From: Subject: UFOS at close sight: the Belgium flap study by Auguste Meessen Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:17:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://ufologie.net/htm/belstu01.htm UFOS at close sight: the Belgium flap study by = Auguste Meessen
Home
Cette page en=20 fran=E7ais3D""

The Belgium flap studies:

The main page on the Belgium flap is here.=20

SOURCES:

From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG = (sm)=20 Subject: Belgium Update Date: 9 Aug 91 06:34:00 GMT. This file was = provided by=20 ParaNet (sm) Information Service and its network of international = affiliates.You=20 may freely distribute this file as long as this header remains intact. = Date=20 Prepared: August 8, 1991 Contributed by: Center for UFO Studies/Mark = Rodeghier.=20 For further information on ParaNet (sm), contact: Michael Corbin, = ParaNet=20 Information Service, P.O. Box 172, Wheatridge, CO 80034-0172 or FidoNet=20 1:104/422, Internet mcorbin@scicom.alphacdc.com, (C) 1991 by the J. = Allen Hynek=20 Center for UFO Studies. Reprinted on ParaNet with permission. Excerpted = from the=20 IUR, May/June,1991; Volume 16, Number 3. This header must not be removed = from=20 this file.=20

THE DOCUMENT:

THE BELGIAN SIGHTINGS:

By Auguste Meessen=20

Auguste Meessen is professor of physics at the Catholic = University of=20 Louvain. This article, which first appeared in the November 1990 = issue of=20 Inforespace, is reprinted by permission. It was translated by = Andrea=20 Donderi, Mark Rodeghier, and W. D. Milner.=20

The sightings that occurred in Belgium between November 1989 = and June=20 1990 have given us an impressive body of new data. We have even = been able=20 to study in detail material from both military and civilian ground = radar=20 screens. Moreover, an in-depth examination of on-board radar data = from one=20 of the F-16s sent up by the Belgian Air Force during the night of = March=20 30-31, 1990, is currently under way. As far as I know, this is the = first=20 such opportunity in the world, but much remains to be done. I = shall=20 therefore only give an overview of this research. I shall outline = what we=20 are doing and briefly describe our methods.=20

I shall also include some remarks on the unwarranted = generalizations=20 that are still too frequently encountered (from skeptics) and on = the=20 reactions of eyewitnesses in the current socio-psychological = climate in=20 European ufology. Finally, I shall present a few reports of = sightings made=20 in Belgium and abroad. One case in particular, the enormous = lozenge-shaped=20 object that flew over the outskirts of the town of Eupen on = December 1,=20 1989, is representative of the quality and importance of the new=20 information. In assessing reports it is important to be aware of = what has=20 been happening in other countries, so I shall include a few = foreign cases=20 that suggest the wave of sightings may not be over.=20

Ground investigations:=20

At the beginning of December 1989 I joined the SOBEPS (Societe = Belge=20 d'Etude des Phenomenes Spatiaux) investigation. It was vital to=20 familiarize myself personally with the number and quality of the=20 eyewitness reports. I concentrated almost exclusively on the Eupen = region,=20 of which I am a native. I hoped that my fluency in German and my=20 profession as a physicist would help loosen people's tongues. I = have noted=20 that many eyewitnesses, and particularly the most reliable ones = with=20 important social responsibilities, are reluctant to discuss what = they have=20 seen because of irrational socio-psychological pressures.=20

The evening of November 29, 1989, was decisive, because two = Eupen=20 police officers had the courage to describe on television the UFO = they had=20 painstakingly observed. There were several other sightings that = same day.=20 I shall be compiling a list of them in the book that SOBEPS is = planning to=20 publish. I have discovered a series of eyewitness accounts that = form a=20 coherent sequence in time and space that day. The sightings made = by Mr. J=20 (more on which later) provide one example of what can be learned = from=20 these witnesses. In my opinion, data of these kinds, when taken = together=20 with the whole body of sightings worldwide, pose a challenge to = the=20 scientific community and to every thoughtful person.=20

Journalists have had an especially important role. Some of them = have=20 performed their work conscientiously, but others were simply = seeking=20 sensational stories. Yet more felt obliged to lead a personal = crusade=20 against the gathering of eyewitness reports. I will cite just one = example=20 whose immediate effects I observed.=20

A few days after December 18, 1989, a gendarme in the Eupen = area=20 refused to tell me what he had seen, probably because on that date = a local=20 daily paper had published an article which asserted that the "most = plausible explanation" for UFO sightings was that the U. S. Air = Force was=20 secretly testing F-117A planes over Belgium. This article was = preceded by=20 the impressive headline "Explanation from Washington," and the = subheading=20 referred to a "hysteria" of UFO sightings. I was sent a copy of = this paper=20 the same day and immediately inquired into the matter, since these = stories=20 also form an aspect of the UFO phenomenon.=20

It turned out that the "explanation" was only speculation, put = forward=20 by the Flemish paper Het Laatste Nieuws. I phoned the journalist = who wrote=20 the article that triggered off a rumor which is still causing much = ink to=20 be spilt. He explained that he had just read an article on the = F-117A and=20 wished to pass on such information to his readers. To make his = article=20 more interesting, he had suggested (gratuitously, with no = reference to the=20 actual sightings) that there might be a possible connection with = recent=20 sightings in Belgium. In the meantime, I had learned from Lt. Col. = De=20 Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force, that the = Air Force=20 had sought information from the American Embassy to help them = explain the=20 reports. This should not have been necessary if the sightings were = caused=20 by secret exercises, as De Brouwer routinely would have been = informed of=20 any such overflights. Instead, he took the trouble to secure = accurate=20 information about what the many Belgian eyewitnesses had really = seen.=20

Learning that an official American disclaimer was to be = published, I=20 telephoned the Eupen journalist to tell him the news and to ask = him to=20 publish a correction as soon as possible. When I asked him why he = had=20 spoken of "an explanation from Washington" and characterized the=20 eyewitness accounts of local people as "hysterical " he responded, = "I am=20 against all that." I appreciate his candor, but that does not = square with=20 the regard for objectivity one expects of journalists. Such = attitudes=20 constitute disinformation and serve to dissuade eyewitnesses; they = make=20 the search for truth more difficult.=20

The search for more objective information:

