From: Peregrine Mendoza <firstname.lastname@example.org> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:05:09 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:04:13 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments, and will try to be brief. >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:24:49 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >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 last time. Van Utrecht DOES NOT suggest ANYWHERE that a balloon was responsible for the events of 30-31 March 90. Nor do I. You do. At least you have the advantage of originality. >Knowing your sense of humor and your >kind heart, you would surely give me your permission, >won't you Duke? You have permission to credit me with inspiring you to a bizarre fantasy which has given us both more than its fair share of laughs, but beyond that, proceed at your own peril. Remember I have spies everywhere. I look forward to the publication of your grand opus. Laughter refreshes the soul. Not that I have one, of course. >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. Thankyou! Now I see how my error arose. You may be assured that the servant concerned will be dealt with appropriately. However it is one deals with the writers of RBAF summaries. >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. A simultaneous apparent contact does not rule out a spurious echo - especially when it behaves like this. And even if an aerial "object" is involved (let's get up your other nostril and tickle it, and suggest a traditional culprit such as a temperature inversion, strictly by way of example) it's long leap from said object - call it a UFO, why not - to the ET craft. In effect you're saying radar is a perfectly reliable instrument, and I'm saying it's not, which is hardly news among those who use it. >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. Initial procedure is still the same, where achievable. The RAF doesn't shoot down Russian (previously, Soviet) aircraft that like to come and nibble at our airspace, either. They approach from above and behind, and then come close alongside the intruder's forward bubble, then show their bellies. This is global aeronautical sign language for "Turn round and piss off quick". There is neither intention nor need to shoot at this stage. >[Belgium] 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. This could be even better than your time-traveling supersonic balloon. Are you sure you're not a neglected genius? Thankyou for clarifying the matter of the F-16s' radar. The position of the ground radars =E0 propos the language spoken in their immediate environs is obviously irrelevant, since Van Utrecht was referring to visual sightings - *most*, not all, of which came from French speaking Belgians, so WvU is hardly out of order in pointing to this as a factor. Even Meessen found no correlation between visual and radar reports. SOBEPS reports all kinds of configurations besides the famous triangle. Who is making sloppy claims here? Me, by reporting what even the proponents of the case say (which illustrate, not to say embody, confusion), or you, by selecting just the bits you like? Me, who says there is not much of a conclusion to come to about anything here (which, natch, makes me a debunker and ergo a limb of Satan), or you, who have solved the case with grandiose claims of ET visitation? Forget the con trick with the estates on the Moon, by the way. That land has been in my family for generations. Shame the character who sold it to you didn't tell you that. Suckered again! That's all from me on this one. Yours &c Profedigaeth D. Mabolgampau Celtic Rune PS: You don't pass the sight test and win the rubber cigar, either, Henny. You missed my deliberate mistake. Must try harder.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp