Looking for my critique of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO Wave" - Skeptic Report : Click HERE

UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2006 > Oct > Oct 22

Re: Critique Of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:34:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:48:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Critique Of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO


>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:51:12 -0400
>Subject: Re: Critique Of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO Wave"

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:18:24 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Critique Of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO Wave"

>>>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:59:16 -0400
>>>Subject: Critique Of Hallet's "So-Called Belgium UFO Wave"

><snip>

>>>http://www.cohenufo.org/analyhalletarticle1.htm

><snip>

>>Thanks for putting this together. The Hallet critique is not
>>very impressive and as you point out relies too much on
>>selective quotation and generalisation in preference to real
>>information. Unfortunately sources on the case that I have read
>>(but to be clear I haven't made a special project of it) suffer
>>from the same frustrating absence of crucial information.

<snip>

>>I agree this is still a very interesting case and seems to need
>>a lot more work. I'd appreciate if anyone can point me in the
>>direction of reliable original data. Thanks.

>Hi Martin,

>Thanks for reading what I wrote and commenting on it. I just
>tweaked it again a little bit today to tighten it up a little. I
>just wanted something up on the search engines so that people
>could see that Hallet doesn't have all the answers.

>I don't have much of a technical background and don't know the
>answers to the technical questions you asked, but I tried to
>include any information I thought might be useful to people who
>do. I thought Mark's work-up looked very good, especially since
>Brad Sparks had some input into it as well, and I wanted to hear
>what anyone else had to say about it.

>If no one else comes up with a good answer concerning what you
>ask about the time-coded transcript matched to time data on the
>radar record, then I would guess that could be in the classified
>report. Of course I could be wrong, but BAF may figure the less
>people know about how BAF NATO works technically, the better.

>Is it possible any of that temperature - humidity information
>could be gotten from the local Belgium weather people or does it
>go beyond what they normally deal with? How about data from
>weather satellites?

>You never can tell, you might get an answer to some of it if you
>wrote DeBrouwer directly. He wanted to talk about this enough to
>actually appear on an unsolved mysteries program. Who knows, he
>may still care to talk about it, if you approach him in the
>right manner. From one article I have, Marie Galbraith had a
>conversation with him when they were working on the
>Rockefeller Report. DeBrouwer had input to that report.

>http://www.cohenufo.org/Rockefeller_wbsite.htm#mgalbraith

Thanks Jerry

I see there's a fair bit more information on Patrick Gross's
site at: (* jc 12/18/2012 - Patrick's site has moved. I have 
updated what was the original link Martin had given below.)
http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/belgium.htm including what seems to be a complete internal BAF report by a Major Lambrechts and the BAF summary that was the basis of De Brouwer's press statements. The main report is itself really only a summary and several attachments which may have contained substantial stuff are not included (apart from the ground radar controllers' transcript). Most of this is helpfully translated to English. Unfortunately the latter third of the Lambrechts report is not translated, and the fact that my French is very indifferent only adds to the difficulty of making sense of what still seems a little confusing. There are no useful weather data here either. There are a couple of images of the F-16 HUD showing a lock-on - it's a shame the links to the video clips are dead. We read in several places that lock-on was only maintained for 6 seconds, then we are presented with tabulated data on a lock-on lasting 22.5 seconds. This is identified only as "one of the contacts". This seems to be the data set used by Mark Cashman, where it is identified as belonging to contact #3 at 0015. The radio transcript doesn't make it easy to distinguish one contact from another, but the only possible match according to time (2215 GMT below) is this: ------ P: Confirm heading Efflux. C: 130, 120 even. And continue roll out 180 He's now 170,4. Check camera on. 160, 3. P: Camera on. I've a possible contact now at 550 knots in C. 6 alt 10000. C: Just overhead. 22:15 C: If possible take a maximum of pictures. P: May I suggest you keep the HUD, I keep... C: At your 6 o'clock 2 unreadable. P: Efflux, give a new heading. C: Roll out 360, 360, 2. unreadable Continue SB 030. P: 030. C: He's now 050, 3. Altitude 105. Keep on turning towards 090. P: Steady 090. C: 090 on the nose 2. P: One a/c passing below. Efflux is it possible? C: At what altitude? P: I see it Efflux. C: On the nose 2 miles. P: MEEL, you see it, just below me now. Efflux you have a new heading. C: South, 2. P: Say altitude. C: FL 105. Snap 130. 130, 3. Last alt. reported 10000ft On the nose 2. P: Come in attack. C: Past the contact now. Altitude is 10000ft. P: I'm at 9000ft. C: Still no contact? P: " " " ! Heading please. C: 270, 2. P: Confirm 260. 22:19 -------- Here we have an AI radar target reported at 10,000 ft, with a ground radar target going to 10,500 ft then back to 10,000 ft. But the tabulated AI data sequence (supposedly contact #3) starts at 7000 and ends on the deck. Neither the pilot nor the ground controller seems to describe this sort of behaviour. Maybe the brief but crucial 22.5 seconds of the lock-on passed without comment? Maybe ground radar tapes did confirm this behaviour by the UFO (although the renewal rate on the ground would be a few seconds, so they wouldn't see all the detail). But I don't see this explicitly stated anywhere. Neither does anyone else, apparently, or such confusion as evidenced on this List in 1997 http://www.cohenufo.org/Belgium/belgnmbrs.htm (guesses as to whether or not air and ground radar tracks were concurrent on any remarkable targets or just on an aircraft-like one) would not have persisted. In fact the total length of "contact #3" is listed here as only 19.9 seconds - 2.6 seconds shorter than the 22.5 second AI lock. All in all, very intriguing but still frustrating. I'd like to repeat my request to anyone who has studied this case in detail: Have these issues been definitively resolved anywhere? BTW, I notice some puzzlement was expressed at the time over the identity of Tullio Regge. Presumably this was soon cleared up? Regge is a well-known Italian theoretical physicist (recently associated with an Italian sceptics group apparently similar to CSICOP). Martin Shough - - - * jc 12/20/2012: - In case of link failure to Patrick Gross' work on the 1990 Belgium case, enter patrick gross belgium in Google to locate same.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last names to ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at AliensOnEarth.com