Having convinced myself of the reality and importance of the = wave of=20 UFO sightings in our country, I concluded that it would have been=20 scientifically irresponsible to ignore this wave without trying to = find=20 out what had turned up on our country's radar screens. I did not = know how=20 to gain access to the data, but I felt that reason would = eventually=20 prevail. Since early December 1989 I had been in contact with Lt. = Col. De=20 Brouwer at the Headquarters of the Belgian Air Force, requesting = that any=20 radar documentation be preserved for a thorough scientific study. = Shortly=20 afterwards I sent a similar written request to Guy Coeme, Minister = of=20 National Defense.=20

I also met the head of the air traffic control at Zaventem, the = Brussels airport. I learned that he and his associates preserve = recordings=20 of radar data for several weeks on magnetic tape in the event of = any=20 inquiries relating to air safety. I therefore addressed a written = request=20 to Mr. Vandenbroucke, the General Manager of the Airlines = Administration,=20 for permission to videotape certain excerpts. These would be = restricted to=20 sequences selected on the basis of the number of fairly close- = range and=20 reliable UFO sightings. The goal was to verify whether there had = been any=20 suspicious radar traces before or after the sighting times, given = that the=20 UFOs were doubtless below the radar coverage at the time of very=20 low-altitude sightings.=20

Although the response was delayed, a call to Vanenbroucke = brought=20 immediate cooperation. I convey my warm thanks to him and to the = Chief=20 Engineer and the technical radar personnel of our national airport = for=20 their effective support, which proved useful. In consequence I = have been=20 able to film and analyze more than 180 hours of data from the = Bertem radar=20 installation, which serves Zaventem airport. In brief, two = surprising and=20 significant discoveries emerged from this material. I shall = describe them=20 later. One of these discoveries concerned the fact that echoes of=20 unidentified origin often moved along linear trajectories of = limited=20 length. This perplexed me. I continued to collect as many data as=20 possible, refusing to adopt any particular hypothesis. = Furthermore, it was=20 vital to analyze these data quickly so that I could assimilate = their=20 essential characteristics and determine what was worth studying = more=20 closely. In fact, I was involved in a race against time, since the = magnetic tapes were retained only for a few weeks. Any potentially = important material that I failed to save would be lost forever.=20

I also hoped to gain access to the military radar = documentation,=20 although I knew this would be more difficult. An increasingly = close and=20 productive collaboration had developed with Lt. Col. De Brouwer = and with=20 Lt. Col. Billen, Chief of the Glons radar installation. They = shared my=20 profound conviction that an in-depth study was required, both to=20 understand better the UFO phenomenon and to elucidate the = mysterious=20 phenomenon that I had discovered, probably of atmospheric origin.=20

During this stage of the investigation an important event = occurred. I=20 knew that the Belgian Air Force planned to scramble F-16 fighters = in cases=20 where UFO sightings were reported by reliable eyewitnesses with = additional=20 confirmation by other evidence. These conditions seemed to have = been met=20 during the night of March 30-31, 1990. Although I was notified at = an early=20 stage, I had to wait for the Air Force's preliminary evaluation of = the=20 data before learning anything more.=20

For my part, I kept Lt. Col. De Brouwer informed about my = research on=20 the data from the Bertem radar. He saw the benefit of checking = these data=20 against those from the military radar at Semmerzake. I was = accordingly=20 authorized to go there and obtain extracts from these tapes. The=20 information regarding the events of the night of March 30-31 = remained=20 inaccessible since an Air Force investigation was underway, but we = were=20 making progress all the same. The Semmerzake data were more = accurate and=20 detailed than those I already had.=20

Consequently, I was able to compare the data from the = Semmerzake=20 military radar with those from the Bertem civil radar, whose = echoes are=20 instantaneously transmitted to Semmerzake. They are subject to = even less=20 filtering than on the air controllers' screens at Zaventem = airport. I=20 could thus establish the coordinates and other characteristics of = each=20 individual echo. The analysis was laborious but made it possible = to=20 decisively confirm the preliminary conclusions drawn from the = video films=20 taken at Zaventem.=20

After the release of the Air Force report in the summer of = 1990, there=20 were irrational reactions on the part of some French media. Lt. = Col. De=20 Brouwer responded by supplying more information, hoping to = demonstrate=20 that the situation was more complex and better documented than = many=20 supposed, and that it merited further analysis. He resolutely = followed an=20 open-minded policy. Some journalists had labeled the military "The = Great=20 Mute"; by contrast, Lt. Col. De Brouwer maintained that "we have = nothing=20 to hide in this matter." I can attest to his deep honesty and = courage.=20

After talking with a reporter from Paris Match (July 5, 1990, = issue),=20 De Brouwer also allowed some members of SOBEPS to see an extract = from the=20 video film of the on-board radar from one of the F-16s. The series = of=20 photos we were authorized to take enabled me to make a preliminary = assessment, and I realized then the extremely strange nature of = these=20 data. Having made considerable headway in interpreting some of the = initial=20 radar data, I could see that the same explanation would not work = for these=20 astonishing observations.=20

In order to go further, I needed the express permission of the = Minister=20 of National Defense. Since my written request had met with no = response,=20 probably because of bureaucratic inertia, I decided to telephone = the=20 Minister, Guy Coeme. His response was almost immediate: "I believe = in=20 openness." This was, I think, a historic attitude. In any event, = it was an=20 exemplary action, from which other countries will soon, I hope, = draw=20 inspiration.=20

After this everything went like clockwork, albeit one whose = hands moved=20 slowly. For instance, I received the data from the Glons radar for = the=20 main events of March 30-31, 1990, on November 2, fully seven = months later.=20 The appropriate permissions had all been granted, but other = military=20 missions (in particular, the Gulf crisis and the intervention in = Rwanda)=20 took precedence compared to UFO investigations. Still, there can = be a real=20 advantage to letting ideas settle for a while. At present thorough = studies=20 are being undertaken in complete collaboration with an = officer-engineer of=20 the Belgian Air Force. I do not wish to name him so as to prevent = him from=20 being besieged with inquiries. The conclusions of our study will = be=20 published but only when this can be done in a responsible manner.=20

The fundamental results:

