponder. What they’re releasing now is what you’d see on an air traffic controller’s screen.”

Powell says evil-doers who want to exploit gaps in radar surveillance can always fly at low altitudes. But the FAA’s clampdown on ERIT, he charges, underscores some illogical priorities.

“Someone who wants to fool our radar controller operators would not want to study ERIT data but would want to study the data that the ATC operators actually see. And ironically enough, that is the data that the FAA is willing to give out.

Last year, Schulze sent an email to the FAA/Department of Transportation’s inspector general’s office alerting them to the discrepancy: “The net result of the FAA releasing only NTAP (National Track Analysis Program) data astoundingly permits moderately intelligent recipients to easily identify and precisely locate … unmonitored radar coverage gaps across the United States.” Schulze provided attachment examples but has not received a response.

So there you have it. When it comes to the public evaluation of ERIT returns for true unknowns, evidently what we don’t know won’t hurt us.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Radar Reports Verifying Stephenville UFO Forces Military Flip-Flop

Stephenville UFO Radar Graph
Radar expert laments media apathy

By Bill Cox
De Void
7-22-08

Billy Cox     Glen Schulze suspects the reason the military corrected its version of events over Stephenville, Texas, on Jan. 8 was that it knew his Freedom of Information Act requests for radar data from civilian authorities at the Federal Aviation Administration were going to expose the truth.

“Four days after our FOIAs hit the FAA, they knew we’d show they had planes all over the place that night,” Schulze says from his home in Littleton, Colo. “They didn’t have much choice. Fort Worth radar data shows the F-16s from takeoff to landing at Carswell Air Force Base. I don’t think Carswell wanted to explain why they’d deny it.”

At age 78, Schulze brought an impressive career to bear in the Mutual UFO Network’s Special Research Report — released July 10 — on the UFO that surged toward restricted airspace over President Bush’s Crawford ranch seven months ago.

In the 1950s, Schulze received a special Army commendation for upgrading missile-tracking antenna sites for the White Sands Proving Grounds. The following decade, he delivered a revelation to America’s intelligence agencies by recording Soviet radar signals bouncing off the lunar surface into receivers on Antigua. Schulze went on to specialize in the radar-return analyses of air traffic accident investigations, and has been called as an expert witness by law firms handling aviation litigation.

Schulze, who co-wrote the MUFON report with Robert Powell, wasn’t sure what to expect when he filed his FOIAs with military and civilian agencies in January. What he knew was that, two days after witnesses reported seeing a huge UFO and jet fighters over rural Texas, a spokesman for the 301st Fighter Wing at Carswell Field outside Fort Worth announced there weren’t any warplanes in the area that night.

Almost two weeks later, Air Force Maj. Karl Lewis blamed an “internal communications error” for getting it wrong. The public affairs office has been mute on this affair ever since.

What came as “a fairly mild shock” to Schulze upon reviewing the FOIA data was how primary and secondary radar systems at Fort Worth tracked an aerial intruder — without a transponder — for more than an hour as it made a steady southeasterly course from the Stephenville area toward the Bush ranch.

With F-16s thundering about in the general vicinity, the thing apparently slipped below the radar coverage from 7:03 p.m. to 7:10 p.m., accelerated minutes later to 532 mph within a 30-second span, then skidded to 49 mph 10 seconds later. The narrative comes to an abrupt and tantalizing halt at 8 p.m., the end of the 4-8 p.m. data window requested by Schulze’s FOIA. At that moment, the UFO was just 10 miles from Bush’s home, and 4 miles from the edge of the no-fly zone.

“The data shows there was definitely something there that was going on a fairly straight line,” Schulze says. “All the other planes in the air that night were turning and banking, but this was not. This was not on a chaotic path. It shows some intelligence for its ability for staying on a straight course.”

Schulze wants to know why the flight logs for 10 military aircraft separate and apart from the F-16s were censored in his FOIA. He wants to know why the F-16s encroached into civilian airspace, creating a potential safety hazard. And, of course, he wants to know what defense radar was tracking.

None of that information has been released by the military. Schulze fears FAA data acquired after 8 p.m. was auto-purged months ago, although he hopes puzzled records-keepers were curious enough to have archived that material.

Perhaps most disappointing is the lack of media interest.

“Neither the Denver Post nor the Rocky Mountain News has shown any curiosity about this story, and I’m in their backyard,” Schulze says. “There was one article about a guy who wants to form an E.T. welcoming committee that ran on Sunday, July 13, two days after we shared our research with Larry King.”

Well, one ignores an E.T. welcoming committee at one’s own risk.