You have no idea how true that is...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

And, a point that I have been making of UFO debunkers, because they were unaware of the facts and evidence that I was aware of for years.

Conclusion on the Belgian Triangle


a. In contradiction with other pointed out UFO sightings, for the first time a radar contact has been positively observed, in correlation with different sensors of the Air Force (CRC, TCC, RAPCON, EBBE and F-16 radar), and this in the same area as visual observations. This has to be explained by the fact that the March 30-31 UFOs have been noticed at +/- 10000 feet altitude, whereas in the former cases there was always talk of visual contacts at very low altitude.

b. The visual evidences, on which this report is partially based, come from gendarmes in duty, whose objectivity cannot be questioned.

c. The UFOs, as soon as seen by the F-16 radar in the "Target Track" mode (after interception), have drastically changed their parameters. The speeds measured at that time and the altitude shifts exclude the hypothesis according to which planes could be mistaken for the observed UFOs. The slow moves during the other phases differ also from the moves of planes.

d. The fighter pilots never have had visual contact with the UFOs. This can be explained by the changes of luminous intensity, and even the disappearance of the UFOs, when the F-16 arrived in the neighborhood of the place where they were observed from the ground.

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.

f. The first observation of the slow motion of the UFOs has been made roughly in the same direction and with the same speed as the wind. The direction differs by 30 degrees from the direction of the wind (260 degrees instead of 230 degrees). The hypothesis of sounding balloons is very improbable. The UFOs altitude during all this phase remained 10000 feet, whereas the sounding balloons go on higher and higher, up to burst at around 100000 feet. It is difficult to explain the bright lights and changes of color with such balloons. It is very improbable that balloons stay at the same altitude during more than one hour, while keeping the same position between themselves. In Belgium, during the radar observation, there was no meteorological inversion in progress. The hypothesis according to which it could be other balloons must be absolutely dismissed.

g. Though speeds greater than the sound barrier have been measured several times, not any bang has been noticed. Here also, no explanation can be given.

h. Though the different ground witnesses have effectively pointed out eight points in the sky, the radars have registered only one contact at the same time. The points have been seen at a distance one from another sufficient for them to be distinguished by the radars also. No plausible explanation can be put forward.

i. The hypothesis of air phenomena resulting from projection of holograms(*) must be excluded too: the laser projectors should have been normally observed by the pilots on flight. Moreover, the hologram cannot be detected by radar, and a laser projection can be seen only if there is a screen, like clouds for example. Here, the sky was clear, and there was no significant temperature inversion.

Nicely done, Evangium. Thank you.

I am very sure that the UFO dogfights where the objects were determined to be actual flying machines, is cause for fear for the author.

______________________________________________________________

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.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc406.htm

______________________________________________________________

We dont know, and neither do you.





,

Sky wrote:
Was that object ours? Or, that of someone else?




Come on, Hazzard, you are just tap dancing around the "flag pole of denial," so answer the question after reviewing the data, videos and official government reports.

That is typical of UFO debunkers who don't won't to face the truth, and that is, simply dance around the data, visual accounts, and other evidence when such evidence proves beyond any doubt the object was intelligently controlled.

Not quite true... Was it ours?? The British MOD gives an emphatic NO, to that...

Noone here is debunking UFOs!


And why havent you shown us these facts and evidence !?

Are you holding back on us Sky?

Thanks!!

And, that is why I asked the UFO debunkers whether the objects were ours?

Come on, Hazzard, if you are going to pull the wool over our eyes, make sure that 90% of it hasn't already been moth-eatened out of existence.

They actually also say no to it being theirs...

Cheers,
Badeskov

The best evidence for aliens on earth,would be, Us.

Yours, mine, ours, theirs, what's the difference?

Sky and his "evidence".

Didnt you also push this picture as evidence a wile ago? From a Chilean TV station.

A 400 KM UFO IN ORBIT.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Photographs/Photo166.htm

exactly...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Not that it matters, but here's another response to Sky's question about the Belgian case:

It's unknown!

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1125.htm


No final answer.....no final answer.....no final answer....

How does that translate to ET?

Most perceptive............ i would like to subscribe to your news letter :-)

OK OMK OK time out for a break all.... at this point the usher will pester you to buy frozen bovine products

UFOs through the ages

Renaissance Germany....