Almost continually, radar screens show sporadic echoes not = correlated=20 with aircraft. Radar operators call these echoes "angels"as if = they were=20 pure spirits. For them the echoes constitute annoying "noise" and = are=20 ignored as much as possible. A priori they could just as easily be = UFOs as=20 natural phenomena. They appear only occasionally, all over the = screen. An=20 air traffic controller cannot afford to waste time and attention = on them.=20 When I systematically recorded the positions in which these = "angels"=20 appeared, however, I noted that they often moved in practically = straight=20 lines. I have labeled this the "flying angels effect."=20

The average speed of this movement is low relative to that of = aircraft=20 (about 50 km//h). There are random fluctuations, but the mean = speed is=20 well-defined. The lines of motion are of limited length, and their = direction of motion is not correlated with the wind. Furthermore = they can=20 appear (perhaps even more often) when the sky is clear. The = Semmerzake=20 radar could locate the physical position of the radar returns. As = the data=20 accumulated, it became evident that this phenomenon could not = involve=20 UFOs. It had to be an atmospheric problem, albeit a fairly special = one,=20 since the radar operators whom I consulted had not noticed this = effect. A=20 comprehensive survey of the literature indicated that this = phenomenon had=20 not been described either. I have finally discovered an = explanation based=20 on known physical principles and on some independent data. It will = be=20 described elsewhere when I have had time to verify it further. The = "flying=20 angels effect" is undoubtedly of atmospheric origin.=20

My second main finding was that I found no reliable traces = associated=20 with eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings, even when I examined = the traces=20 over a wide range of times and places. I knew, however, that there = had=20 been previous cases of radar detection of UFOs. The evidence in = these=20 cases seems to be acceptable (and cannot be explained by the = "flying=20 angels" phenomenon). Given the lack of radar confirmation in = Belgium, it=20 would be easy to put forward one or the other of these two = simplistic=20 hypotheses: either the witnesses saw nothing of a material nature, = or=20 F-117 Stealth aircraft were involved. But neither one nor the = other=20 hypothesis takes into account the whole range of what was = observed. The=20 UFOs sighted in Belgium were usually described as platforms, = either=20 stationary or moving horizontally. This is sufficient to explain = the low=20 probability of detection by ground radars. The radar beams would = be=20 reflected back as if by a horizontal mirror. The same technique is = used=20 for the F-117A Stealth plane.=20

On several occasions the UFOs had been described as having a = vertical=20 edge and a dome on top. Seen laterally or from above, as from an = aircraft,=20 radar detection might therefore be easier. So an F-16 might = possibly=20 detect a UFO of this kind, if the surfaces were not made of=20 radar-absorbent material. This presents new questions, since if = UFOs are=20 extraterrestrial, why are their shapes now different from = previously=20 reported objects? Could they have adapted their craft's shape in = order to=20 evade our detection systems, or is it just a coincidence, = resulting from=20 the fact that this batch of visitors come from somewhere else?=20

As for the data from the F-16 on-board radar, which operates=20 differently from ground radars and can record different kinds of = data, I=20 can only say, for the time being, that they are astonishing. In=20 particular, there are abrupt changes in speed as well as other = strange=20 features. This calls for a technical, far- reaching, and careful = study. We=20 have made a start. I don't know what conclusion we will reach, nor = when we=20 shall reach it.=20

The views of Science & Vie:

With a few rare exceptions, the French media's coverage of the = Belgian=20 UFO sightings has not been distinguished by its objectivity. Some = writers=20 did not hesitate to quite openly make fun of the "little Belgians" = and=20 their "tales " but we shall see who laughs last. What surprised me = most=20 was the fact that the magazine Science & Vie (Science & = Life) had=20 launched a sort of anti-UFO crusade. I have often admired this = magazine's=20 articles of scientific popularization. It has, in the past, taken = a clear=20 responsibility for public's scientific education. It is all the = more=20 deplorable, then, that in this area it traffics in irrational,=20 unscientific polemics. The only advantage may be to document the = fact for=20 future generations that at the end of the 20th Century people = reacted in=20 this fashion, in spite of the lessons that they could have drawn = from the=20 history of science.=20

When there is a conflict between a new kind of fact and the = established=20 conceptual framework, people tend to hang on to preconceived = ideas. What=20 does not fit in with the theories that are regarded as unshakable = is=20 filtered out or repressed. People refuse to face reality. So far = as UFOs=20 are concerned, the method consists of selecting some facts that = can be=20 explained, it is thought, in a conventional manner. Then it is = believed=20 that this result can be extrapolated, without any effort's being = made to=20 examine the rest of the data. This leads to what can be termed = unwarranted=20 generalizations.=20

In its January 1990 issue (No. 868), Science & Vie showed = no=20 hesitation in discrediting all the Belgian eyewitnesses on the = basis of=20 just one photograph. This photo, taken near Eupen, showed a big = luminous=20 dot. The photographers submitted the photo to SOBEPS, along with = several=20 others from the same event. Eventhough the photo had little to do = with the=20 many eyewitness sightings, it could have been given an detailed = analysis.=20 Instead, the editorial team of Science & Vie preferred an = unsupported=20 interpretation, strongly suggesting that all eyewitness reports = smacked of=20 "poetry" or optical illusions.=20

In the June issue (No. 813) the magazine provided information = about the=20 F-117A Stealth aircraft. This sort of information had just been = made=20 public by the U.S. Air Force. The title of the article-"The UFO: = This Is=20 It," showing an example of an F- 117A- speaks volumes about the = magazine's=20 commercial rather than scientific intentions. Again, it insinuated = that=20 all the witnesses must have been mistaken, like the Belgian Air = Force. The=20 author of this article and everyone involved clearly felt no need = to=20 conduct on-the-spot inquiries in order to obtain more information = and=20 acquire an objective view of the facts.=20

The October issue (No. 877) of Science & Vie announced on = its first=20 page that it was "on the track of the Belgian UFOs." In fact, the = author=20 was concerned only with the events of March 30- 31, 1990, and the=20 involvement of the Belgian Air Force. Apparently he felt that this = constituted the core of the matter, and that by debunking it he = could=20 dispose of the whole story. He considered only the initial = reports, which=20 contained raw, unanalyzed information. The author of the article = is=20 intelligent and able, but his method resembled more that of a = lawyer=20 defending a specific brief than that of a scientist representing = the quest=20 for truth. After the press conference given by Lt. Col. De = Brouwer, the=20 F-I 17A hypothesis had been discredited, but that need be no = obstacle;=20 plenty of other hypotheses can be constructed.=20

