UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2

Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:09:05 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:06:43 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:27 -0500
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


James,

I deleted the part about Aurora/Senior Citizen, because though
this is interesting I think it is only indirectly relevant to
UFOs.


>>>The Belgium reference is a good example of the questionable data
>>>which some government officials base their beliefs on.

>>>... the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap was _officially_
>>>explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter and no pilot
>>>ever witnessed an actual object.

>>Hogwash again. I should simply say do some elementary research on
>>this one, James. The people who were involved in this investigation
>>would either have been insulted or would have rolled over the floor
>>over this explanation. Ground clutter! The official explanation was
>>'unknown craft'.

>You appear to be unaware of any developments which succeeded the
>initial conclusions.
>
>I've checked my elementary research and although it's almost
>three years old now, it still notes that on the skunk-works list,
>the learned Jean-Pierre Pharabod, who does know a thing or two
>about the Belgian incidents, advised me:

>[Defence Department report, Belgium: "On some occasions they
>described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200
>feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +-100m
>above the ground and making only a very light humming
>noise...On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F-16's during the
>evening hours...On the second occasion, pilots could identify a
>laser-beam projector on the ground...A total of 9 interception
>attempts have been made. On 6 occasions the pilots could
>establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on
>distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets
>varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred
>after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts.
>At 3 occasions both F16's registered simultaneous lock-ons with
>the same parameters].

>"The above are excerpts from an old "SUMMARY REPORT ON
>OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990", written by Col. (now General) De
>Brouwer. Further studies have been made, and the conclusions are
>different. The first "two occasions" were before the night 30-31
>March 1990, and the "laser-beam projector on ground" was used by
>a night-club (this was well known, and was what De Brouwer meant
>in his summary). During the night 30-31 March, the pilot of the
>second F-16 video recorded his radar echoes. It appears now
>(Gilmard & Lt. Col. Salmon's study) that the first lock-ons,
>with speed and altitude varying very quickly, could be "ground
>clutter", while the one which lasted for 60 seconds, with nearly
>constant altitude and speed, was the first F-16. Now the Belgian
>military say "though this is not excluded, there is no proof that
>we got echoes from a real object with unusual abilities".

>And later added:

>"Now the Air Force has an explanation: ground clutter. I know of
>only 4 radars involved (2 on ground, 2 airborne), not 5. There
>were not hundreds of eye witnesses (this night), only a few
>gendarmes. Now it is said that what they saw could be stars
>through unusual atmospheric refraction phenomena.

I am not aware of any official Belgian investigation into the
1989/1990 happenings after the investigation that was
concluded in the spring (June?) of 1990.

Last January I contacted the Belgian Air Force and they said
nothing about a new investigation. If there is a new one, could
you inform us when that was concluded and under whose authority?

Could your friend the learned Pharabod or you perhaps explain
to us, perhaps from the "new explanation" by the Belgian
Air Force, how ground clutter could be responsible for
the manoeuvers that were described?

Could you also explain how the second pilot, flying directly
behind the first, mistook his leader for a UFO for a
full minute? And how this mistake was not recognized
during the official investigation?

Could you or your friend the learned Pharabod inform us how
a group of gendarmes could mistake a few bright stars for
the boarding lights of a UFO? Have the stars that were
responsible been identified? This should be easy since the
place and the time of their observation is known.

Has somebody found out whether this atmospheric defraction
phenomenon has indeed taken place above the piece of the Belgian
sky above the gendarmes? Under what conditions does it normally
take place and what is the likelihood that it took place?


>Only one thing remains unexplained. The F-16's took off at 0h 05
>local time (= GMT + 2). At 0 h 28, the Semmerzake radar detected
>an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels
>agglomeration, moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards
>east) at 450 knots. At 0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also.
>>From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both radars followed the craft, which was
>going in straight line towards Liege, increasing its speed and
>its altitude. The Semmerzake radar spotted it again 6000 ft over
>Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The last point was some 12
>miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at 0 h 36. (This craft
>was not one of the two F-16's, which were flying in complicated
>loops, followed by the radars on ground).

>The Semmerzake radar is an array type radar. It is used for
>military air safety. Semmerzake is about 30 miles west of
>Brussels. Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground
>Environment). There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including
>Turkey). Its missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in
>the Belgian air space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe,
>intercept and/or destroy according to the alert status. The Glons
>radar is a multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6
>miles north of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60
>miles. There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic.
>The craft passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem
>radar did not see anything (maybe because it looked only for
>transponders ?).


Could you explain to us why this information about the types of
ground radar is relevant?


>As far as I know, the craft has not yet been
>identified. Maybe illegal flight of a private jet?"


Could you or your friend the learned Pharabod explain how a
commercial aircraft outruns an F16 against a clear night sky?