The witness....I did think i spied a shield like ship flying through the day time sky. yes verily i am perplexed....

The Establishment.... Tis' nought but a sign from god that you should give more to the church that your soul should be kept safe from the demons that are sent to try us....


1940s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots

Establishment... it was swamp gas reflecting off a pond 200 miles away


1950s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots


Establishment... It was Venus


1960s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots


Establishment... It was, err consults almanac, Jupiter


1970s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots


Establishment... It was a fall of meteors


1980s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots


Establishment... it was , knowing smile, probably a secret project, which we cannot possibly comment on for security reasons

1990s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots

Establishment... looking slightly put out... Could be a secret project, could be swamp gas, could be a planet

2000s

Witness.... I most definitely saw a structured craft, or something that looked exactly like one, triangular in shape and it disappeared at a huge rate of knots

Establishment ... Ah it's plasma, can't show any evidence for that and you only think it's an actual craft even though you have a pretty clear photo of said craft, that too, is just an illusion...

The truth, is still up there ;-)

Curtis Peeble's book Watch the Skies told the story of the UFO myth better.

...holy crap this is still going????



the whynsos

...

Yes, of course, "false"...I expected as much.


I shall never look at that altimeter on the instrument panel the same way again....that radar altimeter, which generally says 0 when it means 0...trusting that thing will never again be easy.

And I shall have to take a check pilot with me every time I fly from now on, one armed with a handgun.
I shall instruct him to shoot me through the head the next time I feel like a GCA...






Christ...


I say...


And you say..




I just said the data is straight and to the point.


I think the main problem is, you don't actually know what the only reasonable point is.


It is clear.
Assuming the data is accurate and is real...

(I know, you have a problem with that...)


It clearly points to an hypothesis ...that is a long way from being verified. It clearly says, "Geez, we don't know what that could've possibly been".

You think it means that this was an alien craft.

It doesn't. It means, it could be (that's the hypothesis). The difference seems subtle, but it is critical in science.













Unfortunately, yes...

Whats the ufo myth? If you really believe that ufo's are a myth, then you are seriously deluded. One thing i agree on is that we need 100% proof that some of these ufo's are ET. But as for ufo's, there is more than enough evidence that some cases are complete unknowns and need further investigation. Anyone who diagree's with this, and believes that all cases can be explained are in this subject just for the pleasure of de-bunking, and nothing else.

You have to be soooo desperate to believe, if you still, after MIDs post (AGL/MSL), can take a look at those radar numbers, and say

- I dont care what you say...it was an alien spaceship.

Funnily enough, but I'm happy to take the word of a leading expert Schweitzer over a bunch people making judgements on a tiny amount of the data... Or are you saying that a Professor of Physics and Military college lecturer somehow missed something so blindingly obvious ?

May I have a word? DONTEATUS

Well, 9000-10000 feet is hardly nap-of-the earth flying, but if a pilot is really concerned about terrain, I don't think he's going to want to be heads-down staring at his radar display for extended periods. And I'm a bit curious how you think a pilot on a VID mission is going to complete that mission without looking out of the cockpit after closing to within a few miles of his target. Your comments about the HUD are puzzling. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you. Looking through the HUD is looking out of the cockpit. And no, I dont expect the pilot to see any better at night while looking through the HUD. I DO think, though, that the nice target designator box displayed on the HUD around the locked-up radar target ought to help the pilot acquire his target visually (if it's actually visible). For the intercept in question, the target was initially "on the nose at 6 NM" and essentially co-altitude at 9000 ft according to the Belgian Air Force report. That's a perfect position to be visible through the F-16's HUD, so don't you think the pilot would have tried to look for it?



The data certainly shows unusual behavior that doesn't match that of any known aircraft. It also shows things that are physically impossible if the data transcription you keep posting is accurate (see my earlier post). I see nothing in that data, though, that clearly demonstrates intelligent control. The behavior is erratic. That's about all anyone can objectively conclude. If you want to claim that the radar contact took intelligently-controlled evasive action after being tracked by the F-16 radar, then I'll claim that meteors are also under intelligent control. Every single one I've seen has darted away from me at high speed and vanished just as soon as I began to observe it. It must be ET!



