Yet, I am the one that has presented scientific data that indeed is possible, all you have is your insistance upon the opposite. Nothing whatsoever to back you up, not even a single radar technicality - which I find rather curious given your allegedly vast knowledge and experience with radar systems .

Cheers,
Badeskov

And how does it decide whether the thing plasma event is a plasma event or an aircraft? It cant.



You seem like a kid thats played a couple of flightsims and thinks he knows all about radar. What badeskov said was not wrong. It seems to me you are the one who lacks knowledge, not him.



Yes, but it rejects these things based on how the EM waves are returned to it. If the recieving signal is something that the radar mode would track, its going to be picked up. The plasma phenomena reflects signals back the same way an aircraft would, so the radar does pick it up, and it can be tracked in STT mode.



I have yet to see you prove anything at all.

Even without my post, it was clearly evident that the incdient had nothing to do with plasma!\

Have you reviewed those videos, including the interviews with the Colonel, the pilot, and the professor to understand what I mean?

Apparently, plasma was not responsible for the incident in quesiotn, so have you reviewed the video to understand what is going on and why plasma was not responsible?

You know, there's this thing I have been saying about skeptics not doing their homework properly if they do it at all.

Ok I did, now what..?

Sigh. Sky, that corner you have painted yourself into must feel more and more cramped, yet you keep painting. By all means of respect, but you can't even keep track of simple radar terminology. How do you expect me (or any other for that matter) to believe that you know anything about the subject at hand?! Well, while I can tell that it is probably valuable time wasted with respect for your understanding of the topic at hand, I hope others will understand it.



Sigh. The lookdown capability has nothing whatsoever to do with the capability of a radar to eliminate clutter. As explained to you already in my post here, which you elegantly skipped. But I guess having one's lack of knowledge displayed is something one rather doesn't want to happen and therefore tend to overlook the inconvenient passages. As I said:



Now, the lookdown is just the name for the ability to look over the horizon, as seen by the radar. That has nothing to do with false target rejection. Uplook (an air-to-air mode of the radar without clutter present) and downlook (air-to-air with clutter prsent) mode does have some bearing on this discussion. Notice the different terminology?! But they are still just the name of the mode and includes, among other things, false target rejection.



BS. Digital is only a part of a system. Radar is comprised of both analog and digital parts, where neither can be without the other. And while digital is certainly a very important part of a modern radar, it is by no means a magic box that can do whatever you want it to.



Which just shows that you haven't understood anything at all, be it radar or physics. Again, as I explained in my previously referenced post (which part you also elegantly skipped, again demonstrating your lack of enthusiasm to reply when the important details are presented):



So anything below a certain, absolute velocity is eliminated right away (yes, like buildings, trees, etc). But a plasma typically will have a velocity above 55knots and not exhibit a distributed radar return, thus cannot be filtered out!



I was unaware?! I see...interesting observation. Then please present the technical details showing exactly where and why I was wrong. So far you have only presented some fancy movie jargon, and not even that you can do correctly. Technical details, please.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I can't, and neither can you! Just as I can't say that it was impossible for it to be ET. Again, all we have are possibilities, no more, no less.

So what are those reasons (yes, I have asked you before and I am still waiting - and, no, a report about mirages/temp inversions from 1969 is not the asnwer).

Cheers,
Badeskov

Absolute nonsense. If you are talking about the Belgian UFO video, yes, I have...another 3 times last night (I must be crazy). As asked before, would you please state the minute and second where it is said that there were eyewitness to that specific target that was tracked by the F-16s?!

And then, why not add this question, can you please state the minute and second in that video where it is stated that a plasma could not have been responsible for the radar track?!

Again, I am waiting!

Cheers,
Badeskov

You know what, if you actually had something to back up your claims, the rest of us wouldn't have to run around doing your work. It is very simple:

1. Present your hypothesis
2. Present your arguments (in a somewhat scientific way)
3. Discuss your argumens (and not by telling others they haven't done their homework when it is very obvious who has and who hasn't).