Why not suggest the existence of another secret plane, with all = the=20 capabilities necessary to explain the apparent paradoxes? Perhaps = the U.S.=20 Air Force was testing this secret plane over Belgium without = notifying the=20 Belgian Air Force -a friendly nation which uses American F- 16s. = Does this=20 seem practical or likely? Consider that testing new planes = inevitably=20 involves the risk of an accident or crash, in which case the = Belgian=20 authorities would have to be notified to help protect essential = secrets.=20

Why not suggest that the Belgian police were so unaccustomed to = seeing=20 stars that they got all confused at the sight of some? Or, above = all, that=20 there is no supporting evidence to back up any of the Belgian = sightings,=20 even though there were more than a thousand reports and they went = on for=20 more than six months? Following this line of reasoning, everything = is for=20 the best in the "best of all possible worlds" in which profounder=20 questions must not be asked.=20

On the contrary, it seems to me that it's always a good idea to = be=20 guided by the Facts, especially when they are unexpected. What = thousands=20 of witnesses have seen for many years throughout the world = deserves=20 serious study. I am not advocating a specific hypothesis, only = asking=20 people to open their eyes. The witnesses' reactions=20

Witnesses' reactions are diverse, as might be expected. In most = cases=20 people simply relate what has happened in a factual manner, being = explicit=20 about what they have been able to observe and confessing their = perplexity.=20 What now seems to me to be new and significant is that many = witnesses are=20 annoyed at not being taken seriously.=20

As regards the socio-psychological hypothesis, which explains = UFO=20 sightings by the desire to make contact with extraterrestrial = beings, I do=20 not believe that this is compatible with my experiences = interviewing a=20 fairly sizable number of witnesses. Naturally there are = pathological and=20 even psychiatric cases, but let us again refrain from unwarranted=20 extrapolations. I have noted, like other investigators, that at = the outset=20 of their strange sightings, witnesses practically always try to = find a=20 conventional explanation; as they take in more details, though, = the=20 conventional explanation no longer suffices. This reaction = violates a=20 basic assumption of some "socio-psychologists."=20

It is true that witnesses are quicker to think of a UFO after = the media=20 have told them other people have seen them, and they report = sightings more=20 readily once they know that organizations are studying UFO reports = seriously. Some people have intentionally scanned the skies, but = they have=20 not necessarily seen anything.=20

It is absolutely normal for someone to filter and analyze = sensory data=20 on the basis of pre-existing conceptual models. What happens when = there is=20 a discrepancy? Some witnesses describe extraordinary events, = repeating=20 that they do not believe in UFOs. Perhaps they're trying to = reassure=20 themselves, perhaps they're afraid of seeming insane to the = interviewers.=20 On several occasions I have met witnesses who, although accepting = the ET=20 hypothesis, are visibly upset about these "intruders." Humanity = could be=20 defenseless and dependent on the goodwill of an unknown, = technologically=20 very superior, external power. I have met only one witness who = told me in=20 a confiding manner: "I should very much like to meet them." He = said this=20 spontaneously when I asked him what he thought of his sighting.=20

Reality is far less clear-cut than the supporters of the=20 socio-psychological hypothesis imagine. The collective unconscious = does=20 not, for the most part, desire contact with extraterrestrials. We = cannot=20 assume we are dealing with religious beliefs, either. On the = contrary, it=20 is clear that a fairly sizable number of witnesses have no wish at = all to=20 communicate what they have observed. We know this because of the = cases=20 discovered entirely by chance and long after the fact. The 1989- = 90=20 Belgian wave encouraged a number of people to tell investigators = about=20 much earlier sightings. One man wrote to me describing a sighting = made=20 during the mobilization before World War II, when he was all alone = on a=20 road. He was so excited and frightened by the experience that he = told no=20 one except his wife. A member of an embassy told me of a sighting = made=20 aboard an aircraft with many other people. Afterwards, he asked me = not to=20 say anything about it to the other embassy personnel, saying, = "They'll=20 think me crazy."=20

The fact that the UFOs reported here are generally of a = different type=20 from the traditional "saucer" is also significant. If the = witnesses had=20 invented their accounts, they would probably have tried to make = them seem=20 more believable by corresponding to the standard model. This is = not what=20 happened. One new feature is that the Belgian UFOs travel over = cities at=20 very low altitudes. Moreover, there were no marked electromagnetic = disturbances, as has often been reported in the past. These = differences=20 are worth considering with a view to understanding the technology = rather=20 than simply assuming that the witnesses can't relate accurately = what=20 they've seen.=20

An enormous losange at Eupen:

Mr. J observed the same type of object twice. I heard of his = sightings=20 indirectly, and when I telephoned him, he firmly insisted on = anonymity: "I=20 don't want anyone to tell my children that their father was out of = his=20 mind." He told me that the machine he had seen was "incredibly = large."=20 This assessment was based on his first sighting, which was on = December 1,=20 1989. I visited him on January 15, five days after his second = sighting. He=20 is an amateur photographer and described the UFO with the = precision of a=20 careful observer.=20

On the evening of December 1, he was going to take his wife to = a=20 private exhibition organized by his club. At around 5 p.m. two of = his five=20 children, aged 14 and 15, had already told him about "strange = planes in=20 the sky." After school they had been playing on the street with a = Moroccan=20 boy who lived in one of the neighboring houses. It was already = growing=20 dark and one of the children said, "They're UFOs," using the = German word=20 for UFO. Mr. J had replied, "Of course not, they must be planes."=20

At 6:50 Mr. J was ready to leave. He was sitting in the living = room in=20 his usual chair near a window that looks out on a terrace at the = rear. At=20 that moment one of his children came rushing up all excited, = saying,=20 "Look, they're here again!" Struck by his child's insistence, Mr. = J rose=20 and went out onto the terrace. This forms, together with the = garden, a=20 large L- shaped open space behind a cluster of houses. Mr. J saw = the young=20 Moroccan, who was at the back garden of his house, in the other = branch of=20 L, pointing at the sky and stating, "See, one's just coming." Mr. = J told=20 me, "I don't understand how this boy could say that so calmly, as = if it=20 was a commonplace remark, because I almost fell over backwards = when I=20 looked up. I tell you that if you have not seen one, you cannot = believe=20 it. It was enormous."=20