And once again you evade my simple question. Where I'm coming from is that you've been presenting as irrefutable proof of ET two conflicting versions of the same incident, sometimes even in the same post, and apparently haven't ever studied or understood the data well enough to realize this. I would honestly like to know which transcription of the radar data is correct and would appreciate a reference to the official source of the transcribed data if you have one available. If it's helpful, I believe the difference in your two versions of the data stems from some uncertainty among the amateur internet analysts as to whether the source video tape was NTSC or PAL format.

I'd also really like to see your comments on my earlier post regarding what appears to be a physical impossibility in your data table (i.e. the target's displayed speed not correlating with its altitude change). How can that be, Sky, if this data is so straightforward and obvious?

I don't see how the length of the recording makes a bit of difference here. You've claimed that this 20 seconds of radar data is proof of ET, so that's what I've commented on. And as Evangium mentioned a few posts earlier, Prof. Auguste Meessen, representing SOBEPS, was given access to all of the data from that night. You can find his final report here: (link to Google translation)

After studying all of data, he's concluded that the radar contacts that night were likely caused by unusual atmospheric conditions, not ET spacecraft. And this is from a man who really can't be considered a "debunker." I think he brings up an interesting point that the radar processor's tracking filter extrapolates between returns in an attempt to correlate data from an intermittent contact and to present a single continuous track to the pilot. This would be consistent with the behavior of some navigation filters I'm familiar with. Prof. Meessen believes that some of the F-16 contacts that night were actually multiple intermittent targets which were close enough to be grouped into a single track by the radar processor. Interesting hypothesis. Care to comment?

Ahem...that is a leap beyond any comprehension.



Oops, I think you dropped your reading glasses somewhere. I'll let you know if I find them. This is what I said in my post:



Not only did you AGAIN sidestep the technical questions posed to you, but you also brought forth the 1969 report I specifically told you not to use. Again, I will quote from my post 150 pages back (which you couldn't refute either):



Honestly, it is becoming alarmingly obvious that you simply don't have the expertise to address the technical points directed at you and thus revert to old data that either had no relevance or has been refuted numerous times. You don't know enough about radar to address that, the same goes for meteorological and atmospheric events - it is painfully obvious with your continuing side stepping of pointy issues and technical questions rather than taking them head on and your continuous reiteration of old, irrelevant data. All you have is a steadfast belief in ET visitation and, by god, the gospel has to be spread, by all means of respect.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited to correct quotes.

Sigh, how about you address the points with respect to the radar data set that Pericynthion correctly brought up first?! And then maybe you can answer the following from another one of my posts some 150 pages back (which you also couldn't answer then):



Again, you drop that old stuff into our laps when new research has indeed shown that it is possible for such atmospheric events to exist. Do you have any plans on showing that they do not or showing how radars can differentiate?! Now, grab the bull by the horns and please try to answer some questions instead of reiterating the same old, irrelevant stuff.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Oh, and by the way, as Evangium correctly stated, the UFO organization of Belgium concluded they didn't have enough data to make any conclusions at all. So where exactly do you get your data from to make such a definite determination?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Oh, by the way, any luck in sifting through those peer reviewed journals to find the paper verifying the acceptance of ET visitation of the the scientific community?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

You elegantly forgot that the MoD also refused that it was ET visitation, although we have discussed this before - how convenient.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Peri, you bring up some very good points.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Dont you just wish that Skyeagle would say - Ok, the radar numbers wasnt as solid as I first thought, thanks MID, Badeskov and Pericynthion for explaining! But, there are other cases, lets have a look at them shall we...

That would make him look a little more credible, to me anyway. The way it is right now is painful, just sad...sad that he cant let go of this belief...that those Belgian radar numbers he always believed to be the smoking gun he has been looking for his entire life.

But I think that we all know thats not going to happen...we all know Sky by now. He has to much invested in this, he simply cant let go.

Some people would rather fight to the death, over an obviously bad idea, then to admit that they were wrong.

Sad.


One way of looking at evidence of ET is by falsification. That way we dont waste time on the "dead ends." We pick our selvs up and move on...who knows, one day Skyeagle might find something that even all the skeptics would agree on as the real deal.

You see Sky...we dont care how many times you show us crappy evidence...


If you find the real deal...people here will know.

Nope, it hasn't.



First of all,that image, as has been discussed over and over again is so shrouded in doubt that you can't use that for anything whatsoever. Evangium et. al. has pointed that out with references numerous times.



