UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15

Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:21:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:01:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:37:53 +0100 (MET)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

>Duke, referring to your comments above, remember the excerpt
>about simultaneous ground/air radar detection?

What I remember is this, from someone who has slightly better
claim than you to be an authority on the case:

>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

Here some relevant paragraphs:

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

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

But Henny persists:

>Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been
>witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the
>erratic signal?

Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO
performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I
think not. I also recall that you refused to do some background
reading on radar, lest the purity of your premature conclusions
be contaminated by giving (unasked, as it happens) pleasure to
one you caricature as a debunker.

>no matter how many times the facts are pointed out of
>a solid case, some people are capable of producing an
>infinite amount of bogus to attack the case.

More bogus bogussing. I think it must be a special skill.
Possibly they teach it to specially selected liberal arts majors.
Maybe it's genetic. Something tells me that Christophe Meessen is
slightly nearer the facts than you. What I am attacking currently
is your dozy logic, failure to eliminate legitimate potential
prosaic explanations, and invention of bogus boguses, aka straw

You seem to have forgotten that I long ago said that the evidence
(so far, I should perhaps add) in this case doesn't allow one to
say very much one way or the other about what caused the reports
of 30-31 March 90. And this is debunking? And debunking to an
agenda, besides?

In that case, Jerry Clark has debunked the Linda case, Christophe
Meessen and his dad are disinformation agents, and Billy Meier
will be the next editor of "Aviation Week".

Shame you couldn't stop long enough to justify your comment about
Donald Menzel, though.

Yours &c
Peterrabbit D. McGregor
Lettuce Leaf

Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | 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