UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3

Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:17:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:56:11 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

>You can babble on as long as you like.

My pleasure.

>However, [..] you seem to have missed that the
>highest recorded speed was 1010 knots. (For those outside
>the English language area, this is around 1900 km/hr).

I think you're missing the significant detail "while the F-16s
were aloft", just as you seem to miss one in appearing to think
that Wim van Utrecht's purely hypothetical balloon was flying
around in March 1990 and not November/December 1989. Still,
that's your problem. Out of the kindness of my heart, however, I
offer a solution to it below.


Anyway, I double-checked the RBAF report I have, and find I was
actually wrong, even if you aren't right. The highest speed the
UFO attained *while the F-16s were airborne* occurred at 00.13,
8 minutes after take-off:

"La vitesse de l'objectif change en un minimum de temps de
150 =E0 970 neouds et de 9000 =E0 5000 pieds, ensuite retour =E0
11.000 pieds, pour, par la suite et soudainement au niveau du
sol; d'o=F9 il r=E9sulte un 'break lock' en quelques secondes et
les pilotes perdent le contact radar. Le CRC GLONS informe,
au moment du 'break lock' que les chasseurs survolent la
position de l'objectif."

Crudely translated:

(The speed of the target changes in the smallest amount of time
from 150 to 970 knots [172.5mph/278km/h to 1115mph/1796km/h] and
from 9000 to 5000ft, next returning to 11,000ft, nonetheless
following that [maneuver by diving] suddenly to ground level;
from which resulted a "break lock" in a few seconds and the
pilots lost radar contact. The CRC Glons [radar] lets it be
known that at the moment of the "break lock" the hunters [i.e.
the fighters] overshot the position of the target.)

Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar
tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as
previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don
Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can
be.

I mentioned these speeds in the first place because they're not
that far from the top "dash" airspeed of the F-16 even fitted
with earlier P&W F100 engines (I don't know what powered the RBAF
Falcons in 1990). The japes of the target suggest spurious radar
echoes. What this report doesn't say is whether the Falcons were
above, below or level with the target when they locked on (and
bear in mind the radar "lock" is on the signal, not the physical
target). If the pilots were able to follow basic air combat
tactics and get above the targets, then ground clutter becomes a
possibility. Any junk could have appeared on the F-16s' screens
if the radar wasn't working properly (it happens). As Royal Navy
Harrier pilots found in the Falklands, combat radars need very
careful tuning *and* skilled reading. One Navy carrier's group
consistently performed (killed) better than the other's (and the
RAF) because they had better tech support and more expertise with
the kit. So one would want to know something about that RBAF kit,
its support and maintenance, and the level of training of the
pilots before pronouncing on the infallibility of the radar
"information". It would also be useful to know if the F-16s were
using downward-looking radar, which can do weird things over
land.

If you don't weigh factors like these (and, if possible, the
facts about them) in the balance against the more exotic leaps
to conclusions such as Meessen's and SOBEPS', you're not doing
the ufological job properly, not doing much-maligned ufology a
service, and being a bit dishonest to claim that the events of
30-31 March 90 over French-speaking Belgium constitute anything
like proof of an extra-terrestrial visit. As I remarked before,
in effect, "confusion" (or "self-contradiction" if you prefer
that translation) is the hallmark of this case, even after
Gilmard & Salmon's study. Thus babbled Peregrine.

Now, Henny has fixed a balloon on the wrong date and made it
supersonic. I suggest we can most satsfactorily dispose of this
problem if we took the "data" (no pun intended) at face value.
Surely what we have here is a balloon traveling *through time*
from some date in November or December 1989 to 30 March 1990.
Deceleration from the superluminal speed required for this feat
had unfortunately not been completed when the balloon burst into
the correct space-time correlates on 30 March and so it whizzed
spectacularly & supersonically about the sky to the amazement of
all, not least its pilots, who had discovered in the worst way
possible that time travel is possible for macro-scale material
objects: for their brains had arrived safely but their minds,
thoughts and memories had remained several weeks behind. One of
the pilots was, of course, none other than Wim van Utrecht. This
explains why he will not countenance the idea of a supersonic
balloon sashaying around the sky on 30/31 March 1990 over
Belgium. This solution conforms to the standard requirements of
ufological theory in being non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, and
cramming as many "entities" into it as you can get anchovy slices
into an old red British phone box that hasn't had its windows
broken by vandals.

It *may* also show that I don't need the Prozac just yet.

Yours &c
Prolixicon D. Motormouth
Village Idiot






Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | hvdp

[ 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