Another Intercept, but this time it's different

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Thank you for the information, George. I guess I overlooked 'military
facilities' in those NOTAMS.

Keep in mind that the NOTAM doesn't prohibited loitering. If it did, it
would read "may not" instead of "should not". Furthermore, the NOTAM
doesn't say anything about the consequences of such loitering, never mind
that an interception will occur.

It may be a reasonable assumption, but the FAA is hardly clear about it.

Pete

In article x86me.6153$Fb.4615@trndny07,
George Patterson wrote:

No, this is a state-of-the-art military radar system.

which military radar is can determine altitude with such
precision?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article x86me.6153$Fb.4615@trndny07,
George Patterson wrote:

No, this is a state-of-the-art military radar system.

which military radar is can determine altitude with such
precision?

Edwards AFB is used as a testing and proving ground. As such,
they have radars and optical tracking abilities for following
flight tests in extreme detail. A lot of the footage you see
on The Military Channel (formerly Discovery Wings) of older
aircraft being tested, for example the X planes, was taken
here.

It would not surprise me that they could take a picture of any
aircraft within range and tell you it's position, orientation
and velocity to three decimal places using their radars. It's
their job.

BTW, Edwards was used to help track SpaceShipOne and to confirm
it's record and prize winning altitude.

This article covers the test of a new radar system on SS1...
http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/20...ive-spads.html

An interesting quote about the radars capabilities...

"Then (the aircraft) will fly by and drop a whole load of
bombs, and this radar can actually see all the individual
bombs, see them spin, see the fins come out, the whole works."

I just did quite a bit of Googling and not surprisingly, didn't
find any exact specifications. But I did see a reference to one
radar having .1 milliradian angle resolution and 20ft distance
resolution. It was described as being a basic radar of lesser
capability.

Then I found mention of imaging radars. I forgot all about
those things. If you think about it, it has to be pretty high
resolution in order to actually make an image using radar returns.
Now that I've been reminded of this, I recall seeing a program
on one of those Discovery like channels that showed the imaging
radar image from a cruise missile, and in it you could even make
out the wires between high voltage towers.

Hope this has been of some help.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:42:05 GMT, Dave S
wrote:

I guess this is the same data gathering ability that said "Yes, Iraq had
WMD's" as well?

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago. Here's the information you missed:

*** Begin Quote ***

The memo was written by British national security aide Matthew
Rycroft, based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers, including Richard
Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had
recently met with Bush administration officials.

Since being leaked to a British newspaper, the memo has raised
questions anew about whether the Bush administration misrepresented
prewar intelligence about suspected weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq to justify military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. It seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening hi-bility was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."

*** End Quote ***

"Blair's offfice has not disputed the authenticity of the memo", but
the White House has of course claimed it's false.

See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Y.shtml for the complete
story, or just google "the downing street memo", or google "memo wmd".


First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago.


So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:17:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

First, it was a memo from notes that would be considered hearsay in any
court. Second, Truthout.com is hardly an unbiased source.

Right, except we aren't in court (although perhaps we should be) and
the Blair government has not denied the authenticity of the memo and
an unnamed "Senior American Official" has characterized it as
"absolutely accurate".

Truthout.com is just reporting what the memo said, not making it up.
It was originally printed in "The Times of London" to which it was
leaked. In effect, when protesting Truthout.com, you are shooting the
messenger. In addition, that website was merely the first I picked,
there were dozens more I could have posted.

The text of the memo (it isn't very long) is also available, simply
google "downing street memo". The first site when you do this search
is the "Times online", and the memo is printed in it's entirety
without editorial comment.

Corky Scott

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
k.net::


"Corky Scott" wrote in message
.. .

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago.


So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?



What dates did those poisonings occur?

Chronology is everything in this issue:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
However, a commission appointed by the president to investigate
intelligence gathering that led to the invasion concluded that all
of the intelligence community's information about the existence of
biological or any other weapons of mass destruction was "deeply
flawed."

"The intelligence community was absolutely uniform, and uniformly
wrong, about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And
they pushed that position," said Judge Laurence Silberman,
co-chairman of the commission.

Critics of the Bush administration have long argued that Bush
appeared intent on invading Iraq long before Congress voted to
authorize military action in October 2002 if Hussein didn't
abandon his alleged illegal weapons programs.

Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who was chairman of the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee when Democrats ruled, has written in
his book, "Intelligence Matters," about his visit to MacDill Air
Force Base, home of the U.S. Central Command, on Feb. 19, 2002. He
was going for a status report on Afghanistan, Graham wrote, but
CENTCOM'S Gen. Tommy Franks called him aside to tell him,
"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

"Excuse me?"' Graham replied.

"Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to
prepare for an action in Iraq," Graham quoted Franks as saying.

Graham wrote: "I was stunned. This was the first time I had been
informed that the decision to go to war with Iraq had not only
been made but was being implemented, to the substantial
disadvantage of the war in Afghanistan."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

You aren't up to date. There never were any WMD and Bush knew it all
along as revealed by the memo that was leaked to the London Times
three weeks ago.


So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?


What dates did those poisonings occur?


How long is "never"?

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:32:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So the Kurds and Iranians poisoned themselves?

Sorry, did you not know where Saddam got that gas? I honestly thought
everyone knew by now. The Reagan administration sent it to him to
assist him in his war against Iran. Please, tell me you aren't
surprised by this old news.

There's some world class irony working he We gave him the nerve gas
and then complained to the world that he used it. In addition, we
invaded his country on the pretext that he had WMD (Rumsfeld even had
the cheek to pinpoint where they were during a news conference). But
none were ever found and the search for them has officially ended.
But Rumsfeld knew that he had them at one time, because we had the
receipts for them, so to speak, having given them to him.

Corky Scott