For the record for all to see, are you claiming that this incident was the result of plasma? Please clarify your position for us all.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5IKmWDmHk&watch_response

Were you aware that probes were reported? Didn't you even review the videos on the Belgian incident? I guess not.

]

Now, that is funny since the photo underwent numerous analysis that proved the object as authentic and in fact, it was reintroduced as authentic in Washington D.C. last year, and look what you posted!!

As I 've said before, the UFO debunkers lack knowlege to even debate the UFO enigma, and this is just another case in point.



It seems that you were unaware of the incidents where visual accounts of a triangular object was confirmed by radar as well.



Then, answer the question since it was proven as a real craft and revealed as such by the Belgian Air Force:

Was the object ours? Or, that of someone else?

QUOTE

5. A Belgian military that don't want to conclude anything officially.
,

Were you even aware of what took place last year in regards to the Belgian incidents? Take the officials behind closed-doors and see what they were saying.

It is now time to move on to the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980, but I would like to keep the debate on the Belgian incidents open for a very good reason, and that is, for future references that I can come back and review, and use in future arguments.

Perhaps, my flyboys would like to know how to become instant radar experts as well, and this will be the place as evident by what some have posted.

There was more than enough data and that is why the Belgian Air Force determined the object was in fact, a flying craft.

Curiousity and possibly my own irrationality has gotten the better of me, and I've taken you off ignore Sky.

In what I've read, no one has called the separate lights "probes". Will you please point to where the separate lights are called "probes"? Or is that your own want-of-a-phrase?

And I've quoted from the reports that indicate it was unknown. Again you twist the facts to suit your own preferred pre-determined outcome.

No Skyeagle, It was SWAMP GAS!!!...LOL

Good, because I'd like to know your response to my post #4217 from this thread. If you did respond when I had you on ignore, please point to your response.

I'll quote that post to make it easier for you.

Just to summarize, we have a portion of an interview with Major General De Brouwer, whom your side loves to quote, and a site your side loves to quote from, saying there is no final answer to the Belgian UFO question. Yet you consistently pose the question "Was it one of ours or one of theirs?" presumably meaning was it earthly in origin or was it an alien spacecraft. If I'm wrong on that, and you're actually meaning was it ours (NATO, say) or theirs (Communist, from maybe China or North Korea--I'd say Soviet, but even you should know they're gone), then please specify. Knowing your position, I'd say you mean earthly or alien (from another planet).

So please tell me, for the record, since this is a trial in the court of public opinion (see? I can be a blowhard and take this waaaaaay too seriously too! ), how do you get from "....(T)here is no final answer" to ET?

And I respectfully will not go on to Rendlesham until you've answered my question to my satisfaction.

This has almost certainly been discussed previously, but it was my understanding that the F-16's radar had a minimum altitude range of 200 meters to eliminate ground clutter, and that at the intervals in which the object displayed negative altitude, the object was simply at an altitude less than 200 meters. There were also reportedly 20 national policemen that witnessed the chase and had sighted both the object and the F-16s.

Thank you!!

As I told them, the data does not depict the object striking the ground and I was attacled by the UFO debunkers because they had no idea what was going on, so if they bring up negative altitude again in the future, I will again, state, that the data does not depict the object striking the ground, but hopefully, they will have learned their lesson here and not bring it up again.

I am surprised the UFO debunkers haven't brought in Venus, Mars, and Jupiter!

Earth to Nigel!

The data I presented was NOT the phenomenon that General De Brouwer was talking about, especially since dissimilar ground-based radar systems also tracked the same object as confirmed by the lead F-16 pilot, which simply means that the object depicted in the data, was not the result of any natural phenomena nor electromagnetic interference. Just thought that you would like to know that.

Let's do a recap on what you posted.



And, to further add:

Conclusion

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.


UFO debunkers tend to overlook a few things, but that is not surprising.

Thank you Sky, for once again not answering my question.

Yes, let's do another recap on what I posted.

Maj. Gen. DeBrouwer said

AND


So again, how do you go from "no final answer" to your question of is it ours or theirs?

All the Major General was saying is what we skeptics have been saying. It's unknown. Put another way, he's saying, "I'm damned if I know what's going on." That doesn't necessarily mean it's ET. It could be, but not necessarily. I want to know how you can be so stinking certain of it.

The fact that we don't have aircraft capable of the maneuvering capabilities that is depicted in the data.

