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
>radars.

I assume this is pertaining to ground radar echoes. Please
confirm.

>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
lock=B7


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

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
>unusual.

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
>radars.

>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.

>Ch.Meessen


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



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