[Rokke]

"My stupid background told me that radar traveled at the speed of light and other stupid stuff like that. I never realized that a four second differential could be so important. "

I'm going to prove this to you, and then I'll prove something else. First the radar thing:

Picture a dome with a 60 mile radius at its base. Put a radar right at the center. Imagine that the radar sweeps the circumfrence of the dome in 12 seconds. That means that it sweeps 360 degrees in 12 seconds. In 4 seconds it sweeps 120 degrees. Are you with me so far. Now, using a simple little rule of thumb called the 60 to 1 rule, we can say that the distance between 2 radials at 60 miles (the edge of our dome in this case) is 1 mile, and that as the radar completes a 360 degree sweep, its beam actually covers a distance of 360 miles. In 4 seconds, that same beam covers 120 miles. But our P-3 wasn't 60 miles away from the radar. It was 140 miles away. That means that you can double the distance between each radial (and then some) to 2 miles per radial. The radar sweeping through 120 degrees in four seconds therefore covers 240 miles. Did I lose you? It is therefore impossible to show your all important "double returns" using data points that are seperated by 4 seconds of radar sweep. If you want to argue that only the radar returns seperated by 12 seconds count, you're going to have to show how you are able to determine which return is the P-3, and which is the object it is supposedly towing. Also, you're going to have to explain the amazing coincidence that places a towed target at exactly the correct range despite its towline's similarity to a "catenary" to show up at exactly one radar sweep distance behind the P-3.

[barf]

First, change your terminology. Write hemisphere in place of dome. Now explain why the two returns showed up in plan view in Exhibit 13A. You have already writen that two returns were there within a twelve second period. The place where the two returns were was a rectangular plot, not a compressed polar plot as I suspect that you are attempting to foist on us. You can't change the facts by throwing in a bunch of words that are nonsense. The plot was not a time versus rotation plot. Using solid state, they could have used a fixed antenna location and pulsed it every twelve seconds and give the same result. There are time versus altitude plots in the report. They could represent data which could have come any place within a 360 degree antenna rotation but were limited to the objects in question. Since you agree that two returns were one mile apart within a 12 second interval, please engage your memory bank before writing something totally opposite. You can't agree one minute and then disagree later on if your thought process is functioning properly. You need a break before you endanger yourself getting into aircraft that leave solid ground.