UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5

Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:24:49 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:26:57 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?


>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:17:38 -0500
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>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?

>>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",

No Duke, it's still you who is missing significant details.
I hope you won't be hurt by the cruelty of the facts, but
you can find the full transcript a few paragraphs below.
Some of your less diligent servants apparently couldn't
find it.

>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.

I had noted that Van Utrecht (yes, we spell 'Van' and not 'van'
when using the surname only) commented on the events in November/
December 1989. However, you were apparently aware of the
supersonic capabilities of Van Utrecht's balloon, Duke, as you
were quoting from the official investigation of this case that
was conducted after March, when the balloon demonstrated its
ability to break the sound barrier.
 
I had noted that Van Utrecht (yes, we spell 'Van' and not 'van'
when using the surname only) commented on the events in November/
December 1989. However, you were apparently aware of the
supersonic capabilities of Van Utrecht's balloon, Duke, as you
were quoting from the official investigation of this case that
was conducted after March, when the balloon demonstrated its
ability to break the sound barrier. 

One of these days, Duke, I am going to write a book about UFOs.
Though I have a life and have never even spoken to a book
publisher, events like these surely tempt me. In this book not so
much the cases themselves will be highlighted, but rather the
impressive amount of hopefully well intended, but sadly
ridiculous explanations that the UFO debunkers have been putting
out since the end of the 1940s.

The Belgian/Dutch flap will surely be a prominent case and I was
planning to include the F117, B2, Aurora/Senior Citizen, the laser
show, LoFlyte, atmospheric diffraction, ground clutter and the
inevitable new bogus explanations that will be coming forward
in this book just for the fun of it.

Because, you see Duke, when I write something I get kicks out of
amusing my readers now and then and the flap we are discussing
has provided us with a wealth of material. For this undertaking
I was planning to use the supersonic balloon explanation as the
last bogus explanation for dramatic effect. And, actually, I have
been toying with the idea of giving you the credit for bringing
it to my attention. Knowing your sense of humor and your
kind heart, you would surely give me your permission,
won't you Duke?

>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.)

Duke, the text you quote from is a summary of this contact.
It accurately says that the speed of the object is 970 knts
at break lock. However, your loyal servants, probably knowing
you don't want to be bothered with all the facts, provided
you with an 'executive summary' and neglected to
present the entire sequence of measurements that
clearly shows a max of 1010.

Here is the full transcript of this contact:

 Seconds after    Heading                    Speed    Altitude
   lock-on       (degrees)                  (knots)    (feet)=B7

      00            200                       150       7000=B7
      01            200                       150       7000=B7
      02            200                       150       7000=B7
      03            200                       150       7000=B7
      04      sharp 200          acceleration 150       6000=B7
      05       turn 270             =3D 22 g    560       6000=B7
      06            270                       560       6000=B7
      07            270                       570       6000=B7
      08            270                       560       7000=B7
      09            270                       550       7000=B7
      10            210                       560       9000=B7
      11            210                       570      10000=B7
      12            210                       560      11000=B7
      13            210                       570      10000=B7
      14            270                       770       7000=B7

      15            270                       770       6000=B7
      16            270                       780       6000=B7
      17            270                       790       5000=B7
      18            290                      1010       4000=B7
      19            290                      1000       3000=B7
      20            290                       990       2000=B7
      21            290                       990       1000=B7
      22            300                       990       0000=B7
      22.5          300                       980       0000  Break
lock=B7


So, Duke, it is not me who is wrong, but again, you. Its max
was not 740, as you first said and not 970 as you claimed
in your last post, but 1010 knots. Three strikes and you're out.


>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.

Yes, Duke, that is the whole problem with these data.
Radar traces become meaningless precisely when they are
conflicting with our belief systems.

Because, surely, we can't rule out that the pilot who wanted
to record this object, and who went up in the air to do just that,
in fact decided to recalibrate his radar in full flight and
later totally forgot about it.

