Interested in reading a critique of Marc Hallet's
The So-Called "Belgium UFO Wave" - A Critical View - Skeptic Report?
Hallet's piece has some rather large holes in it.
- - -
Also be aware, there has now been a November 2007 testimony
regarding this case, made by Major-General De Brouwer, ret.
at the Washington, D.C., USA Press Club
- - -
UFO UpDates Mailing List
Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries & CommentsFrom: Jerry Cohen <email@example.com> Web Site: CohenUFO.org Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:50:05 -0400 Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 06:38:48 -0400 Subject: Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries & Comments >From: The Duke of Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith>From: The Duke of Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com> >Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:56:04 -0400 >Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:38:58 -0400 >Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>From: Serge Salvaille <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Triangular UFOs over Belgium >>Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:53:17 -0400 >>>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:05:29 -0700 >>>From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>To: email@example.com >>>Subject: Triangular UFOs over BelgiumComments between Peter Brookesmith
and Serge Salvaille >>The 1989 Belgium UFO flap was debated on the List last year. >>The debate turned out to be the usual: skeptics on one side, >>truth seekers on the other. ....snip.... >I suggest Kyle looks up the discussion of the Belgian flap on >the Ufomind/UpDates Web archive (address below), where he will >find "truth" seekers inventing such items as supersonic balloons >and putting them into the mouths of skeptics. He will also find >Mendoza saying he thought the evidence for there being an actual >FT craft involved was inconclusive, and that little was proven >one way or the other, or words to that effect. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My comments beginning the summary JC: Unfortunately, there was no URL below that would take us directly to the file in question. Notwithstanding, what we really need to do is find the essential "data" of this case by getting to the core of discussions which may contain same, and eliminating all the non-data type words which tend to flow when one party or the other feels affronted for various reasons. ...snip... For instance, we know some things that the objects recorded and seen in the Belgium sightings "were not." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The case as outlined in CUFOS IUR and a question: "Could it have been the AVRO Vulcan Bomber?"A response I had made to BRETT.OLBRYS who thought a video he mentions reminded him of the AVRO Vulcan Bomber. He gives us a link to the "Sightings" website and the quicktime video: CLICK HERE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A list member who doesn't think it was the vulcan:
Loy Pressley, who has some familiarity with the Vulcan Bomber, ruled out that possibility; his reason, the object descriptions given by various witnesses do not really match the Vulcan: Loy's comments - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Was it a LoFlyte plane? We know it wasn't a LoFlyte plane (if anyone was even thinking this) because the object maneuvers recorded by the Belgium A.F. are impossible to perform with the LoFlyte plane. ...snip... The following discussion concerns another case but several comments also apply here: LoFlyte discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The data is so far out of norm, some skeptics wish to dismiss it: Then, in a discussion between Christophe Meessen and Henny van der Pluijm, Meessen states the following. Unfortunately, he fails to provide his sources to allow us to verify some of his "facts." Statements by Meessen: 1. "..no triangular object reported where the F16 detected the erratic signal." 2. "...no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side of the sky" 3. "It was though a very uncommon light behaviors which suggested it was not stars. But lights did not show extraordinary displacements as would the UFO speed estimation based on the F16 recording yield." 4. "we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon."
(jc re #4: Is he saying the gun cameras locked on to natural phenomenon? Here is one more instance of pseudo-scientific evasion, i e.; "the data doesn't fit, it makes no sense, so let's disguard it." ) (Unfortunately, the Belgian AF/NATO doesn't have this luxury in performing their job. For them, the data is the data. Their lives are on the line for mistakes they make and; they've been doing this job every day for how long without ever seeing anything like this?) Post from which Meessen's statements were taken: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A researcher uses the "Report from the Belgian Staff" to give reasons why we should not dismiss the data. Rebuttal by Henny van der Pluijm citing specific points drawn from the BAF report he provided in his post regarding previous discussion: 1. "Apparently there were several objects in the sky that were visually reported to be maneuvering during the F16 chase. 2. "... consider that one or more of them had simply switched off their lights, which would explain their sudden disappearance, as described, as well as the erratic radar trace that cannot be explained by any known natural phenomenon or radar error? 3. "What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal? What natural phenomenon accelerates after radar lock through the sound barrier, making three 70 degree turns and on altitudes between 0 and 11,000 feet? 4. "...analyses by Dr. James McDonald tell me that only heavy temperature inversions can influence radar signals. These were the atmospheric conditions of the night: 'A slight temperature inversion at ground, and another, as slight, at 3000 feet.' And as you can see, these altitudes do not coincide with the radar trace that I presented. So why is the temperature inversion explanation brought up in the first place? (jc: BTW, here is another important piece of information regarding temperature inversions which I discovered while doing some research.) van der Pluijm's data came from the Report from the Belgian AF Staff: van der Pluijm rebuttal to Meessen from above: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (jc: I'm assuming the references to temperature inversion were from a previous discussion by these two gentlemen. However, the Belgian report eliminates any possibility of this.) A quote from the Belgian report: "The range of the two RADARs is 300 kilometers, which is more than enough to cover the area where the reports took place. . . . Headquarters determined to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations for the RADAR images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions."
Then the planes were sent up.
