UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Christophe Meessen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:22:37 +0100 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:10:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Christophe also said: >'My father proposed an explanation for all radar related >evidences.' >Note PROPOSED. Yes we have to remain modest in front of this case. It could be a natural phenomenon or it could be a UFO or a mixture of both phenomenon. Since the problem is undecidable we can spend years in this endless discussion. >And: >'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.' >>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? >Which would explain the mystery better than any other >explanation. Sorry. But I can't let this pass. According to the second book on the Belgian UFO flap that discusses visual contact data closely, there is no triangular object reported where the F16 detected the erratic signal. Henny, it is really sad you can't read the two articles. This would clarify a lot of points. >>Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO >>performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I >>think not. There was no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side of the sky. 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. I wish this discussion returns to a wise and rational ground. Henny, It would be a mistake to put into question the whole Belgian UFO flap and the 2000 testimonies simply because we have to discard the F16 evidence. Some skeptics and the belgian defense minister officially did so, but this is an error. Who cares what people say. We are conducting an investigation, we are totally free and we are all searching the truth whatever the path we take. We have to respect any working hypothesis one choose as starting point to do his investigation as long as he remains OBJECTIVE and RATIONAL. So we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon. We are searching evidences and we only have evidences when we can discard any rational explanation. Spending more time on defending or attacking this case is loosing your time and energy. What you can do though is check the argumentation concluding to a possible natural phenomenon. It might have been a UFO, but we will never now for sure now. It is bad news for everybody, even for the skeptics, because we can always say it might still have been a UFO. Happily the Belgian UFO flap has plenty more valuable testimonies and there are still many people who didn't testified for various reasons. Bien cordialement, Ch.Meessen Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
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. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: email@example.com
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.