By Ray Stern
By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
But if Cotton is able to state that the object(s) flew over without being detected by Luke AFB radar, then the transponder theory has problems. As a military base which must defend its air space against intruders domestic and foreign, Luke AFB does not rely on the good intentions of fliers to keep their transponders switched on. It has active radar with which it scans the skies, ready to pick up reflected radar signals from any craft which may be present. (This is not to say that it does not also make use of transponder signals to assist in the identification of aircraft.) These reflected radar signals also provide information about the number, distance, size, speed and other ordinary characteristics of any craft detected.
Editor's note: We, too, were surprised when Luke Air Force Base officials suggested that the base doesn't use radar that will detect any flying object. Since receiving your letter, we checked again, and this time were told that Luke does, indeed, use two sorts of radar, which it refers to as primary and secondary types. The secondary type reads transponder signals only, but the base's primary radar detects most aircraft within 60 miles and up to 60,000 feet in altitude regardless of whether those aircraft have their transponders on.
However, Luke officials say that many aircraft without transponder signals show up on primary radar and are routinely ignored. "We're mainly concerned with our own planes," says Sergeant Karina Jennings.
On March 14, she says, in response to a deluge of calls from the public, primary-radar operators were asked if they had seen anything unusual the night before. None said that they had.
But Jennings points out that those operators could have seen many signalless planes--even a group of seven flying in formation--and not have considered it "unusual."
Moreover, she notes that in a formation of seven planes, only two or three might show up clearly on the primary radar and would likely have been ignored.
Jennings also notes that on Luke's primary radar, military Stealth aircraft, as well as airplanes with surfaces constructed of plastic or fiber glass, do not show up at all.
She adds that Luke doesn't have the capability of recording its primary radar, and so no tapes exist of what was seen the night of March 13. FAA officials in Albuquerque do record radar tapes for the Phoenix area, but recycle them after 15 days. If anyone had made a formal request for the March 13 tapes within that time, there would be a permanent record available for the asking. No one did.
I witnessed on March 13 what Mitch Stanley observed through his telescope. But I didn't need a telescope to observe the configuration, which appeared unbalanced at five. That was my first clue that it was interterrestrial. As I watched before it disappeared, I observed it peel off into the great beyond. To what country it belongs, I don't know or really care.
I just know those pilots are having a good laugh at our expense, especially when an individual on the Phoenix City Council calls for an all-out investigation utilizing the "Arizona air force." Maybe Frances Emma Barwood is the alien since she is not aware that Arizona doesn't have an air force. Oh, well. It is nice to know there are still some of us who are not misled by mass hysteria or by the movie Independence Day and have their power of reasoning intact. Thanks for printing this story and clearing up what has turned into a colossal mess.
It is wonderful that people want to look up at the night sky, but it is better if they have equipment such as Mitch Stanley's telescope so they can more positively identify the things they are seeing. If Frances Emma Barwood wants to do something constructive during her 15 minutes of fame, she might draft rules to curb light pollution, such as Tucson has, so millions of dollars aren't wasted annually on billboard lights, etc., aimed needlessly into the Phoenix sky that diminish the view.
Mo' Joe Risin'
Jeremy Voas' column ("Say It Ain't Joe," June 12) was another outstanding example of fine journalism from New Times. However, I do have to add a couple of things to the writer's list of Arpaioisms:
This is the same man who, before running for public office, attempted to secure a public contract by suggesting kickbacks during the contract bidding process. He freely admitted this to staff writer Tony Ortega, but apparently felt that "kickback" was a harsh term--perhaps "percentage" would have been more acceptable.
This is the man who, upon taking office in 1993, began the systematic intimidation of his own employees by reminding many of them that he knew exactly how much they had contributed to the campaign of his opponent. He would refer to a computer printout that he carried around to assist in this ugly process. This is the man who attempted to create a Sheriff's Office policy that would have prevented any of his 2,000 employees from uttering anything negative about him, on or off duty. After this fact was revealed in the Arizona Republic, he then proceeded to lie about having proposed such a clear violation of the First Amendment.
This is a man who proposed searching each person entering Maricopa County for illegal materials. This is a man who, being asked to show his ID card when entering a County Court building, threw his business card in the face of a $5-per-hour security guard. This is a man who required his employees to watch videotapes of his appearing in the media. All at public expense.
Kelley Waldrip, MCSO lieutenant, retired
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Kudos to Jeremy Voas for his analysis of the continuing farce that is Arizona politics. His analysis that Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be the next governor is, sad to say, absolutely correct. The people of this state seem to be able to, without exception, pick the greater of two evils. About the only way that Arpaio could fail to gain the governorship would be if Charles Manson should receive parole and decide to run (not very likely at this time).
Of course, with Arpaio as governor, New Times' job (printing the news) becomes so much easier. I'm sure we all can imagine the great copy "Governor" Joe (America's Most Insane Executive) Arpaio will generate. We can be sure that the failings of Evan Mecham and Fife Symington will pale in comparison.
I frequent Phoenix to visit my 68-year-old mother and she tells me that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a saint, and she seems to feel safer because of his no-nonsense reputation nationwide! It's like watching a World War II documentary about the abuse that Adolf Hitler got away with! This makes me disgusted and ashamed that I was born in Phoenix.
How much longer can this madness last? What makes me sick is that the media make Arpaio look like James Arness from Gunsmoke! A lot of people like my mother think the same way; they think like they're out of harm's way because of this dork of a sheriff!
My hat's off to New Times for having the guts to publish Jeremy Voas' column. This column has to be the best information piece that I've ever read--too bad it's a stomach churner!
Peace of Mind
As a mental-health consumer living in Maricopa County, I am very disturbed at ComCare's decision to lay off case managers to save funds ("Scream Dement," Barry Graham, June 12). This decision is extremely detrimental to me as a consumer, as well as to other consumers who benefit so much from ComCare's services.
I have been a member of ComCare for six years. In that time, my case managers have provided emotional support in times of crisis, have found agencies to provide psychotherapy, have helped with transportation, and have even provided food boxes on a couple of occasions. It could be said that without ComCare's assistance, I might not have received the emotional and other support necessary to attend Arizona State University with the goal of receiving a bachelor's degree.
The reason ComCare has been able to assist me so successfully is because each of my case managers has been given a small enough caseload that he has had time to assess my needs and goals. One of the biggest determinants to many consumers remaining stable and functioning in the community is having access to a case manager who does not have an overwhelming caseload. This way each consumer gets the attention he or she truly needs.
ComCare owes the people it services the best possible care. Laying off case managers is a slap in the face to consumers because case managers are in the unique position of knowing more about their consumers than anybody else in the system. When consumers are having a crisis, their case managers will invariably know much quicker than anyone else what services the consumer needs in order to survive the ordeal. Case managers consistently have more contact with their clients than any other professional in the mental-health system and, therefore, have a greater understanding of what their clients need. A crisis line is a poor substitute because crisis workers don't have the wealth of knowledge about the consumer at their fingertips that a case manager does.
It is crucial that there be enough case managers employed so that consumers have the best possible access to the services they are legally entitled to, as mandated by Arnold v. Sarn. I strongly urge ComCare to find other places to cut funding besides laying off case managers. ComCare would be cutting off the very people it is mandated to protect.