Cheers,
Badeskov

I think you conveniently forgot to answer Stellar's actually very pertinent question here:



I am still waiting for that one also!

Cheers,
Badeskov

So?! Laser projections and holograms?! I agree, that sounds far out, but what does that have to do with the present discussion - and especially the possibility of a plasma phenomenon?

And your quotes:



In those days the CIA and US military in general were terrified that the Soviets would instigate a nuclear attack and a sneak attack was the worst scenario possible. That is one of the reasons why they were so interested.



So they couldn't find any natural phenomenon at that time that could explain them. Well, now we have one such phenomenon. Also, he specifically states that he does not want to say that they were actually flying objects.



Keywords: UFOs are real (nobody is diputing that, but that doesn't make them ET) and they may come from outer space. Not that they are certainly coming from outer space, but that they may.

Not really very supportive of your hypothesis, is it?

Cheers,
Badeskov

I think Skyeagle409 if off on a wild goose chase. This world has plenty of such pursuits.

IMO, what people may have thought they once saw, or read about, or argued about, has clearly not given us a reason to rationally and honestly conclude ET spaceships.

One needs to own up to the wealth of human brainpower, and put this ET UFOs into the category of modern day mythology.

It is an area naturally to inquire about. And, an area to use scientific knowledge to try and understand.

ET has not been established, and can not be concluded. Time and again, stories appear, amidst a backdrop of wordly activities. Therein, lie the answers.

It's time to give scientists a little credit. UFOs are us, and nature. Probably always have been.

Don't like it? It's the way things are. We are lucky to be here, as a living planet. But, such places are separated by astronomic distances. There is no escaping that fact. To conclude some planet's inhabitants overcame all odds, developed to some unimaginable level while having seemingly unlimited natural resources, became able to travel interstellar distances, and came here is so much wishful thinking.

It makes no sense.

And yet he still mised one of the eyewitnesses to Rendleshem stating that he saw a 'projection of a craft'.
Typical of the pelican though, throw 'em a red herring and they'll swoop on that fish...


Interestingly enough 'one who 'knows' should be able to get his hands on those scientific reports, since websearching tends to return a few results for scientific/research databases. Any wonder then we're only seeing one side post facts and the other lol/smileying nervously...


Unfortunately, Badeskov, it doesn't matter how many times you read the same errancy presented across a multitude of sites, books, etc..., the only thing Aubrey will accept as correct and 'done your homework' is the forced conclusion that makes you grab your flashlight and join the rest of the kooks on the hill trying to flag down a passing spaceship...

edit:typo

Friendly aircraft have a transponder on them that signals they are just that and it wasn't there on the Belgian sighting... So it wasn't a NATO object...

If you were to watch a few UFO shows made in Europe you would know that the object that was tracked on Radar was also sighted and reported by people on the ground who described a dark triangular craft... A craft with a startlingly similar shape was seen over a period of weeks right across Belgium.

Note that they're talking about incoherrent plasma scatters, which I'm making an educated guess is not the phenomena that Badeskov has been refering to.Link

So would I be correct in saying that this relates to an upper atmosphere phenomena that is above the normal operation of aircraft and RADAR?

And maybe our RADAR 'expert' could translate this into plain English

You would be correct. This is an ionosphere phenomena, and measuring the backscattering from the ionosphere can yield many valuable, meteorological data. In essence, it works as a high altitude "electron barometer". The incoherent radar backscatter stems from electrons removed from their atoms by high energy ultra-violet light from the sun and as the energy scattered from each electron is a known quantity, the electron density can be computed from the backscattered energy and therefrom a whole host af upper atmospheric data derived.