>>You are partially right that the F16 pilots chasing the UFO did not
>>witness the object, but then we are talking about visual contact.
>>There was radar contact, however, and the position and manoeuvres
>>recorded on radar tape matched the observations of multiple witnesses
>>on the ground.

>See above.

>>The facts are that a few individuals have a reluctance to do even the
>>most basic research, which is very apparent from the fact that they
>>are not even aware of the most popular debunkers 'explanation' of
>>this case.

>Perhaps you will now reconsider your comments and understand the
>points I highlighted.


I retract my suggestion that you did not do any elementary research.
Forgive me if the explanation 'ground clutter' misled me.

>The "Belgian flap" remains an interesting series of events, but
>maybe doesn't have the substance we thought it had.


As you may expect I am not under the impression of this information
as a possible explanation for the Belgian flap.

The object that was recorded by F16 radar was indicated by
ground radar controllers. How can ground clutter be detected
by ground radars?

Upon radar lock, it broke the lock diving to the ground out
of the reach of the F16 radar. After that, on several occasions,
it slowly flew back into the radar lock. This suggests intelligent
manoeuvering, strongly weakening the possibility of
atmospheric conditions and ground clutter.

The aerial manoeuvering displayed, reaching accelerations
of over 40 G's, excludes all fighters and even those
that are on the drawing boards to enter service around 2020.
And it excludes LoFlyte, momentarily a popular 'explanation'
for this case, because the plane is not built for manoeuvering
in the first place because it is not a fighter.
Besides that LoFlyte did not fly at the time.

The fact that the object made no sonic boom while going
supersonic again eliminates all aircraft.

On some occasions, two similar objects have been seen, one
larger, one smaller, both described as triangular. This
again eliminates ground clutter and severely weakens
atmospheric diffraction.


The fact that two similarly described objects have been seen
above Nijmegen, The Netherlands, in the fall 1989/spring 1990
time frame excludes a "cultural explanation". This was
reported to me by a crime investigator who described them
as triangular, making impossible manoeuvers. He witnessed
them with his wife and two kids and knows other witnesses.


The total of visual observations numbers above 1,000 and
25 video films have been made by civilians. A photograph
exists that clearly shows a triangular object. This
excludes ground clutter/atmospheric diffraction again.


The fact that the objects returned on several occasions
during the fall 1989/fall 1991 time frame and
that one of them sought to restore radar lock during the
F16 chase excludes covert military activity.

This again excludes LoFlyte. LoFlyte is an experimental plane
operated by NASA. NASA has no authority to test its craft
outside the USA or international air space.


The episode of the F16 UFO chase shows similarity to:
. a UK case of the 1950s (1954?) during which an RAF Venom
chased a UFO, closed in and found the craft behind itself in
an instant. Evasive manoeuvers had no effect.
. The 1976 Iran case during which two Iranian F4's
tried to shoot down a UFO and found their controls
switched off and themselves being hunted by two
UFOs that departed from a mothership. When trying
to eject they found the ejection mechanism
dysfunctional.

Similarity in cat and mouse game.

Of course, one can explain the Belgian case when we assume
that thousands of civilians mistook the stars for UFOs
and saw triangular craft that don't exist, both in Belgium
and in The Netherlands. The 25 video films and the photograph
are of course doctored. The F16 pilots must have locked on
to ground clutter that seemed to be playing cat
and mouse with its pursuers, while the ground radars tracked
an illegal commercial flight that was at the same position as the
ground clutter on the F16's radar screens.

The subsequent official investigation that included RBAF
researchers as well as scientists from the universities
of Leuven and Brussels of course recognized nothing
of all these prosaic explanations and mistakenly reported the
phenomenon as an unknown craft. Surely they must have
been watching too much Star Trek.


For those who believe that I have a piece of land for
sale on the back side of the moon. Please make inquiries through
private email. Offer terminates November 10, 12.00 MET.

On a more serious note, I think this case is so interesting not
only because of the anomalous data, but also because it makes
for an impressive line up of skeptical 'explanations':

The first explanation I read about was the F117,
never mind that this plane can't fly supersonic.

Then came the B2, which does not even resemble a triangle.

I believe next in line was the laser show.

Then I heard about LoFlyte. Which is an 8 feet scale model that
did not fly in 1989.

The honorable Duke has reported to us the first triangular
balloon that can fly supersonic. (I am beginning to turn
red again, tears filling my eyes).

Now it seems we have atmospheric diffraction and ground clutter.

What's next? (Chuckles)

Oh well, I await with expectation the first serious plans for
a man made aircraft that can pull 40 G turns in the year 2015.
I can already write the Sunday Times commentary for you.
"US Air Force wants unmanned super fighter. triangular shape
...unprecedented manoeuverability...Covert version must have
been responsible for sightings in Hudson Valley in 1980 and
Belgium in 1990."

Never mind that by then they still haven't figured out how to
build a fighter that goes supersonic without making a
supersonic boom.


            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
		      hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/



Search for other documents from or mentioning: hvdp | pulsar

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com