Mr. J then spontaneously set about drawing the object, which = was=20 lozenge-shaped, with two white lights at each corner and, in the = center, a=20 kind of illuminated bell projecting from the platform (figure 1). = The=20 surface of the object was dark but clearly visible against the = brighter=20 sky. It had been a sunny day, and the sky was perfectly clear. = Stars were=20 visible around the object. It glided slowly from southwest to = northeast,=20 without the slightest sound. It could be followed at a comfortable = walking=20 pace. The large diagonal of the lozenge was perpendicular to the = direction=20 of movement and was at least 35 meters long. During my visit Mr. J = went=20 onto the terrace to show me his reference marks. The nearest end = of the=20 large diagonal had been directly above his house and the other end = had=20 passed above a large building 350 meters away. He was unable to = determine=20 the altitude of the object, but he noticed that he could see the = sky=20 between the object and the building opposite. As a result he felt = that the=20 object could have been even larger than the distance between his = house and=20 the building.=20

A little later on, Mr. J reported that the white lights flashed = off and=20 on regularly. I asked him whether they did this at the same time. = He=20 replied, "I don't know. I couldn't see the four corners = simultaneously. I=20 had to crane my neck." These lights were circular and large. "The = most=20 extraordinary thing about them was their power," he said. They = illuminated=20 the ground with a white light. In the center of the lozenge was an = "inverted bell" which was wholly illuminated by an orange light. = At the=20 bell's apex was a green light, darker than green traffic lights. = The skirt=20 of the bell was surrounded by a row of red lights, changing = brightness=20 sequentially. This gave a false impression of revolving lights. = "These=20 lights never completely went out, but they grew distinctly = brighter at=20 certain moments."=20

The lights did not illuminate the underside of the object, = which=20 remained dark. The red lights "chased each other" with a slow, = comfortable=20 movement. "It wasn't an alarming flash, like that from an = ambulance or=20 police car. It was even pleasant to watch." Mr. J also remembered = that=20 "the luminous bell was strange, because you couldn't tell whether = the=20 light came from its interior or the surface." Since the witness = was an=20 amateur photographer, he considered going to find his camera but = realized=20 it was too big to capture adequately. Knowing that he had 100 ASA = film=20 loaded, he gauged that the mass of the object, which was almost = black,=20 would not be made out on film since the white lights were too = dazzling.=20

He did what he could. "I tried to remember as much as possible. = I also=20 called my wife and daughter so that someone from my family could = see it."=20 Mrs. J did not see the object. She heard her husband but was in = the bath.=20 His daughter arrived after the object was already some way off, = having=20 passed over the roofs of the houses. Mr. J went with her to the = front,=20 where they stayed long enough to see the object leave, still at a = fairly=20 slow speed, passing over the Eupen cemetery.=20

Mr. J bitterly regrets not having taken photos. Since then he = has been=20 to Aix-la-Chapelle to buy infrared film, which he keeps in the=20 refrigerator. The young Moroccan came over while Mr. J was drawing = his=20 picture for me. He said, unasked, "Yes, it's like that." The = vertical edge=20 (on figure 1) was not visible on December 1. Mr. J drew it based = on his=20 second sighting.=20

This second sighting took place on Wednesday, January 10, 1990, = at=20 about 1:35 p.m. It was dark. The witness, on his way to a photo = club, had=20 taken the E5 highway after reaching the Herbesthal road and was = proceeding=20 inland. He had gone only a few kilometers when he saw a stationary = object=20 in the sky. It was exactly "the same model." Mr. J stopped his car = on the=20 side of the road. Other drivers seemed not to notice anything. Mr. = J=20 leaned on the hood of his car, watching the object with arms = crossed.=20 Everything was identical to the first sighting, but on this = occasion the=20 lozenge was oriented sideways, and he could see it had a constant = and=20 considerable height. It was about 500 meters away. Its lights = seemed less=20 bright this time, perhaps because of the highway illumination.=20

Mr. J was exasperated that he hadn't brought his camera. There = would=20 probably be no point in returning home. After 10-15 minutes the = object=20 started to move off toward Fagnes. It left slowly and silently. = Just as it=20 was departing the luminosity increased. "It was as though the = voltage of=20 the lights had been intensified as it moved gently away."=20

It may seem strange that Mr. J saw the same object twice. It = should,=20 however, not be forgotten that the events of December 1 had been = deeply=20 etched in his memory; as a consequence, his mental "filters" would = have=20 been adjusted in such a way that he would more easily notice a = similar=20 object in the sky at night. I have no reason to doubt this = eyewitness=20 report. His sincerity and spontaneity were evident. The witness = had spoken=20 with only a few people and had learned to be cautious. "I have = seen many=20 things in my life," he said, "but when I talk about this, people = look at=20 me oddly."=20

A UFO flies over Aix-la-Chapelle:

On December 5 or 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. O were driving = northward on the=20 Triererstrasse in the town of Aix-la-Chapelle. It was about 9:50 = p.m. when=20 they suddenly saw a flying object cut across the road right in = front of=20 them. It moved steadily to the right. It had two headlights in = front,=20 emitting beams that slanted downwards. The light was white and = intense=20 without being blinding. In addition, there was an orange light on = the=20 underside, Dashing at the same rate as an ambulance's lights. Mr. = O was=20 driving and had to pay attention to traffic, but Mrs. O continued = to=20 observe what they still thought was an aircraft flying = exceptionally low.=20 She kept it constantly in sight. When it had crossed the road, it=20 extinguished its headlights, but the flashing orange light = remained=20 illuminated. This made it possible to see that the object was = describing a=20 half-turn on a tight curve, heading back in the opposite = direction.=20

Mrs. O first saw it through the front right-hand window. Then = she=20 turned around to look at it through the back rear window. The = object=20 approached again, passed over the car, and reappeared in the front = left-hand window. It had cut across the road diagonally. At a = certain=20 distance from the car, its headlights came on again. Since the = headlights=20 were at the front of the object, they could no longer be seen = directly,=20 but the beams that they emitted were visible. Unlike an aircraft, = there=20 were no rear lights or flashing red and green side-lights. All = that could=20 be seen was the flashing orange light, which became fainter and = fainter as=20 the craft went away.=20