Funny that now we actually knows that it can happen. Amazing how new discoveries can change things, isn't it? or do you refute that the characteristics I listed actually do occur?! Lets get that straight right now then. Do you refute that a localized plasma can:

* Be detected by radar (and we are not talking hazy distributed returns, but surface returns just like an aircraft would exhibit
* Can move very fast
* Can accelerate and make sharp turns
* Can have geometrical shapes
* Reacts to outside stimuli

Now, can it or can it not?! Simple yes or no. We'll get to the why's and how's afterwards.

The above has all to do with the Belgian radar data set (which Pericynthion has now cast some serious doubts about).



You are making wrong extrapolations now; no wonder you get erroneous conclusions. In the official documents, nowhere is it stated that what was tracked by radar was a triangular craft; rather, it was specifically stated that that three lights were moving independently!



No, it doesn't - and the triangle has nothing to do with the radar data, so can we get that triangle out of the picture?



Oh, on the contrary. Apparently you don't even read the reports you link to, which was also blatantly evident some 150 pages back where you did the same.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Again, complete and utter nonsense. Again you are making completely unsubstantiated conclusions based on your own belief system. Lets look at the ingredients, shall we:

1. A set of sightings where some claim to see a triangle, others 3 lights moving independently.
2. A photo of a triangle, which is almost certainly a fake given the circumstances under which it was taken
3. A radar data set (which is now highly questionable), which has nothing to do with the triangle (it is specifically mentioned that the lights move independently of each other in the pre-scramble report).
4. A UFo organization that openly acknowledges that there isn't enough data to conclude that it was ET, but it was most likely a natural phenomena
5. A Belgian military that don't want to conclude anything officially.

Exactly, how do you concoct that conclusion of yours from the above ingredients?! Please do educate me

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for missing s.

Indeed, it would be so much more productive to discuss from what we know and what could be instead of what is, but isn't...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi FireMoon,

While I disagree with you, I understand where you are coming from. This whole plasma thing is pretty hard to wrap your head around. And let me say right away, I don't know if that is what it is that we are seeing. It could be plasma, it could be ET. Or something completely different. My main point to state is that we simply do not know. And rather than bicker of why we do not know it is ET for a fact, I would much rather discuss possibilities. Right now we are deadlocked in a discussion about how science is applied instead of acknowledging that we don't have enough facts to support any conclusions and discussing the could be's instead....oh well..



Plasmas come in very many shapes, forms and colours. Some exhibit a magnetic field, some don't. The problem is that they tend to be annoyingly elusive and that thus makes any form of study pretty hard. I think the only place they can be found with any repeatability is in Hessdalen in Norway. And here we see the characteristics of the magic plasma".



I wouldn't go that far, but it is a tricky area. Actually, it is well known about plasmas that they can:

* have metallic like surface reflections
* be very luminous
* move erratically
* react to external stimuli
* have very high acceleration rates and velocities
* can move through the sound barrier without generating a sonic boom

All of the above is actually rather easily explainable through plasma physics. The two main mysteries are really how they are formed in the first place and how some of them can be sustained for prolonged periods of time. And, honestly, nobody knows as of yet. We just know that it happens.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I'm not seriously deluded, I just used the wrong terminology. Of course I believe in UFOs, and have stated that previously.

The phrasing I should've used is the correct title of Peebles' book: "Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth" (not UFO myth). I stand corrected. Simply substitute "Flying Saucer" for "UFO" in my previous post, and that's what I'd meant.

Now, on to the Belgian case again. The more I read about it, the less legitimate it seems. As Badeskov mentioned, it seems that witness reports aren't consistent. Some reported one triangle, others 3 lights moving independently. My question is, were the witnesess reporting that behavior at the same place at the same time? In other words, let's say Witness A reports one triangle at 2200 hours, then the lights disappear. At 2215 hours, Witness B reports 3 independent lights. Are they reporting the same thing? Or were Witness A and Witness B standing next to each other seeing the lights simultaneously? I have the feeling I didn't put that as well as I'd like, but I hope you understand what I'm driving at.

Because if both witnesses are at the same location at the same time, but are describing two sets of lights, that'd be like one person in a baseball stadium saying the batter hit a home run, while another person saying it was only a base hit. One witness is most likely wrong.