No final answer = ET?

You truly possess a dizzying intellect.

Since the object was proven as a real craft, the question you tend to ignore is:

Was that craft ours? Or, that of someone else?



In case you want to know that the craft looked like, here it is:

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

http://www.nationalufocenter.com/ufo/images/Belgian%20Triangle.jpg


Now, what is stated in the video interviews from timeline 2:50, to the end of the tape?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rcv_-OX9-WQ&feature=related



Last year, General Wilfried De Brouwer indicated what had occurred over Belgium. What is he saying here? He is shown in the latter half of the tape.

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo-blog/2007/11/w...ence-video.html


Now, answer the question above that I posed to you, and the other UFO debunkers about that craft in the photos and depicted in the tape.

Just to add some thoughts to the plasma thesis...

See, this is what i don't understand. The fighters achieve RADAR lock on but if the plasma is merely reacting to the RADAR beam surely it is logical to assume that, under the laws of physics, it should do so immediately and in pretty much the same way every time it does. The RADAR beam is pretty constant strength so surely it hits the plasma, plasma reacts in the same manner. There should be a directly proportional reaction to the RADAR locking on and and the movement of the plasma at various velocities for the plasma?

I am suggesting that Schweitzer was looking for something like this in his own analysis and that the plasma reacted like an inanimate object in relation to this.

That the data shows that there was absolutely no mathematical constant between the various lock ons and the plasmas reaction. Ie, it exhibited the behaviour of something that was in control of itself not simply reacting to the laws of physics.

I see it this way. If those triangles were simply plasma and RADAR waves and Weapons Locks on cause a disturbance in it resulting in motion those reactions should have a formulae which, however complex, fits the data. What's more, that formulae should be fairly apparent and certainly not beyond the capabilities of a decent computer to pick out,, from the data.

On the other hand, if the data shows a random reaction to RADAR waves and weapon lock ons you really are drawn towards the conclusion, it has to be sentiently controlled, as it is, otherwise, breaking the laws of physics

To sum up i believe Schweitzer might well have come his conclusion because of the following.

If it was just an atmospheric effect, ie plasma, or a glitch, the random chance of it reacting to man made stimulus, on several occasion,was way too high to be seriously considered an option.

Again, if the plasma/triangle did not react to any of the man made stimulus the chances of it performing the manoeuvres it actually did just after RADAR or Weapons lock occured, are again, beyond the rational probability of chance.

If the plasma did react to RADAR waves and lock ons, it should react in manner that can be calculated to predict further results. In this case, the reactions were mathematically random and did not conform to any logical mathematical progression.

That the triangle/ plasma reacted to made made stimulus but, not in any mathematically calculable manner. In which, case the chances are it was under intelligent control.

It was under intelligent control.

There were those who have said the contacts were either weather-related or the result of some electromagnetic interference. It is very clear that I posted data that were none of those, and the data was only a small portion of what was actually recorded.

For some reason, there are those who seem to think that the data I posted, was the only data collected during the incident! They were wrong!

The data I posted, was just a small segment that was presented at the news conference in 1990, and I tied that data to the radar imagery and to the news conference in Belgium. Other data collected from the radar on other contacts did not pertain to the Belgian object directly, and why it was not presented.

There were debunkers who thought that the data I posted was the result of some electromagnetic interference or weather-related, which clearly, was not the case, and their responses told me that they were unaware of that fact nor aware of the rest of the story.

In fact, when they posted that the radar data shows that the object contacted the ground, I KNEW they had absolutely no clue whatsoever, as to what they were talking about.

Now, on to the Rendlesham UFO incidents.

_____________________________________________________

Department of the Air Force
Headquarter 81st Combat Support Group (USAFE)
APO NEW YORK DY735 13 Jan 81
Reply to Attn of: CD


Subject: Unexplained Lights

To: RAF/CC

1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The Object was described as being metalic (sic) in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two and three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. the object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered though the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.

2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05 - .07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.

3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen though the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10 degrees off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3.

.
Signed)
Charles I. Halt
Lt. Col. USAF
Deputy Base Commander

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

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicrend.html

No, it wasn't. Pure and simple. And I won't go around and around, saying, "Yes it was!" "No it wasn't!" with you.

Once is enough of that, and this post is it.