Plasma can be encountered many places, in many shapes or forms. Simply put, a plasma is a gas ionized to the point where the energy is enough for electrons to break free from their host molecules. To that effect the degree of ionization is defined (a), which is really the fraction of atoms from which electrons have broken free (a=Ni/(Ni+Nn)), where Ni is the number of ionized atoms (lost electrons) and Nn the number of neutral atoms (retained their electrons). As it is free electrons that carry electricity (e.g., currents in copper wires), it is easy to see that such plasma can be highly electrically conductive and react to magnetic fields. And the higher the degree of ionization, the more free electrons and the better the conductor it is. For many purposes the conductivity of such a plasma can be treated as infinite, thus the resemblance to a metal with respect to electromagnetic radiation.

The differences between plasmas are many, and the upper atmosphere plasmas are low density plasmas. What we encounter in our lower atmosphere are obviously higher density. The geometrically very confined plasmas (like a sphere) is theorized to have a high temperature gradient at the boundary, which is preserving the shape. And so one and so forth

Cheers,
Badeskov

Good deal, McNeil!!

Now, tell the other skeptics, based on what the experts have said, why plasma played no part in that incident.

And, I am insisting, that plasma played no part in any of the case files I've posted. You can provide all the scientific data you want, but you can't rewrite the laws of physics to make those UFOs have anything to do with plasma.

Read the reports!

What is amazing to me, is that you keep insisting that plasma could have played a part in any of case files presented, when the fact of the matter is, investigations revealed that the UFOs were in fact, intelligently controlled vehicles and many of those case files were radar/visual where the aircrews described structured flying crafts, not plasma.



Let's just say that I know other things that radar can do that you won't find on the internet.

Wrong again, because if you had truly checked out the videos, you would have found that the witnesses were describing a triangular-shaped flying object, not plasma, and if you had checked the video on the JAL incident, you would have heard that military and commmercial aircrews reported encountering flying saucers, not plasma.


UFO debunker, Phil Klass and CSICOP tried to explain away the JAL incident as planets, until they found the planets were not in the same patch of sky as the UFOs and then, they changed their story to that of ice clouds, but meterological conditions excluded ice clouds as well.

Later analysis of the data in Washington D.C., confirmed the reports of the JAL aircrew.

And, that is a primary reason why the object had nothing to do with any plasma; it was a structured, flying craft, not the result of any natural phenomenon..

Now, as I have asked over and over, please do point to the exact point in said reports where it is said that a plasma wasn't responsible! And if you had just a hint of knowledge of what you are talking about, you would actually know that there would be no need to rewrite the laws of physics, rather, plasmas are well within the laws of physics.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Since some air intercept radars can differentiate between types of jet engines based on the characteristics of the rotating compressor blades, and do so frrom many miles away, what do you really think? Even aircraft have their unique signatures and radar can even detect a pilot's helmet inside the cockpit and there are many other things it can do that you won't find on the internet either.



LOL!!

It was I, who revealed the facts on the F-16's radar that had nothing to do with flight sims, and look what you posted! Besides, the F-16 pilot pretty much summed in up in his interview that the craft was real, not related to atmospheric phenomena, but I had already told you that! BTW, I harbor much more info' on such radar that you won't find in any flight sims! Just thought you would like to know that!



If the pilots designates the target to where the radar jumps into STT mode, he is not tracking any plasma.

As I've said before, all you are doing is similar to copying Japanese language characters and not knowing what those characters represent.

Now, did you review the video that proves that plasma played on part in that incident and why?

Yeah, the old tirade with nothing to back you up whatsoever.



I am guessing from Top Gun the movie, as so far you have indicated that to be your level of knowledge of radar.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Forget the JAL incident, we are still discussing your Belgian radar data. And I have repeated asked you to point me to the exact minute and second in the youtube video you posted, as I have watched it several times and I see nowhere the eyewitnesses related to the specific target yielding your posted radar track.

But I guess I can keep waiting.



Again, forget the JAL until we are finished with your Belgian data - then we can discuss the JAL incident.

Cheers,
Badeskov

That you keep asking the same questions and blatantly display your inability to answer even simple radar related questions doesn't really suit you.