If this is real, Badeskov ...This case is closed.

Not even to mention Pericynthions and MIDs excelent post about Skys radar numbers.

Could it have been ET...Yes. But I think that the more probable explanation is a little closer to home.

See, that is what I have been taking about! The altitude data on the radar imagery you saw, is not a radar altimeter, which is a totally different system, and radar altimeters are not accurate if the aircraft is in a banking turn, and only good for low altitudes.

What it is, Mid, I have often said that UFO debunkers debunk things they are not familiar with, nor do they know the rest of the story.

Apparently, Mid confused an air intercept radar with a radar altimeter. They are totally two different systems.

Is not not surprising that I am always correcting those, who are not familiar with what is going on in the world,...or outside of it.

Thanx Badeskov....

One of the things that perplexes me about the plasma theory , in the case of the Belgian sightings and referring to the Brit MOD papers explanation, is that the triangles do not ever seem to react with each other. That is, the ratio between the lights seems to always remain exactly the same. Given these are artefacts appearing in our atmosphere and that, the atmosphere is a pretty dynamic structure. I find it hard to see how they remain in the same relation to each other so exactly.

Maybe, it might be a worthwhile exercise to track these triangles and compare weather conditions. where they appear. Is there a maximum wind speed at the height they appear?

Has anyone tried pointing a laser pen at one and was there a noticeable effect?

The Norwegian lights i think, are probably a form of plasma. I am guessing they are possibly related to some sort of geo-luminescent release from the local geology. That said, when you compare them to the Belgian sightings they are as chaotic as the Belgian ones are disciplined in their form and behaviour.

It seems to me that, the behaviour of the Belgian sightings would suggest that science can take a pretty good shot at it, in this sense. What can create something that retains a stable geometry, despite prevailing weather conditions, can react to RADAR lock ons, travel against the prevailing winds etc etc. Given there are so many specific *known* characteristics it would seem to me, to be far easier to grasp than something so random as the Norwegian lights. By that, i mean, surely it *easier* to rule out many forms of plasma as being unable to perform such *tricks*?.

I suppose what i am saying is this. The Norwegian lights seem interactive and reactive to their surroundings in a non intelligent way. The Belgian triangles seem wholly proactive with their own agenda. They mosey along at their own volition till a RADAR lock on, then off they scoot, to settle back into the moseying, then they are off in what seems like a planned course. Maybe I am anthropomorphising them, but somehow I think there is more to them than that.

At 400* knots, it is not going to take very long to hit terra firma from 10,000 feet if the pilot experiences vertigo, which can, and has happened, to many pilots at night because there is no horizon. I believe that John Kennedy, Jr. fell victim.

The HUD displays radar data above the instrument panel so the pilot can keep his eyes on the data and in front of the aircraft at the same time, but, at night, he is not going to see much outside the aircraft through the HUD anyway if the object is dark and below him, and there is a background of lights such as you would find within a large city and the surrounding areas, and, lack of a horizon over areas at night is another danger during flight at night and another reason to keep your eyes on the your instruments, but you still need to keep an eye out for other aircraft in the area regardless and that is not an easy task if the aircraft is below you against a backdrop of city lights and the aircraft exhibits no strobe lights.

I've done a lot of night flying and eventhough I was using radar flight following, it was still difficult for me to pinpoint an aircraft below me against a background of city lights. As a demonstration of what I am talking about, I was flying over Wyoming at night without an automatic pilot engaged, and for a few moments while I rechecked my navigation log, the aircraft went into a shallow left turning dive and what alerted me that something was wrong, was the increasing wind sound and when I looked up, there were no horizon and lights on the ground were where I didn't want to see them, so I had to go on instruments to level the aircraft, and that is why it is very dangerous to keep your eyes in the cockpit or outside while doing some serious maneuvering while flying at night at 400 knots below 10,000 feet because it is going to take a little time to get yourself oriented after losing control of your aircraft, so you have to make the right decisions, and do it right the first time, ASAP!!

So, a pilot on a night air intercept mission is going to focus most of his attention on the HUD, not looking around outside his aircraft for very long, because in doing so at 400+ knots and at 10,000 feet, could be the last thing he does if he experiences vertigo.



To sum it up, any pilot should know the danger of focusing too much attention outside his aircraft at night and not relying on his instruments, especially at 400+ knots and 10,000 feet.