As to what General DeBrouwer said, he said there was no final answer. If he definitively reversed himself, I'd hope he had a good reason for doing so. Because if not, and he's saying something like, "There is no final answer, but it's really an ET craft," then IMO, he can't be trusted. I have the feeling however, that a high ranking military officer would not say such a thing.

It has already been determined that the Belgian Triangle was in fact, a craft, so now, answer the questions I posed about the craft depicted in the data and in the photos, or, do I have to make another point about UFO debunkers?!

Ok, I think I think we need to stop here for a moment. The F-16A HUD does NOT display the radar data we've been discussing. The video tape from the Belgian incident isn't HUD footage, it's a video of the radar/electro-optical display which is very much down inside the cockpit between the pilot's knees:





Um, Sky, the meteor thing was just an analogy to point out the logical flaw in your argument. I tried to pick a rather silly one to avoid any possibility of confusion, but I see now that I failed. For the record, I don't believe meteors are intelligently-controlled, nor do I believe that the Belgian UFO was a meteor. Ok?

The point I was trying to make is that the entire radar track from the F-16 shows erratic behavior. Just because something is behaving erratically when you start looking at it doesn't imply that it's reacting to your observation. Every time I see a meteor, it moves away at high speed and disappears as soon I start watching it. That doesn't mean that the meteor is running away because I looked at it. The Belgian case is similar, at least for the particular data we've been discussing. The F-16 radar contact is behaving erratically throughout the entire clip shown here. I haven't seen any indication that the ground radars recorded this same exotic behavior, so the only evidence of "evasive action" comes from the F-16 radar. Just because the contact behaves erratically when observed by the F-16 doesn't in any way prove that the contact is reacting to the F-16, and it certainly doesn't prove that the contact is under intelligent control.



Now why would I need to be careful? I'm posting here to share what I know about the topic, to ask questions about the things I don't understand, and to hopefully learn a few things from others. If I'm wrong about something I post, then I hope someone will correct me. I just want to have an adult conversation that gets us all closer to the truth, not engage in some sort of internet manhood-comparison competition.



Contact Duration(s) Beginning at:
001 ______ 2.3 ______ 00 h 13 March 31,1990 (March 30 22 h 13 GMT)
002 ______ 3.4
003 _____ 19.9 ______ 00 h 15
004 _____ 27.5 ______ 00 h 29
005 ______ 8.0
006 _____ 11.4
007 ______ 9.3
008 _____ <0.1
009 _____ 45.9 ______ 00 h 39
010 _____ 16.2
011 _____ 11.4
012 ______ 9.5
013 _____ 11.2 ______ 00 h 46

We've been discussing contact number 3. What's your point?



Well, you're certainly holding back answers to the two simple questions I've asked. You've posted two conflicting sets of data. One of them must be wrong. I'd just like to know which one is correct. I'd also like to better understand why the data table you posted shows something that is physically impossible. You claim to be an expert in this radar system, so I was hoping you might explain the data. I'm not interested in ego contests. If you have additional data, I hope you'll share it with the forum so we can all benefit.


That's great. If you can contact an expert who can add some new information here, then please do so. You keep claiming that you're holding back information and that only you know the full story. As I said earlier, I'd sure appreciate it if you'd share some of that expertise with us.

Well, I think I'm at least familiar with most of the symbology shown on the radar display. Can you please show me in this YouTube clip exactly where the radar goes into STT mode and what symbology indicates this? I'd like to make sure we're on the same page here.



As I mentioned in my last post, that was just an analogy. I'm sorry you missed it. I'll try to be more clear in the future. And now I'm going off to fire up the grill and enjoy the 4th of July holiday. Hope you're having a great day, too, Sky! I'll be offline for a while, but will check in later.

Regards,

Pericynthion

Well you've got to love these "loaded" questions (or is this a statement) lol. This serves absolutely no purpose other than to fire people up and to run over the same old ground. Obviously there is no hard evidence of aliens.. or that aliens are involved with the UFO phenomenon or we would not be here discussing it now would we?
Well the same old disbelievers heckled the wright brothers and many others who endeavored to step outside the box and think for themselves. Yes, even real scientists said they would never fly, including their own father!
The fact of the matter is that, if you dont ask the questions and give it the energy it needs then we'll never know and thats why I'll side with the UFO folks every time until we do know whats going on. Atleast they try... If we listen to debunkers and sceptics we'll just drop the whole subject right now and accept their case as fact wont we?! Real science ask's questions until hard facts are established, or not. I'm glad the pioneer's of ANY given subject or scientific discipline never stepped down or gave up just because the nay sayers said it just couldnt be true.
I'll wait for some real answers with a scepticle mind as well but I lean towards the people actually doing something about it! Full respect to the UFO investigators and none to the armchair nay sayers...