Mr. and Mrs. O returned to their home, near Aix-la-Chapelle. = That same=20 evening, at 11:15 p.m., Mr. O stepped outside to let the dog out = and=20 noticed exactly the same object. It was flying above their street, = in the=20 direction of Stollberg. Mr. O immediately called his wife. The = headlight=20 beams were less angled than they had been before, but the machine = was=20 flying lower. Its motion was linear and uniform, with a speed = about that=20 of a helicopter, but to the great astonishment of the witnesses it = made no=20 sound. Mrs. O was insistent about the absence of noise, for = conditions=20 were such that she and her husband ought to have heard it had the = craft=20 been equipped with a motor.=20

I asked them later about the apparent size of the object, = suggesting=20 that a thumb held at arm's length might cover it. The immediate = response=20 was, "No, it would have required a whole hand." The sighting = occurred=20 fairly late, so the sky was dark. The object stood out clearly = against it,=20 because it was somewhat brighter. The witnesses saw an elongated = shape,=20 less high than long, with curved edges. The outlines were = different from=20 those of an aircraft or helicopter. The hypothesis of night = gliders or=20 ultralights is not very credible, particularly in the case of the = first=20 sighting. The next day a police car passed down the street, its=20 loud-speaker requesting those who had seen "anything abnormal" to = report=20 it to them. Mr. and Mrs. O did not do so. Were there other = witnesses? They=20 do not know, because they don't read the local paper. Mr. O, who = is=20 Japanese, subscribes to a Cologne daily paper and the Financial = Times.=20

I was alerted to this case by Mrs. O's sister, who lives in = Eupen. The=20 German police habitually ridicule UFO witnesses, so it is not = surprising=20 that Mr. and Mrs. O didn't want to report their sighting. I also = conducted=20 an inquiry into a close encounter involving two German families = living in=20 Lontzen, in Belgium on November 29. The children involved were = frightened,=20 so one of the mothers called various places, including the = Aix-la-Chapelle=20 police. She told me that they laughed at her and that their = derisive=20 response had shocked her.=20

A triangular UFO at Coblenz:

The following case was described in the July-August 1990 issue = of the=20 Journal fur UFO-Forschung (Journal for UFO Research) of the GEP = group=20 (Society for the Investigation of the UFO phenomenon), based in=20 Ludencheid, Germany. The investigation was carried out by W. = Kelch. This=20 case is interesting in itself, since it involves the sighting of a = triangle in another country, but it also has interesting = psychological=20 aspects. The principal witness, a 33-year-old woman, works at a = military=20 base and seems to have a solid character.=20

The sighting took place on the evening of February 21, 1990, at = 9:07=20 p.m., in Karthause, near Coblenz. The lady was returning home by = car,=20 accompanied by her mother (aged 69) and her son (aged 14), who had = been to=20 a judo lesson. They were driving through an attractive residential = district on a fairly wide road. To the right was a continuous line = of=20 trees 15-18 meters in height, bordering a cemetery. The left-hand = side of=20 the road was fringed with houses 20-25 meters high on a small = hill.=20 Through traffic is virtually nil and, at this late stage of the = evening,=20 there was no residential traffic. In fact, no car went by during = the=20 episode. The weather was cool and it was dark. The sky was clear.=20

The mother was the first to see two lights beaming straight = down at=20 them at a 45-degree angle (figure 2a). The object bearing these = lights=20 slowed down, but the driver, fearing it might crash, pulled to the = right=20 side of the road. There she stopped, with the car at an angle. The = object=20 stopped above the road, almost directly overhead. The driver = switched off=20 the engine, lowered the window and looked out. She saw a large = triangular=20 object, absolutely stationary and noiseless, at rooftop height. = From other=20 reference points it was possible to determine that the sides of = the=20 triangle measured about 20 meters (figure 2b). The witnesses = watched the=20 object closely, but no one dared get out of the car.=20

Three milky, yellowish-white lights were at the corners of the=20 triangle. They were bright but not blinding. In the center of the = triangle=20 was a much larger light. Its color was changing but the prevailing = hue was=20 grey-blue. These changes seemed to imply something revolving, = reminding=20 the witnesses of the mirror-globes in discos. The witnesses said = that=20 "this light shone in a strange way." They saw only the lower side = of the=20 triangular platform. The object had a metallic appearance. It was=20 dark-gray and colorless, with solid and sharp outlines The base = was=20 slightly illuminated by the lights on the object, allowing the = witnesses=20 to observe structures which they described as riveted plates = (figure 2b).=20

The object stayed overhead for two or three minutes then = departed=20 suddenly in the direction of the houses. The driver of the car = felt a=20 breeze through her rolled-down window. The object accelerated and=20 disappeared from view in less than a second, behind the roofs of = the=20 houses. It had arrived from the west, but departed towards the = southwest.=20 Its departure was speedier than that of a jet aircraft.=20

The witnesses then went home, and the woman immediately = informed her=20 husband, who was on nightshift. At first he was unwilling to = believe her=20 story but finally, at her insistence, called the local police. = Although=20 the police had not received any other calls, they agreed to send a = police=20 squad to the area. Her husband also called the air-traffic = sections at the=20 Frankfurt and Cologne-Wahn airports. They responded that radar = detection=20 was not possible at so low an altitude. The three witnesses were = unable to=20 sleep that night. The mother, feeling afraid, stayed in her = daughter's=20 apartment.=20

Later on the wife tried to clear up the mystery on her own = initiative.=20 She found the address and telephone numbers of the GEP, who sent = her a=20 questionnaire which she completed and returned by mail. She = succeeded in=20 locating two other witnesses. Between 8:30 and 8:50 that same = evening, a=20 lady saw "something bright heading quite rapidly towards my car," = near the=20 intersection of the A61 and A48 highways. Frightened, she braked. = Through=20 the sunroof she saw a bus-shaped metallic object with fairly = bright,=20 bluish lights. The object went by noiselessly, disappearing = finally in the=20 dark. A UFO was also seen by a 30- year-old man, just before 9:07 = p.m.,=20 near the same spot. When questioned, however, he distanced himself = from=20 the incident, saying, "Nobody's going to believe me anyway."=20

When the GEP investigator contacted the police, they asserted = that they=20 could not recall having received any telephone calls about UFOs = and that=20 they knew nothing of the matter. The lady and her husband were = annoyed by=20 this denial. The investigator had the impression that the wife was = a=20 down-to-earth sort of individual. He found no discrepancy between = her=20 account and the questionnaire she had completed. So far as the = witness was=20 concerned, she had seen an unidentified flying object.=20

