Replies

"Please tell the jury what is flying at or around 17,600 feet. And what is flying at or around 20,000 feet. Radar shows something with a primary rather than a secondary return. What are they? Ghosts?"

As explained in exhibit 13E (and repeated in post #259 by me) the radar reporting the altitudes varies in accuracy by +/-3000ft when the contact is within 100 miles. Its inaccuracy increases significantly outside of 100 miles. The P-3 was roughly 140 miles away. If you match the times of the contacts you will see that they occur 12 seconds apart throughout the sequence whether their reported alitude is 20,000ft or 17,600ft. Secondary returns are purely the result of IFF transmissions. Those altitude reports should be accurate. Since the P-3's IFF didn't work, the only returns are primary (actual radar returns bouncing off the airframe). Primary returns vary in accuracy each sweep. You are supposed to be the aeronautical engineer. Why do I have to explain this to "the jury"?

Incidently, you still haven't told me whether or not I'm looking at the right data on pg 42.

The inaccuracy bit is pure bullsh*t. The primary returns at 14,800 were repeated time after time. Do you understand how the BOSCTR radar works? It likely uses a solid state antenna to gauge the elevation angle and then multiples the sine and cosine times the range to get both the surface straight line range and elevation. Why it got the P3 only sporatically and not continuously is highly suspect. It died when the sled was descending and then again it died when the second object dropped away from the P3. How handy?

Doesn't it embarrass you to lie so much? That inaccuracy bit was rather lame. The NTSB pulled that crap and you only parroted it. Why would they bother to use it if it truly were that bad. The military uses that principal for mortar location radars. What good would they be if as bad as you state? The repeatability was pretty damn good when they didn't screw it up intentionally. Electronics is not like throwing a string out and seeing where it lands. How would ATC operate if the system worked as badly as you state? Not everybody uses secondary radar and they have to warn others of their proximity. The inaccuracy applies to ground clutter only. At points above the horizon it is accurate.

Maybe we should go back to the beginning. Do you agree that a double radar return is coming from the P3 track on page 42 of Exhibit 13A. Yes or No? If No, please do not bother me with anymore lies.

To get back to ground clutter messing up radar returns, where would ground clutter come from over the ocean?