>>>>>>>loud cheers from the sidelines<<<<<<<<<<

Welcome to the forum.......

The point is, the data I provided has already been authenticated and, tied to the radar imagery and to the official Belgian Air Force news report, so there is nothing wrong with the data I posted.



For you to answer that question for us all:

What data did I tie to the radar imagery?

I might also add that you can switch radar displays on the MFD's, and highlighting #21 gave me an impression that you didn't know that, or, that you are unaware of the current panels of the F-16. Am I correct?!

I don't think so! Why were you unfamiliar with STT mode?

You can't learn everything in a few minutes on the radar data in question by running for references at the last minute if you don't understand the basics of what is being presented!!! Anyone can goggle the F-16's radar and post it here just as you have done, but the difference is, understanding what the data I posted, depicts.

And, amusing, since I focused attention only to the data on the radar screen on the object's airspeed to tie the data to what is depicted on that radar imagery.




Look at the radar imagery in the photo I posted. What does the lock symbol indicate on the radar screen? What data is depicted to the right in regards to that object that is locked? Do you see any other radar contacts on that screen? Why?! Ever heard of "Single-Target-Tracking (STT)? I want you to focus on the radar photo I posted because it is much simpler for others to understand.

Anyway, are you trying to hit me with trick questions?! If so, be careful.

Tx Bee

Sorry for not introducing myself, I just had to jump right in


I love this topic andd have a lot to say so I'll definately be stopping in here and there.

Welcome to the forum.

The pro-UFO camp loves to talk about how wrong scientists are, and if we just open our minds, we'll see what's Right...

It may be a nitpick, but when you say, "Yes, even real scientists said they would never fly, including their own father!" I think you may be confused a little bit. Because Milton Wright, Wilbur and Orville's father, was a Bishop, not a scientist.

And if he was of the belief that Man would never fly, he certainly changed his tune, didn't he? Because he himself flew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Family_flights

noooot so much 'open your mind man', cause we'd sound like Damn Hippies! but more so, open your mind to the possibility, that what these two airliner pilots saw, Wasnt venus. Wasnt swamp gas. but actually a large disk shaped craft, like they described.

*edit* the airline pilots was just an example of a case. not what was talked about on here recently.

Welcome!!

Scientist have also claimed the impossible for items that are now commonly seen and used today. In regards to scientist and UFOs, there are scientist who have stated for the record, the ET visitation is a fact, and some have documented their own observations to make that point clear.

Those scientist have been tagged as "looney's" by the folks who have claimed that UFOs, which were captured on radar as they maneuvered to within close-proximity of an aircraft for more than 40 minutes at over 500 mph, were planets.

I will say ours Tr 3B but where the technology came from IDK

Yea sorry, I didnt mean to say that the Wrights' father was a scientist. I only wanted to include him in the category of "nay sayers" but my verbage was bad:-) That same scenario with "new science" goes on and on throughout history.. I used to have a book with all the bad things that happened to pioneers who were outside the paradigm, many real scientists were treated very badly and even killed with their claims only to be proven later, great but shocking book. Back in the day it was a lot of religion vs science.. lets just say it wasnt good for the scientist with a new claim!
Paradigm is darn near a bad word to me lol.... unless of course its based upon fact but thats not necessarily what paradigm is unfortunately. There are currently other scientific disciplines on the edge of discovery and definate splits in the scientific community on what is accepted and what is not.

Thanks for responding!!

I might add that triangular UFOs were also reported during the 1800's, so I have to disagree with the TR-3B as responsible. What happened over Belgium, is not indicative of how the military does business with its classified assets.

Agreed, absolutely!
Luckily there are acredited scientists now days who cant be shaken easily that are dealving into the UFO phenomenon. Richard Haines is one that I just became aware of recently. It only takes one look at his bio and career with NASA for confirmation of his competency in this field.. Certainly no one here is qualified to call him a looney and his statements about UFO's are quite profound IMO. This man and people like him will end up rocking the UFO field eventually, its just a matter of time now I've noticed that he never makes the "alien controlled" leap, yet he also states that these craft display maneuverability unlike anything he knows, and being from NASA's space program and knowing propulsion as he does it means a lot. I guess most of his information comes from pilots, military and private sector alike
Am I mistaken or do you have some military experience Sky?

