UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7

Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:05:46 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:51:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

>Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:44:47 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

Hi Christophe,

First of all, thanks a lot for throwing in your perspective.

>We do have different type of evidences but SOME of them have
>found a possible explaination. My father proposed an explanation
>for all radar related evidences. The current conclusion is that
>MOST but NOT ALL radar evidences are artefacts.

I take it that you mean most radar echoes were definitely
from natural sources, but not all. Please confirm.

>The first type of artefact are atmospheric diffraction as
>correctly stated by J.Pharabod. But they have a caracteristic
>signature that make them easy to identify. The most important of
>them is that there is no correlation of these echos between two

I assume this is pertaining to ground radar echoes. Please

>The second type of artefact are convection bubles. In this case
>two different radars will report an echo at the same location.
>Second, it appeared that flight identification normaly sent by
>airplanes could be mistakenly affected to these bubles. This
>appeared when I noticed that two simultaneous and independent
>echos showed the same military flight identification. This was
>obviously bogus and we guess result of a reflection on the
>convection buble of the identification signal sent by the
>original plane.

So an F16 received a radar echo with its own identification in
it, right? Please confirm.

>But these type of artefacts can also be
>identified because they all follow wind direction (thus parallel
>for all tracks), fly at a relatively constant altitude, and a
>constant speed.

>When seeing these many unexplained echoes my father was suprise
>by the apparent indifference of these phenomenon from the
>radarist who learned to live with it.

>These two artefact types are specific to ground radar and concern
>civilian as military radars.

>I must say here that there is one echo track we found that can't
>be classified in these two categories.

OK. Is there a contact sequence available, plotting data like
speed, heading, altitude against seconds after contact?

If so, could you present it?

>But in general apparently no correlation was seen between ground
>visual observation and radar echoes.

Between ground radar and ground visual observation, right?
Please confirm.

>Now about the F16 radar echoes. This was intensively studied and
>compared with previous studies. This event had ground visual
>observations by different gendarmes (policemens) at different
>location, ground radar echoes from civilian and military and of
>course the F16 radar recordings. But even with all these
>extraordinar conjuction of evidences, all of them could be
>explained by conventional phenomenon.

What conventional phenomenon could have produced this?

 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

>This does not mean there
>was not an UFO, but it means that the question becomes

When you combine the F16 radar echoes with the ground observation
by the gendarmes on the night of March 30, involving a triangular
structure with three bright lights that changed color, what would
you say is the most probable explanation for some of the radar
echoes, especially the one included above?
Note I am not saying definite explanation, but most probable.

>At least this study unveiled a potential problem
>with radar using doppler effect. 

What exactly was this problem?

>Again F16 radar echoes with
>similar behavour is frequently seen at 30000 Feet and was told by
>the pilots themselves. But in this case it happened at a much
>lower altitude. This night meteorological conditions were also

What exactly were those unusual conditions and how would they
have created bogus radar echoes?

What is the typical make up of this 'angel/ghost' effect,
in terms of speed, acceleration, making turns, variations in
altitude during their existence?

>I can give more details on this study if requested.

>The final conclusion I would like to make about this information
>is that this does NOT explain UFOs reported from visual contact
>or on photographs. For instance the photograph of a triangular
>object over Petit Rechain has been give a high degree of
>credibility after deep study.

>About radar evidences all we can say is that it is possible that
>UFOs that may have flown over belgium where not detectable by our

>So to me what happened in Belgium these two years remain an
>unsolved mystery and the proposed explanation for radar evidence
>hardly scratch the mystery. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake
>to draw any other conclusion on the belgian ufo flap.


>My father proposed an explanation
>for all radar related evidences. The current conclusion is that
>MOST but NOT ALL radar evidences are artefacts

Does this confirm J. Pharabod's assertion that the current view
is that some F16 radar echoes indicate a UFO?

Bij voorbaat dank/Merci beaucoup d'avance

           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
                       Technology Pages

Search for other documents from or mentioning: hvdp | meessen

[ 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