Radar expert laments media apathy
By Bill Cox
De Void
7-22-08
By Bill Cox
De Void
7-22-08
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.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Dear Contributor,
Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).
Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW