Quote:

US pilot told to shoot down UFO An American jet fighter pilot has spoken of they day he was scrambled to try to shoot down a UFO in British airspace more than 50 years ago. Lieutenant Milton Torres was based in Britain on May 20, 1957 when he received the order: get up there, arm all weapons and fire on sight. He climbed into his Sabre jet, took off from a Royal Air Force base in Kent and headed east, spotting on his radar the blip that his superiors had judged to be hostile and probably Russian . The dot indicated an object about the size of a B52 bomber about 24km away and Torres set a course, rockets at the ready, to catch it. But the aircraft vanished. The blip on the radar was gone too. Torres has finally spoken of his top secret mission following the declassification of Ministry of Defence files, cited by The Times newspaper, that relate to reported incidents of unidentified flying objects in British airspace. More

It was MiG-21Mbis


Quote:

Different shaped Ye-2A and Ye-5 prototypes were flown in 1956 and the last (Ye-5) cleared the road for the final Ye-6 prototype witch flew in 1957. More than 11.000 MiG-21's in different versions were build.

http://www.zap16.com/images/165.jpg

They were heaps faster then contemporary USA interceptors but fairly short range. That one probably flew from East Germany.

Of this you are certain tallowood?

Source? Or is it first hand knowledge?

Not saying I disbelieve you, but source that tidbit if you want to be taken seriously.

Also, I don't think the good old MiG-21 is as big as a B52. Nor do I think radar jamming of the sophistication to fool radar in to thinking it was a B52 would be available in the 50's.

A more recent sighting...


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/article1836403.ece

easel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:

Of this you are certain tallowood? Source? Or is it first hand knowledge? Not saying I disbelieve you, but source that tidbit if you want to be taken seriously. Also, I don't think the good old MiG-21 is as big as a B52. Nor do I think radar jamming of the sophistication to fool radar in to thinking it was a B52 would be available in the 50's.

Yes.
"Lieutenant Milton Torres was based in Britain on May 20, 1957 "
"last (Ye-5) cleared the road for the final Ye-6 prototype witch flew in 1957"

"Nor do I think radar jamming of the sophistication to fool radar in to thinking it was a B52 would be available in the 50's"
"spotting on his radar the blip that his superiors had judged to be hostile and probably Russian".

Tallowood, a MiG21 is going to have a vastly different radar signature to a bomber of any description, based on the size of the signal bounced back. Therefore, I would highly doubt this ping would be a 21. It was reading something much larger.

easel wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 5:04pm:

Tallowood, a MiG21 is going to have a vastly different radar signature to a bomber of any description, based on the size of the signal bounced back. Therefore, I would highly doubt this ping would be a 21. It was reading something much larger.

Didn't you say yourself that in 50s they did not have technology like today?

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 5:10pm:

easel wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 5:04pm: Tallowood, a MiG21 is going to have a vastly different radar signature to a bomber of any description, based on the size of the signal bounced back. Therefore, I would highly doubt this ping would be a 21. It was reading something much larger. Didn't you say yourself that in 50s they did not have technology like today?

Yes, they did not have the technology to make a house sized object appear pea sized on radar, they did not have the technology to make 50 objects appear on radar screens which appear to be large bombers, when there is actually only one bomber in the area.

If something appeared on a radar screen in the 50's that appeared bomber sized, it generally was bomber sized.

Also, who in their right mind would want to make something like a MiG21 have a LARGER radar signature?

easel wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:45pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 5:10pm: easel wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 5:04pm: Tallowood, a MiG21 is going to have a vastly different radar signature to a bomber of any description, based on the size of the signal bounced back. Therefore, I would highly doubt this ping would be a 21. It was reading something much larger. Didn't you say yourself that in 50s they did not have technology like today? Yes, they did not have the technology to make a house sized object appear pea sized on radar, they did not have the technology to make 50 objects appear on radar screens which appear to be large bombers, when there is actually only one bomber in the area. If something appeared on a radar screen in the 50's that appeared bomber sized, it generally was bomber sized. Also, who in their right mind would want to make something like a MiG21 have a LARGER radar signature?

Yes, they did not have the technology to make a house fly. Yes, they did not have the technology to make 50 houses fly.

If something appeared on a radar screen in the 50's that appeared bomber sized, it generally was bomber sized or super fast MIG21.

who in their right mind would want to make something like a MiG21 have a LARGER radar signature? the radar operators of course. I reckon they even were able to see lucy in the sky with a diamond, they had that technology for sure but because it was before Beatles time they simply called it ufo 8-)

Tallowood, I shall explain this as clearly as I can.

These days there is technology through pure design and not electronics which can reduce a radar signature from the size of the plane to the size of a marble. There is electronic technology that can make it appear as though there are 50 returns on a radar screen of varying sizes, moving around doing their thing, when there is only one true object there.

I don't know what else to say?

Where are you getting your information that a super fast MiG21 will appear as a bomber on a radar screen?

Whilst not being at all clued in on the intricate details of modern radar, or even outdated radar, I can honestly tell you I have been within 1m, in fact, I have been in a radar room containing the most advanced military radar systems available that were switched on and operational of a foreign military super power. This was 3-4 years ago.

Whilst this does not give me any credibility because I have not much of an idea how it works, I am telling you facts here in regards to what I know radar counter measures CAN do.

Now, once again I am not saying I disbelieve you, but have you ever spoken to a radar operator or do you have experience operating radar yourself, and if either of those are true, can you please tell me how, due to speed, which is slower than the speed of radar, the MiG might appear to be a bomber? Don't break any secrecy laws please, but I am sure that the limitations of radar are public knowledge, considering airports (or is their stuff more transponder based?) and weather stations have radar also.

easel wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 11:56pm:

Tallowood, I shall explain this as clearly as I can. These days there is technology through pure design and not electronics which can reduce a radar signature from the size of the plane to the size of a marble. There is electronic technology that can make it appear as though there are 50 returns on a radar screen of varying sizes, moving around doing their thing, when there is only one true object there. I don't know what else to say? Where are you getting your information that a super fast MiG21 will appear as a bomber on a radar screen? Whilst not being at all clued in on the intricate details of modern radar, or even outdated radar, I can honestly tell you I have been within 1m, in fact, I have been in a radar room containing the most advanced military radar systems available that were switched on and operational of a foreign military super power. This was 3-4 years ago. Whilst this does not give me any credibility because I have not much of an idea how it works, I am telling you facts here in regards to what I know radar counter measures CAN do. Now, once again I am not saying I disbelieve you, but have you ever spoken to a radar operator or do you have experience operating radar yourself, and if either of those are true, can you please tell me how, due to speed, which is slower than the speed of radar, the MiG might appear to be a bomber? Don't break any secrecy laws please, but I am sure that the limitations of radar are public knowledge, considering airports (or is their stuff more transponder based?) and weather stations have radar also.

Are you saying now that in 50s they had modern technology?

I’ve seen radars in late 60s and they were not as good as modern radars and I was told then by older radar operators who worked with radars in 50s that 60s radars were much better then 50s radars. That answers the rest of your  post as well.

BTW, here is a technical hint for you …tell me difference between screen resolutions of 50s and modern displays?

I refuse to believe you are being serious tallowood and if you are then I really can't discuss this with you as you can't grasp incredibly simple concepts. I was trying to explain why old radar cannot do what new radar can, and a bomber on old radar would invariably be a bomber and you would not get too many ghost targets.

I don't know about screen resolutions cause I essentially have zero knowledge about radar, modern or retro. I have pretty much written about the entire extent of my radar knowledge here.

When you get a chance please explain to me how a fast, small jet, will appear to be much larger due to its' speed. I am curious to know.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 2:56pm:

I refuse to believe you are being serious tallowood and if you are then I really can't discuss this with you as you can't grasp incredibly simple concepts. I was trying to explain why old radar cannot do what new radar can, and a bomber on old radar would invariably be a bomber and you would not get too many ghost targets. I don't know about screen resolutions cause I essentially have zero knowledge about radar, modern or retro. I have pretty much written about the entire extent of my radar knowledge here. When you get a chance please explain to me how a fast, small jet, will appear to be much larger due to its' speed. I am curious to know.

Easel if you have zero knowledge about radar and never seen old radars in operation then you should study and see. After that I will explain to you why and how. Meantime while you upgrading yourself go and read the article and you will see that US pilot was not told to shoot down a UFO. If it help you to sleep better  it probably worth the reading.

Please tell me where I can see old radars in operation. I have seen old radars, but I have a feeling there are none that are operational.

Please tell me how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on radar.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:

Please tell me where I can see old radars in operation. I have seen old radars, but I have a feeling there are none that are operational. Please tell me how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on radar.

They may have some in some military history museum or may be private collection. When you see one you will instantly understand how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on old radar screen especially when there are some clouds around or rain or snow.

Ok I have just read the entire article.

Here are some quotes from the full thing which I found interesting.


Quote:

Since the incident, Torres has become more convinced that the object, travelling at speed and performing manoeuvres beyond the capability of any known aircraft at that time, was an alien UFO.

As far as I am aware, the MiG21 sacrificed manoeuverability in exchange for speed.


Quote:

"The blip was burning a hole in the radar with its incredible intensity. It was similar to a blip I had received from B52s and seemed to be a magnet of light. It had the proportions of a flying aircraft carrier," he wrote, according to The Times.

Quote:

He said that in the 1960s it emerged that the CIA had been engaged in a secret project codenamed Palladium, in which advanced equipment was used to create simulated radar blips close to Soviet airspace.

However this was in the 50's, not the 60's.


Quote:

Dr Clarke told The times that he thought it was linked to clandestine flights over the Soviet Union of the American U2 spy plane.

The Blackbird flew so high and so fast (it was a photo recon plane if I remember right) that it routinely got clipped on Soviet radar and would have missles fired at it from SAM batteries as well as interceptors sent on a vector towards it and it would not change anything about its flight path and 'laugh' at the threats it received.

If the pilot of this aircraft, someone trained in identifying radar blips, would never mention that he thought it may have been a MiG, what makes you so confident it was?

Now, back to why the MiG, which travels slower than the speed of radar, would appear to be a bomber, or a flying aircraft carrier on the radar screen.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:04pm:

easel wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:51pm: Please tell me where I can see old radars in operation. I have seen old radars, but I have a feeling there are none that are operational. Please tell me how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on radar. They may have some in some military history museum or may be private collection. When you see one you will instantly understand how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on old radar screen especially when there are some clouds around or rain or snow.

I have seen old radar, but I have never and will never see any being used. You can change the gain on any radio equipment, whether it be communications or radar to filter out such things as clouds, rain, or snow. Besides, clouds, rain, snow are essentially water. If radar was that crap you would never be able to spot a ship on the ocean due to the feedback, you would never be able to spot a fighter on a rainy day. The radar works on frequencies and at powers far different to say a HF radio, they are not going to be affected by things such as clouds if you get the controls right, at least according to my reasoning, however I am unsure, and I think they can bounce radar off the stratosphere to get over the horison readings like what they do with the Jindalee system.

These trained radar operators said that it resembled a bomber on the radar. I'm sure they know what they are talking about.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:07pm:

Ok I have just read the entire article. Here are some quotes from the full thing which I found interesting. Quote: Since the incident, Torres has become more convinced that the object, travelling at speed and performing manoeuvres beyond the capability of any known aircraft at that time, was an alien UFO. As far as I am aware, the MiG21 sacrificed manoeuverability in exchange for speed. [quote]"The blip was burning a hole in the radar with its incredible intensity. It was similar to a blip I had received from B52s and seemed to be a magnet of light. It had the proportions of a flying aircraft carrier," he wrote, according to The Times.

Quote:

He said that in the 1960s it emerged that the CIA had been engaged in a secret project codenamed Palladium, in which advanced equipment was used to create simulated radar blips close to Soviet airspace.

However this was in the 50's, not the 60's.


Quote:

Dr Clarke told The times that he thought it was linked to clandestine flights over the Soviet Union of the American U2 spy plane.

The Blackbird flew so high and so fast (it was a photo recon plane if I remember right) that it routinely got clipped on Soviet radar and would have missles fired at it from SAM batteries as well as interceptors sent on a vector towards it and it would not change anything about its flight path and 'laugh' at the threats it received.

If the pilot of this aircraft, someone trained in identifying radar blips, would never mention that he thought it may have been a MiG, what makes you so confident it was?

Now, back to why the MiG, which travels slower than the speed of radar, would appear to be a bomber, or a flying aircraft carrier on the radar screen.[/quote]

I already have given you clues about the radar now you have to see it for yourself to believe.
As for u2 it was shot down in over USSR territory in 1960, which took Americans completely by surprise about capability of soviet airspace technology.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:12pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:04pm: easel wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 3:51pm: Please tell me where I can see old radars in operation. I have seen old radars, but I have a feeling there are none that are operational. Please tell me how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on radar. They may have some in some military history museum or may be private collection. When you see one you will instantly understand how a small fighter can appear to be a large bomber on old radar screen especially when there are some clouds around or rain or snow. I have seen old radar, but I have never and will never see any being used. You can change the gain on any radio equipment, whether it be communications or radar to filter out such things as clouds, rain, or snow. Besides, clouds, rain, snow are essentially water. If radar was that crap you would never be able to spot a ship on the ocean due to the feedback, you would never be able to spot a fighter on a rainy day. The radar works on frequencies and at powers far different to say a HF radio, they are not going to be affected by things such as clouds if you get the controls right, at least according to my reasoning, however I am unsure, and I think they can bounce radar off the stratosphere to get over the horison readings like what they do with the Jindalee system. These trained radar operators said that it resembled a bomber on the radar. I'm sure they know what they are talking about.

What trained radar operators? The article says about aircraft radar.
Besides as I mentioned before lots of American servicemen in Europe in 50 were heavy on drugs and could "see" lucy in the sky.

So they were all hallucinating a radar hit at the same time?

The pilot of an attack aircraft is not just trained in takeoff, landing and flying. They would learn such things as comms, weapons, radar. Therefore the pilot would know how to use his inboard radar systems.

An F117 got shot down in Kosovo. What is your point? Yes nothing is perfect.

Please tell me how the hell a MiG can appear to be a bomber due to its speed. If you have the knowledge why not share it with me.

And please tell me why this pilot, who is trained in the use of radar, never assumed it was a MiG, but rather a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:43pm:

So they were all hallucinating a radar hit at the same time? The pilot of an attack aircraft is not just trained in takeoff, landing and flying. They would learn such things as comms, weapons, radar. Therefore the pilot would know how to use his inboard radar systems. An F117 got shot down in Kosovo. What is your point? Yes nothing is perfect. Please tell me how the hell a MiG can appear to be a bomber due to its speed. If you have the knowledge why not share it with me. And please tell me why this pilot, who is trained in the use of radar, never assumed it was a MiG, but rather a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier.

So was it the aircraft radar or ground radar and was the pilot ordered to shoot UFO? Where all this info in the article?

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:49pm:

easel wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:43pm: So they were all hallucinating a radar hit at the same time? The pilot of an attack aircraft is not just trained in takeoff, landing and flying. They would learn such things as comms, weapons, radar. Therefore the pilot would know how to use his inboard radar systems. An F117 got shot down in Kosovo. What is your point? Yes nothing is perfect. Please tell me how the hell a MiG can appear to be a bomber due to its speed. If you have the knowledge why not share it with me. And please tell me why this pilot, who is trained in the use of radar, never assumed it was a MiG, but rather a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier. So was it the aircraft radar or ground radar and was the pilot ordered to shoot UFO? Where all this info in the article?

You are either incredibly stupid or you are baiting me. Either way, I don't want to discuss these minor details with you until you tell me how a MiG, due to speed, can appear to be a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier on radar.

Last time I will address your deflections.


Quote:

An American jet fighter pilot has spoken of they day he was scrambled to try to shoot down a UFO in British airspace more than 50 years ago. Lieutenant Milton Torres was based in Britain on May 20, 1957 when he received the order: get up there, arm all weapons and fire on sight.

Ground radar, orders to destroy target.


Quote:

Neither Torres, who was 24 at the time, nor the pilot of a second Sabre flying behind, actually saw what was making the strong blip on their radars.

Aircraft radar. Or possibly a received signal from the ground station.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:49pm: easel wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:43pm: So they were all hallucinating a radar hit at the same time? The pilot of an attack aircraft is not just trained in takeoff, landing and flying. They would learn such things as comms, weapons, radar. Therefore the pilot would know how to use his inboard radar systems. An F117 got shot down in Kosovo. What is your point? Yes nothing is perfect. Please tell me how the hell a MiG can appear to be a bomber due to its speed. If you have the knowledge why not share it with me. And please tell me why this pilot, who is trained in the use of radar, never assumed it was a MiG, but rather a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier. So was it the aircraft radar or ground radar and was the pilot ordered to shoot UFO? Where all this info in the article? You are either incredibly stupid or you are baiting me. Either way, I don't want to discuss these minor details with you until you tell me how a MiG, due to speed, can appear to be a bomber or a flying aircraft carrier on radar. Last time I will address your deflections. Quote: An American jet fighter pilot has spoken of they day he was scrambled to try to shoot down a UFO in British airspace more than 50 years ago. Lieutenant Milton Torres was based in Britain on May 20, 1957 when he received the order: get up there, arm all weapons and fire on sight. Ground radar, orders to destroy target. [quote]Neither Torres, who was 24 at the time, nor the pilot of a second Sabre flying behind, actually saw what was making the strong blip on their radars.

Aircraft radar. Or possibly a received signal from the ground station.[/quote]


If out of two of us one is incredibly stupid it is not me. I told you before go and lurn about radar technology in general and  then from 50s otherwise it will be waste of my time to explain you anything technical. Do it. You are not really stupid are you?  :-/

Also think about why trained as you claim air force pilot talk about b 52 and not about soviet model of a bomber. trained pilot suppose to know all there is to know about potential enemy aircraft he suppose to combat. Think about that question while you study about radars.

You are the one with the knowledge of radar and how it works, so please tell me how a fast small jet can appear to be a large bomber.

He said it appeared like a B52 or a flying aircraft carrier, it was large was the point I think he was making.

You know how radar works, and I am sure the Soviets were not silly enough to routinely fly their long range bombers within range of enemy radar so as to allow the enemy ground stations to build profiles of how their aircraft perform on radar so as to allow the enemy to instantly know what kind of aircraft they were presented with.

If you know about the radar technology, educate me, teach me, so I can learn.

Radar does not give you a full colour photograph of the aircraft where you can read the tail number of the aircraft.

During the Vietnam war the Americans were having problems with their planes getting massacred over North Vietnam by the NVAF. What they did was get their fighters to mimic the flight patterns of bombers and simulate refuelling to fool the radar operators of North Vietnam in to thinking they had more bombers headed their way. When the North Vietnamese fighters were scrambled they met US fighters and got shot out of the sky.

So as you can see, radar is not infallible.

But you would know that, seeing as you are a radar expert.

Now please explain to me about how a small fighter can appear to be massive based purely on speed. Not to mention how the not so agile MiG21 can perform amazing feats of aerobatics on radar.

We both know this wasn't a MiG21. There is no arguing this point further. It may not have been extra terrestrial, it may have been electronic counter radar/jamming experiments.

C'mon smarty pants, tell me how the radar could be fooled, purely by speed, in to thinking a MiG21 was a large bomber, and why the radar signature would be so large.

You're the expert on 1950's era British ground to air radar, now please educate everyone on the board.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 5:56pm:

You are the one with the knowledge of radar and how it works, so please tell me how a fast small jet can appear to be a large bomber. He said it appeared like a B52 or a flying aircraft carrier, it was large was the point I think he was making. You know how radar works, and I am sure the Soviets were not silly enough to routinely fly their long range bombers within range of enemy radar so as to allow the enemy ground stations to build profiles of how their aircraft perform on radar so as to allow the enemy to instantly know what kind of aircraft they were presented with. If you know about the radar technology, educate me, teach me, so I can learn. Radar does not give you a full colour photograph of the aircraft where you can read the tail number of the aircraft. During the Vietnam war the Americans were having problems with their planes getting massacred over North Vietnam by the NVAF. What they did was get their fighters to mimic the flight patterns of bombers and simulate refuelling to fool the radar operators of North Vietnam in to thinking they had more bombers headed their way. When the North Vietnamese fighters were scrambled they met US fighters and got shot out of the sky. So as you can see, radar is not infallible. But you would know that, seeing as you are a radar expert. Now please explain to me about how a small fighter can appear to be massive based purely on speed. Not to mention how the not so agile MiG21 can perform amazing feats of aerobatics on radar. We both know this wasn't a MiG21. There is no arguing this point further. It may not have been extra terrestrial, it may have been electronic counter radar/jamming experiments. C'mon smarty pants, tell me how the radar could be fooled, purely by speed, in to thinking a MiG21 was a large bomber, and why the radar signature would be so large. You're the expert on 1950's era British ground to air radar, now please educate everyone on the board.

Have you learn about radar technology yet? I told you already that you need to know it to understand otherwise it would be waste of time.

BTW, where is in the article the thingo about 1950's era British ground to air radar? Common mr curious point it out.

I have a very limited understanding of radar, but I am sure I can understand ANYTHING you are willing to explain to me, if not I can ask questions about the points I do not grasp and you can educate me.

The whole article is about 50's era ground based and air based air radar, in the sense that is the only type of radar mentioned. It is about detecting via radar a target in the air from the ground and in the air. Did you miss that part?

So anyway, are you going to teach me, or are you too busy with google trying to teach yourself first?

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:18pm:

I have a very limited understanding of radar, but I am sure I can understand ANYTHING you are willing to explain to me, if not I can ask questions about the points I do not grasp and you can educate me. The whole article is about 50's era ground based and air based air radar, in the sense that is the only type of radar mentioned. It is about detecting via radar a target in the air from the ground and in the air. Did you miss that part? So anyway, are you going to teach me, or are you too busy with google trying to teach yourself first?

So it wasn't about aircraft radar or was it? This is very important to how an error about b52 was made. Hint" the size of screen. And I still have doubts about authenticity of the story due to allegedly highly trained interceptor pilot talking about an American bomber instead of potential enemy aircraft. Also it seems strange that there was no mention about meteorological conditions in the report at the time of the incident.

Of course I'm willing to teach you but you now the rules.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:47pm:

easel wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 6:18pm: I have a very limited understanding of radar, but I am sure I can understand ANYTHING you are willing to explain to me, if not I can ask questions about the points I do not grasp and you can educate me. The whole article is about 50's era ground based and air based air radar, in the sense that is the only type of radar mentioned. It is about detecting via radar a target in the air from the ground and in the air. Did you miss that part? So anyway, are you going to teach me, or are you too busy with google trying to teach yourself first? So it wasn't about aircraft radar or was it? This is very important to how an error about b52 was made. Hint" the size of screen. And I still have doubts about authenticity of the story due to allegedly highly trained interceptor pilot talking about an American bomber instead of potential enemy aircraft. Also it seems strange that there was no mention about meteorological conditions in the report at the time of the incident. Of course I'm willing to teach you but you now the rules.

Screen size does not matter. Resolution does. Or have I got that wrong tallow?

The pilot never said it was a B52. He said it was similar in size but performed like no known aircraft. He was comparing, for example, that dinosaur was as big as a bus. Get it?

Teach me then. What rules are we talking about? If you are going to play super spy, you would obviously know that 50's era radar is not going to be classified, if it was they wouldn't have examples at museums, and you can probably get better stuff off the shelf for the Sydney to Hobat yacht race.

How does a small fighter return a reading corresponding to a much larger object?

You are talking out of your arse, and you know it, and so does everyone else. For someone who instantly 'knew' it was a MiG21, who seemed to have knowledge on the 21, the part in the article where it said the aircraft was agile would have screamed out that it wasn't a 21, which through design sacrificed agility for speed.

So, Mr MiG and radar expert, please explain your reasonings behind your nonsense claims.

Until you can do that I am going to cease responding to your fairytales.

A quick google tells me the 21 is agile.

Yet you never raised this fallacy I made.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:03pm:

A quick google tells me the 21 is agile. Yet you never raised this fallacy I made.

Show to me where I claimed to be a MIG expert.
Also which Mig21 are you talking about?

Quote:

Show to me where I claimed to be a MIG expert. Also which Mig21 are you talking about?

The part where you instantly knew what the aircraft was, without being there, without seeing the radar screen, when the pilot and ground crew did not know what it was:


Quote:

It was MiG-21Mbis

I am talking about the MiG21 airframe in general. That's like which Holden Commodore are you talking about, the Executive, the SS or the Equipe? I wouldn't comment on what type of MiG it was, because I wouldn't know, unlike yourself.

This is getting boring now tallow.


Quote:

So, Mr MiG and radar expert, please explain your reasonings behind your nonsense claims. Until you can do that I am going to cease responding to your fairytales.

End of discussion for now until you start addressing the topic.

easel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:14pm:

Quote: Show to me where I claimed to be a MIG expert. Also which Mig21 are you talking about? The part where you instantly knew what the aircraft was, without being there, without seeing the radar screen, when the pilot and ground crew did not know what it was: [quote]It was MiG-21Mbis

I am talking about the MiG21 airframe in general. That's like which Holden Commodore are you talking about, the Executive, the SS or the Equipe? I wouldn't comment on what type of MiG it was, because I wouldn't know, unlike yourself.

This is getting boring now tallow.


Quote:

So, Mr MiG and radar expert, please explain your reasonings behind your nonsense claims. Until you can do that I am going to cease responding to your fairytales.

End of discussion for now until you start addressing the topic.[/quote]


You don't need to be a MIG expert to know about MIG21Mbis it is common knowledge this days distributed over internet.

You shouldn't even start the discussion before you read the article in question so don't blame your shortcomings on me.

"End of discussion"No2 for you mr false radar expert.  ;)