I have no doubt the ufo's have been here for quite some time, TR 3B was just a guess....

I am very glad that you responded!

Some of my compatriots were stationed at secret bases and in some cases, I was called in by the Air Force OSI to vouch for the character of folks who were to be assigned to those bases. I can't say where they went nor the nature of their assignments for obvious reasons.

Over the years, I have posted on what happens when our secrets crash and how the U-2 was actually covered up as a weather aircraft.

You've been posting a chart and a data table which have different time scales. Only one of them can be correct. If you don't use the proper time scale, any performance calculations made from the position and velocity data will be wrong. Since there's no clock on the radar display, the time scale can't be determined from a photo of the display.


Nope. I'm aware of the various panel configurations and displays on the F-16. The symbology on the Belgian radar tape is clearly that of a pre-MLU F-16A/B. Those aircraft didn't have MFDs. They had a dedicated Radar/Electro-Optical display, which I pointed out to you, and a dedicated Stores Control Panel (item 26 in the photo I posted). The Mid-Life Update program upgraded the radar, avionics, and cockpit displays, along with a bunch of other things.

I thought you were an expert on this stuff?

From the way he tells it, I'm left with the impression that the USAF has trained monkeys watching the radar screens. I guess every now and again one of them will point at the screen (amongst other things that monkeys do) and make noises that sound like "Aliens".

Bit like passing a train wreck isn't it? You know you'd be better off not looking, but you just can't help yourself...

Don't worry, it'll be onto Rendleshem, back to Iran, with stops at JAL, Muroc, a B29, some missle silos, New Mexico, and possibly South American 'Moondust' and finally back to Belgium (though not necessarily in that order). And we'll get to hear all about reality since he has 'buddies' that were at some of those places. Buddies who laugh and tell a different story when told about what the 'clueless sceptics say.... Ho Hum...

Believe it or not, the debate is more coherent with ignore screen up....

I would love to hear more, seems you and I share similar beliefs or mine are beliefs and seems you have facts, I like that. I will keep watching...Aanica

this is a triangle ufo object I captured on 1 March 2007,
how do you know it is a craft or not?


http://ufo-spacelife.blogspot.com/

This would be a good place to start. More fact than 10 skyeagles could ever give you http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805

and if you'd like to see what the othe side of the fence thinks, then the sceptic's version (unfortunately titled 'Debunking Napster'. Seems Debunker is the 'N' word of UFOlogy...) is here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4842

If you're genuinely interested in increasing your knowledge base, then don't let a handful of people feed you their beliefs dressed up as 'fact'.

You're welcome Firemoon. Thank you for providing such an interesting report. It raises a few questions about the way UFO's are portrayed to the public andwhat the MOD really thinks about UAP. Seems that the conclusions eached by that report are the same as what the Australian Airforce concluded over 25 year ago - that UAP pose no immediate threat to national security, and whilst further study may yeild future benefits, there is no immediate benefit to Defence Intelligence. Which would suggest that the thinking is let private groups handle research.
Yet the broadcasting standard for you guys (correct me if I'm wrong) is UFO=Light hearted info-tainment.
Perhaps the broadcasting agencies have yet to catch up with the rest of the world in their thinking. Hopefully they won't follow the American example when they do finally catch up...

Thank you very much! I will begin tonight and be back....

Hence my deepest and sincerest respect for SOBEPS. It takes a brave person/group of people to admit that what they have is inconclusive, but will continue to research the subject (and in the face of a lack of funding to boot). Hopefully the modern world of information sharing technology will make it easier for them to continue their work without the need for a centralised HQ.

As for the pro-ETH camp. Well, to me it seems that rare earthly phenomena (eg plasmas) are just as intriguing as the prospect of ETI. Yet, despite those same folks loudly proclaiming that we (human race) don't understand/know everything about the universe around us, they do their best to debunk the fact that the natural world may not have yielded all it's secrets to us....

Ah well, I guess in another 40 years time we'll be seeing the tagline "Sceptics and disbelievers pooh-poohed the idea of plasma phenomena, and look how wong they were..." thrown up for ET reality

Welcome to the forum Decypher.

Since you are haven't difficulty determining which one I tagged to the radar imagery and the Belgian Air Force press conference, go here.


