From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:25:41 GMT


PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
 >>The previous reports were based on "design concepts", these are much 
 >>more direct reports.  There is no logical reason for simply "discarding"
 >>such information.
 > I still think that the sightings reported in this August 24 issue
 > are not better than UFO sightings:

I have to disagree, for one thing because AW&ST considered them
worthy of publication.

 > 1990 sightings: occurred during night or late evening (visibility?),
 > number of witnesses not reported, apparently no inquiry about the
 > witnesses (tired? drunk? ill?)

Why do you say "apparently no inquiry"?   This is AW&ST, not some ufo rag.
They operate with a great deal of journalistic integrity.  I'm quite sure
if their only source was a "drunk", it would not have been reported.

 > April 1991 sighting: daytime, but the craft was said "dwarfing an
 > F-16 chasing it". This casts a doubt on this sighting: 
It does??

 >is it usual that US military planes chase US secret aircrafts? 

Absolutely!  Ever hear the term "chase plane"?  There are a long list of 
reasons they would be used during various times during a flight, in addition 
to some potential program specific concerns such as RCS or sound masking.

 >(well, maybe it was an exercise).
No reason it had to be.

 >Same questions about the witnesses.
Same answer.  :->

 >No photos, no video films.
There were contral photos...  BUT, considering how there are only a 
*handful* of these "sightings", not getting a direct photo is quite
understandable.  Were there any photos of the F-117A prior to the
official release?  I don't beleive so, even though it flew for almost
a decade.

 >>It did not sound like it was very highly substantiated...
 >It was no more substantiated than the above criticized sightings.
Doubtful.

 >However, since the object was hovering or flying at very low speed,
 >the sightings lasted for more than a few seconds, which was probably
 >not the case for the AW&ST sightings
AW apparently could not corroborate that particular story.  I have a feeling 
that "Popular Mechanics" has considerably looser publication standards than 
Aviation Week.  It did not sound overly credible to me either...

 >>>Popular Mechanics and AW&ST are no more serious than UFO reviews.
 >>Where is the logic there?  I can't speak for P.M., but have you 
 >>ever read AW&ST?  It is VERY serious.
 >Yes, I have read it. It's generally serious... except when it reports
 >sightings. 
Why would it "suddenly" no longer be serious?  Those reports are printed
when they corroborate information from other sources, and when they come
from credible origins.

 >In this last case, it seems no more serious than UFO reviews
 >(at least I think so, since I don't read UFO reviews).

How could it be??  Are members of the Royal Observer Corps just as serious 
as people who constantly see "aliens"?  What about people who live near 
military bases and are familiar with their operations and the sort of 
aircraft typically flying?  AW&ST publishes only a handful of "sightings",
and all typically when there is corroborating information involved.  
"UFO reviews" publish sightings by the dozen, and most I doubt have even 
a fraction of the reputation and journalistic integrity of Aviation Week.
I still see no comparison...

Xref: sparky sci.space:17934 sci.astro:13300 sci.space.shuttle:2997 alt.sci.planetary:425