Now we are getting somewhere. So we can differentiate between a plasma and an aircraft due to the resolution of the radar and the details we know about aircraft. OK, so how do you differentiate between a plasma and ET. It will just be a return that you can't match to a known aircraft, but it will otherwise be solid.



By all means of respect, pure and simple nonsense. He summed it up as a not a natural phenomenon that he is familiar with - he can't do anything else.



Nonsense, as has been described to you before and you have yet to show any knowledge of the field by describing how this is possible.



No, it is japanese to you because you don't understand what is being said.

Cheers,
Badeskov

They were no more responsible for any of the case files in question, any more than plasma.



That is a joke and so was JANAP-146 and many commercial pilots voiced that anger as well.

Having flown aircraft for more than 38 years, did they really think that commerical pilots are going to spend all of their time looking out for Soviet aircraft when there was the DEW line and Pine Tree defense zones in operation in addition to other air defense radars???

If Soviet aircraft were already over Cleveland, Ohio by the time Soviet aircraft were spotted by commercial pilots, it would have already been too late, so do you see the silliness in the way the government does business with its deceptive practices in regards to the UFO enigma?

We already knew that the explanation by the govenment, which was posted above, was just another form of deception by the government. With that, I have to reiterate "KNOWLEDGE" as a means to know when to "throw 'em, and when to hold 'em."


The CIA has been known to use forms of deception on UFOs and documents are now revealing just how extentive the CIA was involved in deceiving the public on UFOs and just the other day, I posted the facts surrounding the U-2 when the CIa was claiming that the U-2 was passed off as a UFO when it fact, it was passed off as a high alitude weather aircraft.



Certain mirages will show up on radar, but are not visible more than 2 degrees above the horizon, and that is why many UFO icidents could not be explained as radar mirages and besides, radar controllers know he difference and as one senior radar controller noted: they know what birds look like on radar and what mirages look like on their scopes.



Such a flying craft exhibiting technology not found in our science books is a clue and another reason why a B-52 aircrew had stated for the record on video, that the UFO they encountered over the Minot AFB area, was in fact, an extraterrestrial craft.

LOL!!!

"Top Gun" doesn't even come close to exhibiting my level of knowlege on what air intercept radars are capable of and as a pilot, I noticed quite a few descepancies in the "Top Gun" movie that went by the general public, but then again, it was just another Hollywood movie that lack facts on the way its done in the rreal world.

One example is where he guy (Tom Cruise} turns his F-14 upside-down and goes conopy to conopy with the enemy. I oftened wondered jsut how far the vertical stabilizers were sticking into each other's fuselages with that maneuver.

Why forget the JAL incident???

Plasma played no more a part in that incident anymnore than in the Belgian incident!



I have to go back because I don't have the numbers and why I asked you to review the video and what the pilot, the Colonel and the professor had said. So review he video and please post the statements of each of those individuals.

I have already made it knows as to why plasma played on part in the Belgian incident but it seems you are ignoring those facts as to why plasma played no part and in fact, why it was impossible for plasma to have been responsible for that UFO.



LOL!!

Those are the facts. The pilot can designate a target in another mode to jump it into STT mode.

Actually not, since civilians in area also confirmed the accounts of the military of the UFOs in the sky at that time, and look what you posted!!!
The amazing thing is, their (the civilians) statements were video taped and look what you posted.

QUOTE

UFO REALITY IS BREAKING OUT.

Nov. 12: Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington moderated a distinguished panel of former high-ranking government, aviation,
and military officials from seven countries who discussed encounters with UFOs and official investigations.



Breaking Down 'The Wall' of UFO Silence
Antonio Huneeus

Summary: In a totally unprecedented move in the history of ufology, the Belgian Air Force and government has not only carefully documented the great UFO wave over Wallonia, but shared its results with civilian investigators and the public, in effect literally breaking down "The Wall" of UFO Silence that still stands in the western world.

FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS, ALMOST THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN CONTINENT HAS BEEN PLAGUED BY A WAVE OF UFO SIGHTINGS UNSURPASSED IN HISTORY, PERHAPS MOST PUZZLING HAVE BEEN THOSE OF A GIGANTIC "FLYING PLATFORM" SIGHTED NEAR THE GERMAN BORDER IN BELGIUM.

In a totally unprecedented move in the history of ufology, the Belgian Air Force and government has not only carefully documented the great UFO wave over Wallonia, but shared its results with civilian investigators and the public, in effect literally breaking down "The Wall" of UFO Silence that still stands in the western world.

For the past year, citizens in the French-speaking region of Wallonia in Belgium have experienced an extraordinary UFO wave. Thousands of witnesses, including dozens of gendarmes (national police) and officers of the Belgian Air Force, have described triangular-shaped vehicles flying slowly over rooftops, hovering, shooting searchlights and performing incredible maneuvers. The objects have been captured on some 25 videotapes and tracked on both ground and airborne radar by the military.

.

WHEW, I tried but the posts are so long and there's so many links and redundancy that I simply couldn't get through all of this.

I'd just like to point out that you guys are wasting post after post on stupid misunderstandings due to throwing around some terms.

Evidence is data presented that points to a specific conclusion or hypothesis. From evidence alone, only theory can be derived.

Proof is fact, solid, concrete ideas that can be demonstrated repeatedly to be true. If you have proof, only then can you create a law or fact.

There are different types of evidence. Factual evidence is evidence that has proof of its own. Circumstancial etc. evidence are other theories.

Examples:

Evolution is a theory. Popular though it may be, there is no proof of evolution, only evidence. And even if you have a huge amount of evidence, it cannot be a law without proof.

Gravity is a law. Gravity can be proved, demonstrated infallibly, to be true and fact.

Natural selection is also a theory, but it is supported by factual evidence, such as the testable and infallible idea that genetic mutations occur naturally during cell division.

Eyewitness accounts are not factual evidence, but they are still evidence. For example, someone "sees" a bird at night, and reports this sighting. However, video cameras later show it to be a bat. The latter is factual evidence of a bat being there. The former is evidence of a bird being there, but such evidence can be taken in many ways: evidence of bird being there, or a flying creature, or simply a flying object. Keep in mind that analyses of the video camera are actually eyewitness accounts as well, further complicating matters when the film is unclear. So that video of a bat can be evidence of a bat, or a flying creature, etc. etc. (I hope the analogy is clear when we're talking about UFO vids and pics).

Take a court case, for another example. A person (let's say a male) is on trial. He is found to be unable to prove his whereabouts for the duration of the time in which the murder occurred (proved by decomposition rates under specific conditions), has been proven to have had conflicts with the deceased, and his fingerprints were found on a kitchen knife with the deceased's blood on it. None of this is proof that he murdered the victim, but the evidence is conclusive enough that he can still be thrown in jail for it.

Hope this clears things up/jogs a few memories and prevents future arguments over technicalities. This thread is asking for evidence, not proof, so fighting for proof and not evidence is fruitless. =P

---------

That said, skyeagle is actually offering excellent evidence towards UFOs being of ET origin. Officials and such coming forward and saying it is true can be considered evidence. If no earthly proof can yet be used to explain a UFO phenomenon, then ET origin becomes a theory under that evidence.

"Yet" being a VERY key term in such a debate.

Personally, I feel the best evidence as of yet lies in objects removed from people that seem not to have gotten there by known means and have been found to possibly have extraterrestrial origin, observations of clearly mechanical vehicles that present abilities not replicated by our technology, and confessions along the lines of the Disclosure Project. Not to mention the loads of pilot-ground control conversations that would have been a b**** to fake. The fact that at least some UFOs (unidentified flying objects) have exhibited potentially intelligent behaviours such as evasion also adds credence. Alone, these tidbits could have other explanations, but events in which several of these factors are present are compelling.