The GEP tried to find a conventional explanation. A balloon was = ruled=20 out because there had been a light east wind and the object was = first seen=20 moving west to east. And how could it have turned around and left = so fast?=20 The police use BO-105 helicopters to patrol the highways for = trucks, but=20 this too was ruled out. Could it have been a military plane? There = is in=20 actual fact a military exercise ground (Schmitenhohe) two = kilometers away,=20 where German and NATO forces run nocturnal infrared reconnaissance = flights=20 and other exercises. But that night there had been no exercises.=20

In Germany a CH-47 Chinook helicopter is often suggested as an=20 explanation for UFO reports. Such aircraft are used between Mendig = and=20 Mainz, but the flights take place almost exclusively during the = day at a=20 height of 800-1000 meters. Taken as a whole, the evidence in this = case=20 renders that explanation unlikely. Nevertheless, the investigator = thought=20 it necessary to consider the possibility that the three witnesses = were in=20 shock and had perhaps not heard the noise, having been paralyzed = by fear.=20 The investigator thus concluded noncommittally that "the available = data do=20 not allow us to make an unambiguous identification as a known = flying=20 object." You can make what you like about this statement. Who is=20 frightened? The witnesses by a somewhat hypothetical helicopter, = or the=20 investigator by social and psychological pressures?=20

A recent sighting in Switzerland:

This event occurred on Sunday, October 14, 1990. The Swiss = sighting was=20 relayed to me by the witness, Mrs. Wengere, who has authorized me = to cite=20 her name. She telephoned me from Switzerland and confirmed her = account in=20 writing. An editor by profession, she was clearly looking for = people who=20 would listen seriously to such reports. She wrote to a Zurich = paper and=20 personally collected various recent eyewitness reports a copy of = which she=20 sent me.=20

On the evening of October 14 she and her husband were on their = way to a=20 hospital to visit a friend. It was about 7 p.m., already dark, = with stars=20 easily visible. The sky was clear and there was no wind. They were = driving=20 from Lostdorf, near Olten, toward Zurich. Mrs. Wengere spotted two = bright=20 white lights. They were motionless, a little to the left ahead of = them,=20 over a range of mountains. The couple could not see light beams = but only=20 two large, luminous, perfectly round disks, surrounded by a light=20 atmospheric halo. The left-hand light was higher than the right.=20

Mrs. Wengere at first thought the lights must be on = transmission towers=20 on the mountaintops, although they would have to have been erected = recently since she had never seen them before. There was still = enough=20 light in the sky for her to observe that there was nothing between = the=20 lights and the range of mountains. She thus deduced that the = lights had to=20 be supported by one or two flying objects whose shape was not = discernible.=20 She told her husband, "There's a UFO over there! "=20

She asked him to stop. He saw the lights and could not explain = them=20 either, but he didn't stop because there was no parking space = along the=20 road and it would have been dangerous to stop in the dark. The = bright=20 lights must have been of excessive dimensions since the stars = appeared=20 minuscule and pale in comparison, as did the lights of an = approaching=20 aircraft. There was one approaching the UFO (figure 3a) at that = very=20 moment. If the lights were at the same distance as the plane, each = of them=20 ought to have been almost as large as the plane itself. Mrs. = Wengere=20 expected the object to react to the plane, but at that moment she = and her=20 husband were passing a village and lost sight of the object. They = even had=20 to wait for a red traffic light.=20

When they once more had a clear view, the lights had = disappeared. Mrs.=20 Wengere was annoyed that her husband had not stopped when she had = asked=20 him to. He exclaimed, "Look, there they are again! " The lights = were=20 hanging a little higher in the sky, above the mountains to the = right of=20 the road. The new position and the previous location formed an = angle of=20 about 100 degrees. Since the witnesses had not observed the shift, = thiscould have been another object entirely. In fact, they now = noted a=20 third light, identical to the first two, a little to the left of = the=20 others. It was separated from them by a distance almost 10 times = as large=20 as the distance between the other two lights, which were still = stationary.=20

The third light was at first motionless, but after some time it = shifted=20 slowly towards the others with a linear uniform speed. It stopped = after=20 having covered two-thirds of the distance that separated it from = them=20 (figure 3b). The other two lights began to move together, as if = they were=20 joined, their diagonal alignment becoming horizontal. The pair = became=20 smaller and less intense, but at the same time two chains of red = and green=20 lights appeared joining the two. The distance between them grew = greater=20 and eventually the two lights disappeared, leaving only the red = and green=20 crown of light visible.=20

The third light also changed during this time it became fainter = and=20 acquired its own oval crown of small red and green lights. The = vertical=20 axis of the ellipse thus formed grew gradually longer, but the = second=20 crown was smaller than the first (figure 3c). The two witnesses = thought=20 that the chains of light were fixed to the sides of objects that = were=20 changing their tilt, but neither of them could actually see the = objects.=20 Followed by other vehicles, they continued to drive on. Mr. = Wengere had=20 slowed down only slightly. The lights were lost once again behind = some=20 houses, this time for good.=20

The Wengeres were already aware of the UFO phenomenon as a = result of a=20 previous sighting. On July 20, 1989, at about 6:50 p.m., they had = both=20 been out in their garden. The sun was shining and the sky was = cloudless.=20 Mrs. Wengere noticed an elongated, silvery object. It moved like = an=20 aircraft, but she could see neither wings nor tail. It was simply=20 cigar-shaped and completely silent. She pointed it out to her = husband, who=20 was equally surprised. Mrs. Wengere thought it so strange that ten = minutes=20 later she telephoned the air-traffic control at Zurich-Kloten = airport. She=20 learned that there had been no "official flight" at that time over = her=20 home and that nothing abnormal had been recorded on the radar = screens.=20

Mrs. Wengere was unable to stop thinking about what she had = seen on=20 October 14. She remembered having read about a large number of = sightings=20 of UFOs in Belgium. On October 20 she decided to telephone the air = traffic=20 center at Zurich-Kloten. They had seen nothing unusual on their = radars=20 during the evening of October 14, and no one else had reported a = similar=20 phenomenon. The man who answered the telephone said, "It must be = an=20 optical illusion due to some sort of reflection." He said this = haughtily,=20 adding that he received many telephone calls of this kind, but = that they=20 were almost always optical illusions. This indicates that there = were other=20 UFO reports, although the explanation he offered was purely = gratuitous.=20

I note that in the United States a photograph was taken on May = 26,=20 1988, near Southbury of a beautiful crown of alternating red, = yellow and=20 green lights against a black background. This is documented by a=20 magnificent slide that I have received from Philip Imbrogno, = co-author of=20 the book Night Siege [with J. Allen Hynek]. This shows that one = must not=20 treat each case in isolation as if it were unique, but search for=20 correlations as has to be done for any physical phenomenon. For = this=20 reason we must not focus our attention solely on the events of = March=20 30-31, 1990, whatever their possible importance may eventually be. =

As for the "flying angels effect," which has led to some = notable=20 problems in atmospheric physics and useful knowledge for radar = operators,=20 this discovery was simply a by-product of rational study of the = UFO=20 problem. As such it underlines that it is worthwhile to look = carefully at=20 mysterious phenomena. I expect that the thoroughness and = seriousness of=20 our study of radar "noise" will help our credibility as we examine = other=20 aspects of the UFO phenomenon. =


3D"" Feedback  |=20  Top  |=20  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home=20

This page was last updated on February 22,=20 2001
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ufologie.net/img/navhom01.gif R0lGODlhFQAVAPcAABgYGCkpKTExMUJCQnNzc4SEhJSUlJycnP////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////ywAAAAAFQAVAAAIlwAPHDAg kODAgggPKlxocAABgQwTQhQ4AICAAhMzajRQEQCAABgnGhR5oKMAjxcTjmzosaVHkBshmmx50mJI jR1d6oQ5siTKnxZdpiyYU6fQlyEr1lxKU2dKAkabHhVgECpQo0sNECRoVWpQlBoPWK35FezCg12x Suw5lqYAlWHTWtQaVuPYtyszGqw6tydCvxAJ3IRoMCAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ufologie.net/img/flagfr.jpg /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQECWAJYAAD/2wBDAAsICAoIBwsKCQoNDAsNERwSEQ8PESIZGhQcKSQrKigk JyctMkA3LTA9MCcnOEw5PUNFSElIKzZPVU5GVEBHSEX/2wBDAQwNDREPESESEiFFLicuRUVFRUVF RUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUX/wAARCAAOABQDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAFgABAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwAF/8QAGxAAAgIDAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI2dAUG sQf/xAAWAQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAgT/xAAaEQEAAQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQIxM3GB/9oA DAMBAAIRAxEAPwDG1WUYywvRL9Aj6WF4waarKMZYXol+gR9LC8Y0SFuKi89GxoREHzt//9k= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ufologie.net/img/line.jpg /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEASABIAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIf IiEmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/wAALCAADAAEBAREA/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEB AQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1Fh ByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZ WmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXG x8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEBAAA/APKq/9k= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://ufologie.net/sys/style.css BODY { MARGIN-TOP: 10pt; SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #948c7b; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; = FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 10pt; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #193137; = COLOR: #000000; SCROLLBAR-3DLIGHT-COLOR: #ffffff; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.3; = MARGIN-RIGHT: 10pt; SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #bccbd4; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffefe; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } P { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; = LINE-HEIGHT: 1.1; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: justify } H1 { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #52636b; = FONT-FAMILY: verdana,helvetica,arial,sans-serif } H2 { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #ffffff; = FONT-FAMILY: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73848c } H3 { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: = helvetica,arial,sans-serif } H4 { PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; FONT-WEIGHT: = 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.5em; COLOR: #4d4d27; = PADDING-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #cecec6 } H6 { PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; FONT-WEIGHT: = 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.5em; COLOR: #4d4d27; = PADDING-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #cecec6 } A:link { FONT-WEIGHT: 600; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #a95409; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:active { FONT-WEIGHT: 600; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #e4842e; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:visited { FONT-WEIGHT: 600; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #73848c; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: 600; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,helvetica,arial,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #52636b; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } UL LI { LIST-STYLE: square url(../img/ul.jpg) outside; MARGIN-TOP: 10px; = DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif } OL LI { MARGIN-TOP: 10px; DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; = LIST-STYLE-POSITION: outside; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: upper-roman } TABLE { MAX-WIDTH: 90% } TH { FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #a59c94; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } TD { FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #bdc6ce; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } IMG { BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #a0bece; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #a0bece; = BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #a0bece; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #a0bece } PRE { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: = monospace,courrier,serif } KBD { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: #555555; FONT-FAMILY: = monospace,courrier,serif } CODE { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: #555555; FONT-FAMILY: = monospace,courrier,serif } TT { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 500; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000000; = FONT-FAMILY: monospace,courrier,serif } BLOCKQUOTE { PADDING-RIGHT: 0.2em; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0.2em; FONT-WEIGHT: = 400; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; COLOR: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; = FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = #a59c94 } DIR { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: #000000 } MENU { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: #000000 } ADDRESS { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; = LINE-HEIGHT: 1.1; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } CITE { DISPLAY: block; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; = LINE-HEIGHT: 1.1; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } EM { FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } DL DT { MARGIN-TOP: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: 500; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #040e0c; = FONT-FAMILY: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif } DL DD { MARGIN-TOP: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif } FIELDSET { BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 1px; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; = BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-LEFT-COLOR: #73848c; BACKGROUND: #cccccc; = BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #73848c; PADDING-BOTTOM: = 4px; MARGIN: 2px 0px; BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #73848c; PADDING-TOP: 4px; = BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-RIGHT-COLOR: #73848c } LEGEND { FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: #666666 } .smallright { FONT-WEIGHT: 400; FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: #2a5998; FONT-FAMILY: = arial,helvetica,sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right } .white { BACKGROUND-COLOR: white } .Textarea { FONT-SIZE: 13px; BACKGROUND: #cccccc; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, = helvetica, sans-serif } .button { BORDER-RIGHT: #5a686e 2px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.2em; BORDER-TOP: = #96a4aa 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0.2em; BACKGROUND: #73848c; = PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #96a4aa 2px solid; CURSOR: hand; = COLOR: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #5a686e 2px solid; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .quote { PADDING-RIGHT: 0.2em; MARGIN-TOP: 0px; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: = 0.2em; FONT-WEIGHT: 400; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; = COLOR: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; FONT-FAMILY: = verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #a59c94 } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C884DA.4735BC20--