UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11

Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:54:41 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:53:30 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?


>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:02:44 -0500
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Regarding...

>>Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:09:05 +0100 (MET)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>

>Henny,

>I had merely noted that, "the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap
>was _officially_ explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter
>and no pilot ever witnessed an actual object", to which you replied:

>"The people who were involved in this investigation would either hav
>been insulted or would have rolled over the floor over this
>explanation. Ground clutter! The official explanation was 'unknown
>craft'."

>Having provided some material which confirms the background to the
>BAF's subsequent conclusions, that was my sole intention. As the
>overall evidence is open to interpretation, I neither endorse or
>dispute those conclusions.

The question is still not resolved where this information came
from. As fas as I know, the RBAF has done only one investigation.
I have asked you to provide the date of a possible second and you
don't provide it. SOBEPS (ie Christophe Meessen) has been
involved in this discussion here and he doesn't mention it
either. I seriously doubt the existence of a second RBAF report.
Another reason why I doubt it is because SOBEPS acknowledges the
explanation 'ground clutter' for some radar traces, but not for
all of them. So are you sure the RBAF has said that ground
clutter was all there was and that this is not a
misunderstanding?

>I would only wish to add that your subsequent comment, in reply to
>Peter Brookesmith, stating there exists, "over 2,500 visual sightings,
>25 videofilms and one photograph that shows a triangular craft with
>three lights", refers to evidence which is equally open to
>interpretation.

Considering the nature of debunkers everything is open to
interpretation, even the laws of physics.

>In a 1991 report provided to the ParaNet network, by Jean Manfroid of
>the Liege University and the Institute of Astrophysics, Manfroid and
>his colleagues wrote:

>"We were also asked to examine several video tapes received by the
>national TV station. Again, Venus was almost always the culprit.
>These tapes were, as a rule, affected by very bad images, the
>automatic focusing being fooled by surrounding objects, or by trying
>to catch a point source at infinity... Nice effects were obtained with
>extra-focal images of the aperture stop, pulsating disks etc. We were
>often surprised by the descriptions given by the people who took the
>videos: they cited distances of 30 or 50 meters, they spoke of hanging
>globes, moving rapidly, following their cars etc... though their
>recordings showed much more benign events. Invariably, all those
>people were looking at the sky for the first time. This raises some
>doubts on the validity of occasional witnesses.

>Some of these accounts, as well as others, were relayed by the media.
>Video tapes of aircrafts at night, showing only their lights were
>visible. The snowball effect rapidly developed. Witnesses appeared,
>reporting triangles in the sky, while frustrated astronomers, albeit
>logging many more hours of observations (with sophisticated
>equipment), continued to see satellites, meteorites, aircrafts (at
>times as triangles of light spots)".

Well, I don't know what these astronomers have seen, but I
remember clearly a videotape that was shown on Dutch tv when the
flap was going on. It was not Venus and not an aircraft. (Expect
multiple queries about how I can be so sure, you don't have
proof, etc, blah-blah).

>The full report can be found on various web sites, one being at URL:

>http://www.ufobbs.com/txt2/1555.ufo

>I'm not so sure there were 2500 reports during that period, but
>whatever, it's well documented that many of them described a wide
>range of aerial phenomena.

>2500 reports and 25 video tapes of a triangular object, there
>unfortunately was not.

That could easily be. The objects appeared as a show of light to
the naked eye, like a moving plasma. In the photograph the
triangle was visible because certain colors and lines had been
enhanced. What does come out is triangle with classic lighting
configuration. It is exactly the same lighting configuration as
that on the triangle that can be found in the current issue of
UFO Magazine (UK), that shows an object in the town of, yes,
Americana, Brazil.

>The Petit-Rechain photograph, presumably the one you refer to, does
>not necessarily portray a "craft" and although it seems to be regarded
>as authentic, how can we ever be sure it isn't a hoax?

>Nevertheless, taking it at face value, there's a lesser known computer
>enhancement of the photograph and some further related material on my
>web site at URL:

>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/triangle.htm

I will take a look at it when I have time. The photo I have
clearly shows a triangle.

>The topic has diversified into a specific discussion on the '89-90
>Belgian incidents and interesting though that is, it's not a path I
>have time to follow other than superficially at the moment and I doubt
>it leads to a new vista.

>The point I addressed was whether any evidence exists to support the
>contention that some governments now openly embrace the ET hypothesis,

It would seem that Chile does. In the past other governments have
stated that they take the ETH very seriously, although 'embrace'
would go too far and was not the topic of discussion. Among
those: France, USA, Soviet Union, Belgium.

>specifically, that ET visitations are a matter of concern to them.

Not openly, no.

>If there is no such evidence, which I have yet to see provided, then
>perhaps we can accept that the 'ET hypothesis' isn't in fact being
>recognised and acknowledged, as suggested.

Not openly, no.

>The Belgian case is an indication that some governments, or elements
>thereof, can be objective and candid about the possibilities, but it
>doesn't go beyond that. There simply isn't the accepted evidence to
>do so.

The evidence is there, but it is not openly accepted.
What the Belgian case also shows is that, whatever the
amount of painstakingly collected evidence, government
officials are prone to accept the first bogus explanation
that they get under their noses, in this case LoFlyte.



            __________________________________________
           /    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 | pulsar

[ 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