I can post links if you want me to refer to certain events that match the above criteria, but I'm sure SE has covered most of them already and we're all smart enough to play match-up.

Well said WraithGod , I hope people will apply that info from now on *golf clap*

Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report)

Belgian Air Force (UFOs at Close Sight)

Summary: The full version of the Belgian Air Force report by Major Lambrechts, VS 3/Ctl-Met 1. This report provides the full picture of the reports of the involved units of the Belgian Air Force and the reports of the eyewitnesses of the Gendarmerie patrols on the unknown phenomena observes in the airspace (further refered to as UFOs) in the south of the line Bruxelles-Tirlemont during the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990.

e. The hypothesis according to which it was an optical illusion, a mistake for planets, or any other meteorological phenomenon, is in contradiction with the radar observations, especially the 10000 feet altitude and the geometrical position of the UFOs between themselves. The geometrical formation tends to prove a program.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc409.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm

Obviously you did since you're laughing nervously.
So now the military eyewitnesses are less reliable than the civvies? Bit of a turnaround in your argument...

And if you have been looking at what I posted, I want an explanation for the what was in that article about RADAR, plasma and the E layer, STAT!

Don't ignore, handwaive, parrot on about something else. You're the RADAR expert, so put up or shut up!

Didn't someone claim or post that no radar tapes were taken?! I wonder who that was?!






A sensitive issue involved the nukes when the UFOs appeared ovehead, but I will let the government tell you what happened.

You say; "nervously!!!



Not in the least! They are in the same boat on reality.

Nothing personal Skyeagle409, I know you seem well intentioned.

But you BELIEVE ??? anything put out by some military PR machine- in Europe???!!!

No senior officer would ever think like that. Others, maybe, but not senior brass.

I suggest a re-think.

Unless, you have a bee in your bonnet...

Would that be nervous laughter because you don't have a clue about how to make head or tails of that report I posted? The debate has moved well past your precious Rendleshem, yet when it comes to actually proving your 'knowledge' you just run back to the safety of your walled garden.

Either explain that report or be a man and admit that your 'knowledge' of RADAR isn't quite as extensive as you make out that it is, since obviously putting up or shutting up is something that scares the bejesus out of you.
(because you, and history, make it painfully clear that you never really grew out of playground arguing and still believe it's who gets the last word is the one who is right. Bit sad for a guy who's roughly twice my age...)

Yes indeed and one of the reasons is that I personally saw a flying saucer back in 1968 and over of all places, in Vietnam. Over the years I have uncovered other facts and found that the Air Force had all along, knew that the flying saucers were those of ET, but never told the public and that determination was made back in 1948 and in 1952 after the Washington D.C. UFO incidents, based on the maneuvers of UFOs in the 1952 report by Major Dewey Fournet, USAF and by personnel at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH., including the commanding gerneral of Wright-Patterson AFB who stated for the records that ET visitation is a reality and that some of ET's material was brought to Wright-Patterson AFB.

Not long ago, I found that the U.S. Army had a special unit that went around and recovered ET's evidence and it was known as the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, (IPU) which was operational long before we launched our first satellite. The mission of the unit was the recovery of space vehicles and since we were still years away from the launch of our first satellite, the spacecraft they were recovering were not ours.

I later found what Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly were used by the IPU to facilitate its mission. amd not long ago, the U.S. Army finally admitted that its Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit did iin fact, exist.

Evenually, some of my compatriots were reasigned to my base from RAF Bentwaters, and they were present during the UFO incidents and confirmed that indeed, the incidents occurred.



In regards to Europe, I would like to say that NATO doesn't like to report their UFO encounters to the public, but take a look at what was reported near the Lakenheath area in 1956.




.

Now, how about telling the thread why it was impossible for plasma to have been responsible for that triangular-shaped object that was captured on multiple airborne and ground-based radars?