And, by golly, the RBAF and the scientists from two universities
mistakenly concluded - by consensus - that he had recorded a UFO.
This only added fuel to the mass hallucination that had been
plagueing the country for half a year by then and even more
people started seeing flying triangles, an oddity that even
spread to the Netherlands.

The reality is of course that he had recorded a UFO. In fact,
radar data were recorded several times and the second pilot had
made radar contact as well, as shows this excerpt:

<begin>


'The radar contacts of one F-16 with the so-called "UFOs" have
been=B7 registered on a video record. One lasted for 46 seconds.
Two F-16s were involved. One of the F-16 had 13 registered
contacts; the other one had also contacts, but they were not
registered because the pilot did not push the right switch. The
contacts can be divided into 5 groups, separated by periods
without contact.

contact     lasting       beginning=B7
number      (seconds)     at=B7
     1          2.3         00 h 13 March 31,1990
(March 30 22 h 13 GMT)=B7
     2          3.4=B7
     3         19.9         00 h 15=B7
=B7
     4         27.5         00 h 29=B7
     5          8.0=B7
     6         11.4=B7
     7          9.3=B7
     8        < 0.1=B7
=B7
     9         45.9         00 h 39=B7
    10         16.2=B7
    11         11.4=B7
    12          9.5=B7
=B7
    13         11.2         00 h 46'

<end>

>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.


Firstly, F16s are Fighting Falcons. The Falcon is a business jet
made by Dassault. But the Duke isn't just inaccurate in the
insignifant details.

The japes of the target suggest nothing but a flying object. Here
is only one of several excerpts that show simultaneous contact by
ground control and the F16's. This excerpt also shows that there
is no confusion about the object being a civilian aircraft.


P=3DPilot
C=3DController
Numbers like 300 and 120 are headings, measured in degrees.

*****

           P   Roger SB 100=B7
       C       Civilian traffic 300, 5 miles=B7
           P      "    "    "    "    "=B7
               Steady 120
       C       Continue 100
           P   100=B7
       C       Even 060 now
               060, 5

***** F16 pilot has received orders to change his course to 60 degrees.

           P   Steady 060=B7
       C       060, 3. You have contact?=B7
           P   One contact but speed is changing from 100 to 600

***** Duke, the facts are cruel, aren't they?

       C       I have the same contact=B7
           P   Slightly to right 4 miles=B7
       C       Affirmative. High moving=B7
           P   Steady east now=B7
       C       Roger=B7
           P   Lost contact=B7

*****

This sequence took place within 2 minutes.

>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.

Duke, this was not the fog of war and nobody was dogfighting.
Belgium is a friendly country. It didn't consider shooting down
enemy extraterrestrials to protect their national security. Also,
it didn't perceive this phenomenon as anything else but an
unknown craft, because Belgium does not suffer from the trauma of
lost empire, transforming this trauma into jealousy toward its
successor and calling the ET Hypothesis "Americana" (listening,
Paul?). No, the only thing they wanted was go up and record some
facts.

About ground clutter. The excerpts clearly show that the second
pilot as well as ground radar had tracked the same object,
sometimes simultaneously with the first pilot.
Ground clutter, right?

In fact, the F16 seemed to have been registering the altitude of
the ground clutter. At one point the ground clutter reached an
altitude of 11,000 ft. That's fairly high for ground clutter,
not?

In fact, to enlighten you further, Duke, the F16's air-to-air
radar has a limitation on the low end of its range. One of the
reasons for including this feature is to avoid confusion with
ground clutter. It was exactly this limitation that the UFO used
to break the lock.

So, explain to me how ground clutter that could not have been
recorded in the first place, suddenly manifested itself on ground
radar, then on F16 radar, subsequently developed a mind of its
own and decide to break a radar lock. And how after that it
decided to let the F16's close in again, only to break the lock
again. And again. Not surprisingly, I am now getting visions of
supersonic balloons.


>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".

See above for multiple radar contact. But, of course, the radars
of both F16s and those of the two ground radars could all be
miscalibrated, not?

Not only that, they could have been miscalibrated in such a way
that the object was detected on two of these four radars at the
same time several times in a row. Never mind that the ground and
air radars will surely have been calibrated by two different
groups of maintenance personnel.