"The [aerial] encounter lasted 75 minutes."
jc: BTW, the above quote from the Belgian report was reaffirmed personally
by Maj. Gen W.J.L. DE Brouwer, Belgian AF, on television when interviewed
concerning this case. (I have the tape.) They were shocked at what they
encountered and felt it important enough to make it public. Please
click here for further details from that interview and, scroll down when there for some interesting coincidences with the "1976 Iranian F-4 Case."- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Someone who thinks a portion of the sighting may have been a private jet: Jean-Pierre Pharabod had written (to Henny?) > Reading the transcript >of the conversation between the ground controller >and the pilots, and scrutinizing the details of >the locks as published in the first SOBEPS book, >I concluded that it could be only locks number >5 and 6 (Meessen's numerotation), lasting 8 and >11.4 seconds. And this was very probably IMHO the >craft flying in straight line from Brussels to >Liege, at subsonic speed, and followed by the >Glons and Semmerzake ground radars. But these >echoes and this craft don't look extraterrestial, >they don't have the "crazy" characteristics of >the contact of which you reposted the transcript, >they look like maybe a private jet flying >illegally (no transponder). However the whole >thing remains a bit mysterious (jc But this is not the data that shook them up; it was the combination of ground radar, plane radar, police visuals, and pilot reactions as they attempted lock-ons. Let's be serious, would a large portion of the NATO staff be fooled by a private plane flying without a transponder? Additionally, the police had other up-close, detailed sighting reports of various craft from their own staff prior to and even after this. This event just put "the icing on the cake." ) Response concerning the above hypothesis: and Henny replied, citing specific numerical data on the contacts (please see URL immediately below this section) "This contact excerpt clearly shows simultaneous radar contact. It also shows erratic moves that cannot be explained by any terrestrial aircraft or natural phenomenon." "Although the above maneuvers could not be witnessed visually from the ground, the Glons radar had picked up the signal earlier while the gendarmes were watching the objects in the sky." . . . "Nowhere in the reports is there any mention that the Glons radar lost contact with the objects. The Glons radar did direct the F16s to the target. In other words, the same objects that were seen by the gendarmes were later detected by F16 radar AND Glons radar and showed the erractic signal." "In other words, there is no need to dismiss the F16 radar recordings as evidence." More data from the Belgian AF Staff: van der Pluijm supplies numerical data to support his argument: JC: Readers can draw their own conclusions. I agree with Henny. Maj. De Brouwer also had this to say: "The data on all the performances which were registered during the lock-ons on the radar was totally outside of the normal performance envelope of any airplane." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JC: So from all this we know: 1) If the objects seen were not UFOs, the Belgium A.F., part of the NATO chain must really be incompetent to not know what they were chasing; so incompetent that they went public with this information and talked about it openly after it went up the chain of command. (Obviously makes no sense.) 2) Some objects seen in the Belgium sightings look a little like the AVRO Vulcan Bomber except that:
a) The Vulcan Bomber is very "loud" aircraft and much if not
all of what was seen in Belgium was silent.
b) Loy doesn't remember lights positioned on the bomber that
compare with what was seen and photographed
c) The bomber is heavy and designed for high speed flight and
can't fly very slowly as some of the objects seen in
several instances re Belgium.
d) As per discussion at UFO Updates, we learned the size of
the Vulcan Bomber was much smaller than the objects reported.
(If you missed it, just click this link and then the one in the letter which will take you to a video that demonstrates the size difference reported.) 3) LoFlyte plane is eliminated as a possibility because it can't do the maneuvering recorded and published by the Belgian A.F. 4) Temperature inversions are eliminated via James McDonald's analyses. And Henny asks: a) "What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal? b) "What natural phenomenon accelerates after radar lock through the sound barrier, making three 70 degree turns and on altitudes between 0 and 11,000 feet? JC: Perhaps the skeptics have a solid, comprehensive answer. If not, I believe the probability that the sighting was not a natural phenomenon must certainly be considered. Not to do so would be to ignore the data presented. So then, exactly what was it? A black project? TST/Earthlights? (That run ahead of a plane 5 seconds after radar lock-ons, and perform maneuvers at speeds that would kill a human pilot), Laser projections that can fool ground/air radar and the men flying the planes for NATO? Analyzing the flight data, the technology appears to have taken quite a jump here. Respectfully, Jerry Cohen Editor's note: I added the following posts here 5/21/01
Serge Salvaille: "You only took one out of 632 sightings"
Andy Denne agrees with Serge: "We saw them."
Mark Cashman on ultra-light LoFlytes. Although Mark was speaking
about a different case, some of what he said about the LoFlyte's
performance applies here as well.See: A similar case that happened in Illinois, USA (January 2000) (Researched in-depth by NIDS, group of PHDs including Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to
walk the moon) Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals Website: http://cohenufo.org/ UFOmind: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/c/cohen/ P.S. I'd like to peruse those discussions concerning the Belgium sightings that Peter mentioned at the outset of this post. Does anyone have the URL? Thanks. Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
[ This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index | MUFON Ontario ]
UFO UpDates - Toronto - firstname.lastname@example.org
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to email@example.com
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
[ UFO Topics | People | Ufomind What's New | Ufomind Top Level ]
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not responsible for content.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.