I want to make a point that the Belgian Air Force determined that the object was a craft, and, aircraft were excluded as well.



The object reacts to each of the aircraft lock-ons, and breaks their radar locks with fantastic maneuvers. I might add that the same object was also tracked on dissimilar ground-based radars and since dissimilar systems were tracking the same object, we can exlude radar glitches by that very fact and that is very significant in the Belgian incident.




Much more than that! We have the altitude changes of the object, along with changes in headings, airspeeds, rate of decents, etc.

In the video, the F-16 executes a tight right turn toward the object, which was heading in the opposite direction at 990 knots on a NW heading, and below the F-16, so there was no way the F-16 was going to catch it, much less, the pilot even seeing it. Remember, the object didn't exhibit required navigational lights, which meant the dark object could have been totally invisible when viewed from above and against a background of lights.

Sometimes, it is not always easy to spot an aircraft below you during the day, which is why many pilots use radar following to spot traffic ahead, and in the general vincinity of their aircraft.




Not likely, nor even close, Try to get a meteor to hover, and then react to each of the F-16's radar lock-ons. I am a bit surprised of you, that you try to place a meteor into this argument knowing that meteors cannot do what the Beligan Triangle had done!

Be careful, I tend to look for keywords and other little things like that to gage individual tactics.




Of course not, but if a meteor suddenly stops in mid-air, and then, maneuvers around the sky at 130 knots for an hour before zooming off at hypersonic speeds, then chances are great that the object was not a meteor. You see there are major differences between a meteor and a real UFO, so the argument with the meteor is moot by that very fact.



What you don't seem to understand that there are other data in regards to that one incident and I only posted a few. How long did that encounter last? How much data do you think was recorded?

You see, there is much you need to learn to get to where I am at this point, and I must add, that I am holding back something else just in case you want to go head-to-head with me on the Belgian incident for the purpose of going into debunking mode.

I want to make a point in regards to those who decide to go into debunk mode without knowing the rest of the story. When I want to verify something, I know where to go, just as I have done on many occasions.

One example is where I contacted Astronaut Story Musgrave directly, to have him verify certain information for me, and he did.

Actually not!! Are you implying that this craft is a form of plasma? Please verify your position for all to see in regards to this photo.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/belgufo.jpg



What they proved to me is, Mid and Pericynthions, do not have the knowledge nor understood the nature of the data that was released by the Belgian Air Force of a radar that was in STT mode back in 1990.

I am very amused at what I was reading from them.

Heck, some of those who have claimed that the UFOs in question at those of ET, are scientist! After all, they should know since they documented their obsevations with theier optical and other tracking instruments.

Ask Stanton Friedman what he thinks!

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfhome.html

I do believe that Nick Pope was part of the MoD at one time, and, I do believe that the MoD was involved in the cover-up of this memo, until it was released.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/cavern/1001/memo.jpg

One should take a closer look at the MoD, because I am very sure there are more information on UFOs that it is not telling us.

___________________________



Bad points, which once again, proves that the UFO debunkers are on the wrong side of the fence.

The Belgian Triangle was visually verified at the same time that ground-based and airborne radar were tracking the object, so what you are saying is; this object nust be nothing more than atmospheric phenomena?



For the record for all to see, is this object, which was visually reported by thousands, is a form of plasma? Yes or no!

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/belgufo.jpg

LOL!!!

Neither MID, Badedskov, nor Pericynthion, have any knowlege on the specifics of how that radar tracked that a craft in STT mode, which the Belgain Air Force had already acknowledged as real, and look what you posted!!!

Haven't the UFO debunkers figured it out yet as to why I have presented that Belgian incident in the first place??? I found it very amusing that a meteor was brought up when no meteor can mimic what is depicted in the data. Hmmmmm!!!

All he did was to prove beyond any doubt, that he has no concept on how the data was conceived nor what it depicts, but I won't be surprised if he hits the internet and does his homework.

I found it very amusing about his meteor argument, because meteors can't hover nor stop in mid-air before zooming off at hypersonic speeds. Just common sense logic that doesn't require the mind of a rocket scientist, you understand.

Scientifically and logically speaking, if the object stops in mid-airn and hovers, then chances are, the object isn't a meteor. I look for flaws in the way a UFO debunker thinks, and what they say, and make it known to all.