In fact, why are there now folks trying to paint a different picture on that indident after all of these years?

UFOs Over Vietnam

General George S Brown (1918-1978) was commander of the 7th US Air Force and deputy commander for Air Operations, Military Assistance Command Vietnam from 1968 to 1970 - and so was in command of the Phantoms involved in the snafu. In later years he rose to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. In 1973, he fronted a Chicago media conference held to discuss the North American UFO flap of that year, and while airing his views on UFOs at the conference he said:

"I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not [but UFOs plagued us in Vietnam]. They weren't called UFOs they were called enemy helicopters, and they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68, and this resulted in quite a battle. And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer [Hobart] took a hit ... there was no enemy at all involved but we always reacted. Always after dark. The same thing happened up at Pleiku at the Highlands in '69".

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4813

_____________________________________________________________________


1968 is also the year when I saw one over Vietnam.

No, how about you explain this, since you're the self appointed subject matter expert-



I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like a simple explanation...
Or you can continue to provide confirmation on the plausibility of your ignorance. It's your call.

Flying saucer in Viet Nam?

Seriously- battle fatigue or over-exposure to stress agents?

I'm serious. And, I would not downplay that either. I would say you were resiliant, and it was a tough situation.

Now, that, I could accept. That's how I see it, from the outside. And, I would not put one red cent into military records, or terminology used by its agents.

Since you refer to those reports, I will quote from those. First quoted:



This could never really be confirmed, thus



So the triangular craft could not be confirmed, but the Belgian military kept the option for interception open. And that then happened:



So to start with the lights are independent!!!! Therefore not a single craft. That they form a triangle does not mean that they were on one "craft". Then this happened:



They did not disappear as traingle craft, but the most luminous disappeared. If 3 of the lights forming a traingle had disappeared, that would most certainly have been noted. Thus, we can most likely conclude that all of the lights were independent and not attached to traingular crafts.

Finally, the last part of the first report:



Exactly which part of the above exclude plasma phenomena, or any other atmospheric event but Laser projections or Mirages?! No part, they are actually very specific in their exclusions, as would be expected. It is you making the unsubstantiated projections.

Second link:



Emphasis mine. Nowhere is mentioned a triangular craft, just lights. If they had actually seen the craft, then it would have been specifically mentioned. Moreover, they actually state that some of the observed lights arrange themselves into a triangle, thus they can't have been attached to a craft, could they?!?!?!

And the conclusion:



Here we have to look at point e. So they concluded that meteorological phenomena is not the cause of this and they might actually be right. Meteorology is a sub-discipline of atmospheric science, where plasma events is in another category (atmospheric physics). So, again, nothing excluding plasma here.

So what di this actually tell us?!

No triangular crafts were ever spotted in conjunction with the radar data. Actually, the lights were moving independently and not attached to a triangular craft. And nowhere was the plasma hypothesis excluded.

Please, do try again.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Where the conclusions given by the Belgian military simply doesn't support the concusions here - see earlier post wit h respect to this.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Do you even read the links you post?! They did not exclude plasmas. And, actually, no triangular craft, but rather independent lights that formed triangles after some moving around.



Which again displays a blatant lack of knowledge in the field of physics and radar tech. Again, please describe in detail (yes, technical details) as to how a plasma can be eliminated. I have described (in technical detail) how and why a reflective plasma acts as a metal obejct with respect to radar. You have told us that you could differentiate it from other aircraft, which is fine, but how do you differentiate it from ET? And if you STT it, it will just be an unknown target track, and just because it isn't in your DSP database of aircraft signatures be eliminated.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Because we are talking about your radar data from the Belgian case - no need to obfuscate the discussion by suddenly trying to sidetrack it due to a lack of arguments.



I have watched the video and I have repeated asked you where (minute and second) they state that plasma phenomena are not the cause, but I guess your inability to answer that question is the answer to my question; they don't.

Thus, the plasma possibility still stands.

Cheers,
Badeskov