But wait, a conspiracy could have existed, just to confuse us.
That could explain it. In any case, all this miscalibration was
done in such a way that all the radars 'knew' where the bogus
object should have been to produce a correlating effect,
involving a total of six radars.

Yes, Duke you have a point, we should look at this. The problem
is that by now it's nearly impossible to check anything, because
the logs that say who calibrated what radar will certainly have
been trashed. And we can't just trust testimony, can we?
So we simply can't say anyting with certainty about the quality
of the radars and the validity of the recorded data.
How sad.

But even when we dare to overlook this problem, we could still
not be sure. Because, of course, we would also want to know
exactly how reliable the people were that feature in this case
and who presented us with their conclusions. Like Gen. De
Brouwer, Col. Bartels and the scientists. They could have
doctored all the communication sequences, all the radar tapes and
presented their conclusion only to mislead us all.

Therefore, it would be imperative for us to know exactly how
happily married they were, for starters. And had the pilots been
drinking behind the controls or something? And how many Close
Encounters videos had the scientists seen? Otherwise, we couldn't
be sure of anything, could we, Duke? And we would not want to do
Ufology a huge disservice by not knowing these facts, would we,
Duke?

The problem is, that the records of the video stores that could
have carried Close Encounters or Star Wars or any other science
fiction movie are probably gone by now. And Gen. De Brouwer and
his men may well be prone to lie about their love life, or their
childhood for that matter, not?

So, you see, we will never know.

>It would also be useful to know if the F-16s were
>using downward-looking radar, which can do weird things over
>land.

See above. The radar had a limit on the low side of its range.

>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.


Duke, I have forgiven you that you couldn't find Snowflake, Utah,
on the map. But it now seems you have to order your servants to
buy a new one. Eupen, the town of the first sightings, is in the
German speaking part of Belgium, not the French.

Having done some additional research, it turned out that the
object had also been tracked by radars at Zaventem airfield
and Bertem. Zaventem in any case lies well above the language
border. My map doesn't show Bertem and Semmerzake, but judging
from the names, I dare to bet they lie in the Dutch speaking
part of Belgium.

Furthermore, these same objects have been seen in the Netherlands
in the same time frame, as I said earlier. In fact, a whole UFO
research group, Stufon, was founded after repeated sightings of
these triangles in our beloved province of Limburg. Its
president, who witnessed these craft in the early 1990s, has
stacked up a pile of video cameras in his house in the hope that
someday they return.

So, I hope we won't see this cultural bogus explanation returning
on this list for some time. (Never expect to exterminate weed
entirely). I only hope that this example highlights the almost
unbelievable sloppyness of debunkers' research and their
unmatched ability to keep spreading nonsense.

>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.

Duke, confusion can only arise in this case when we don't accept
the facts that indicate that an "unknown craft" was operating.
But, being the sloppy researcher that you are, you keep digging
up as many rumors and inaccuracies that you need to come to the
conclusion that there is no proof for an extraterrestrial visit.
Thus protecting your belief system.

Of course, there is no problem with that at all. UFO skeptics
can be very nice people. I know a few. And frankly, I don't even
want to convince them that they are wrong.

The problem is that you keep posting all these falsehoods on
lists such as these and perhaps even in your books. Thereby
denying the interested part of the public the right to make up
its mind on the basis of validated facts.

>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.

I would try some more black coffee. But, then again, maybe that
wouldn't help either. Anyway, Duke, if you still think that the
Belgian/Dutch flap was ground clutter, atmospheric diffraction or
the stars dancing to the rythm of laser beams, I still have those
parcels of land for sale on the back side of the moon.
The offer expires November 10, 12.00 am, MET.

Tell you what, if you mention that you saw the offer on this
list, I'll give you a discount.

But wait, let's go one further. If you would simply admit that in
this case you are wrong, dead wrong and in fact don't have a clue
what you are talking about, I'll give you the whole lot for free.
How's that, Duke?


            __________________________________________
           /    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 | 101653.2205

[ 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