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2373396



Now, tell us all, how the Belgian Air Force was able to make that determination. Since the radar is in STT mode, what other data is NOT shown in the imagery that is normally displayed in STT mode, which should have been evident to you if you knew what you were talking about.

You see, one of the things I look out for is the effort of UFO debunkers to try and debunk the data.




Anyone who has access to the internet can do what you have just done, but the name-of-the-game is the know and understand what the data depicts.



Are you telling me the F-16 doesn't have MFD's? Just wondering!

The Multi-Function Display (MFD) set, manufactured by Honeywell, include two 10cm x 10cm (4in x 4in) color active matrix liquid crystal multi-function displays, which will replace the current single monochrome Radar Electro/Optical Indicator Unit (REO-IU) and the Stores Control Panel (SCP) - the Stores Management System display. Both displays will increase the pilot's Situational Awareness drastically and will therefore contribute to increased flight safety.

That was completed years ago.

And to further add, the UFO debunkers have failed to answer the questions as to whether crafts in those case files, were:

Ours? Or, those of someone else?

Why is it that UFO debunkers tend to side-step those questions?!

Getting a UFO debunker to answer those question is like an old man trying to throw a 10-ton truck across the street.

Not only have I witnessed a saucer-shaped object, which was orange in color, some of my compatriots who were stationed at RAF Bentwaters, confirmed that the UFO incidents did occurred.

Interestingly enough , the Channel 5 documentary shown this week wasn;t bad at all. OK, so it was aimed to talk to everyone so not as *purely* scientific as one would ideally hope. However, it was a decent balance of testimony and analysis. Anthony Head, as a narrator works well as his slighlty mid Atlantic tones have a neutrality that avoids overt sensationalism.

It would be nice to see BBC4 make something on the subject . Their documentaries are, usually, of a pretty high standard, when it comes to science and they have found the knack of combining entertainment with a pretty in depth analysis of subjects. The "Atom" and the *Absolute Zero" series were both excellent. BBC4 gives documentary makers the chance to make 3-4 hour presentations which allow for a far greater depth of analysis.

I would advise people, where possible, to watch the originals of these documentaries, especially the ones developed in tandem with the Discovery Channel and the History Channel. I have seen some very good documentaries made by this joint venture, whilst i have been in the USA, and the Americanised versions tend to add seriously cheesy music and a narrator that lacks the flat tone of the British version. I believe the proper term would be that they are *sexed up* for the American market

Maybe, one of the chief problems it that. The BBC is still ,partially hamstrung, by the "Broadcasting Act". As they receive public funds they are, to a far greater extent than any other TV organisation in Britain, at the whim of of the Government and the Civil Service. Nicky Campbell received slapped writs, not that long ago, for treating UFOs as a "serious subject" on his radio show. I do know that several people have expressed an interest in series devoted to serious dramatic reconstructions of several key UFO events. Amongst them are Air Marshall Peter Horsley's meeting with the character "Janus".

Apparently, the royal interest in UFOs continues unabated. Price Charles inherited his father interest in the subject and was himself, involved in an incident when his plane was buzzed by one in 1986. Prince William is meant to have a passion for the subject as well, His closest friend buying him a copy of "Alien Rock" as birthday present. An interesting choice, given the book contains, more than a few references, to Andre Van Pier who was a close confidant of Williams mother Diana.

That is the fascinating thing about the Media in Britain and its' attitude towards UFOs. There are some seriously heavy weight personalties who have expressed an interest in the subject and yet. Still we seem bound by an invisible wire that leads to a civil servants desk in Whitehall that tugs the Televisual and Radio media back when it wanders across a certain line.

Zygmunt Jan Adamski's death is another incident that has mooted as possible drama documentary to include the "Alan Godfrey" incident as well. I have heard this might well be one of the cases featured in the Channel 5 series. I await with interest how the mysterious "ointment" found on Adamski's head wounds is dealt with. To the best of my knowledge, forensic scientists, were unable to ascertain quite what it was. It will be interesting to see if any of it still exists and if so, who has it?

I do believe you, my uncle is a test pilot and has told me some things he has witnessed, this has always had my interest as I believe they have been here for a while and the higher powers are getting the world ready for announcement of it
we are not alone, I believe when the Pope was speaking about ET life and it being ok to believe that message was to the older people so they would not be afraid, and its in the news in the UK a lot.