Oh, yes it has, and I want to keep the Belgian debate open, as I indicated in my earlier post, which proves you wrong once again, and to prove my point, and in regards to the data, go back to my post where you'd asked me about the vertical velocity vs. airspeed that was presented and once again, review what I have posted a few days ago, and the type of radar that was used to tied both ends together to get the answer you seek!

I am going to let you answer your own question for us all because that is a hedge I am going to use to forbid UFO debunkers from going into debunk mode because you will be answering the question for them as well.

I want to prove again, that the data was attacked because of total ignorance and nothing else and I want you to prove me right in front of us all.

I don't think that you understand that meteorologist, radar experts and opertors, commericial and military pilots, were the folks who dismissed natural phenomena as responsible and the the UFO debunkers who have no clue as to what is going, are the folks who are telling the experts and professionals, they don't know what they are talking about.

I find that very amusing considering that those same UFO debunkers were the folks who were claiming that the UFOs, which were maneuvering around aircraft and captured on radar as they were doing so, were planets.

Do you know the reasons why they said that ET was involved? First of all, we didn't have flying saucers with the performance as demonstrated visually and on radar.

.

Take those who've said that in public, into a room and close the door and ask them that same question again. You will get a different answer. In fact, I posted comments from one Air Force officer to that effect not long ago, so I don't know how you missed it.

Sky,

In 1952, no-one knew about atmospheric plasmas. In 2008, we do know about atmospheric plasmas.

During the 1960's UfO debunker Phil Klass was aware of plasma and look where that led him. He didn't keep it a secret as to how he felt eventually, and later, he discarded his plasma theory. He took a serious hit on what he claimed, was a plasma UFO, when in fact, the photo was a hoax. After that, he said; "...it sure taught me not to be too trusting of seemingly honest folks."

In regards to his plasma theory, Phil Klass conflicted with James McDonald and others, even those who were dismissing UFOs as nothing at all.


What I am saying is, plasma has nothing to do with the case files in question. Any other cases, I am not interested in because I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightngs can be explained conventionally.

Let me ask you Badeskov, since your views are rigidly scientific as far as I can ascertain. Whats your view on the statistical possibility that even one of these cases could be ET.. Or let me rephrase that, what are the chances ET could visit through technological means yet unknown by primitive human science? and please disclude absolutely everything fed to you by the UFO community thus far. I dont want you to enter into it anything from this subject, just your feeling on the subject based upon what you currently believe. Yes, even a scientist must use the word "believe" sometime lol... Its not a dirty word!
You seem to subtly "ride the fence" between skepticism and open mindedness which I actually like, since you never disclude ET completely. I wish real science was as as forgiving.. I saw Seth Shostak from SETI on a show the other day and he was insulting to my intelligence to be honest. His statements were of the order that "the general public believes Star Trek" as reality basically (I think I posted that earlier somewhere too). Well, being a UFO buff and an amateur astronomer as well, his statement boggled my mind because he was after all speaking to me and others just like me. We're all just dumb huh!
You see this same sort of "PREPOSTEROUS" treatment from a lot of debunkers like Randy Nichols (spell that rght?).. I understand the critical thinking on one hand but, cant stand the arrogance and the closed mindedness to ANY possibility by a lot of these guys, all the while they insult absolutely everyone who has ever bore witness to a strange unexplainable event.
Anyone who has ever been called a liar when they knew they were telling the truth knows just exactly what I'm talking about. Yea some of the claims are hard to swallow but not entirely impossible either.
So, if I'm not mistaken you are saying "ET could be visiting here", there's just no proof of it?
Thanks all, still enjoying all the reading and a good debate:-)

Plasma is not a good explanation for case files such as this well-documented case.

___________________________________________________________________


Minot AFB UFO Incident

"The Minot control tower diverted a B-52 to investigate. The navigator on the B-52, Capt. Patrick McCaslin, remembers what he saw on the radar screen: "This thing was climbing out with us and maintaining the same heading we were. That was unusual. But what really watered my eyes [was] when this thing backed away and allowed us to turn inside of it."

"Capt. Brad Runyon, the B-52's co-pilot, says he remembers the "overall object was a minimum of 200 feet in diameter and it was hundreds of feet long."

"It had a metallic cylinder attached to another section that was shaped like a crescent moon. I felt that this crescent moon part was probably the command center. I tried to look inside the thing, but all I could see was a yellow glow."

"He says at that point he was fairly sure it was an alien spaceship, and when the crew members returned to base, they reported their sighting."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Case 32 score : 28

October 24, 1968 03:35

10 miles from Minot AFB runway, North Dakota (48°14 N / 101°18 W)

On October 24, 1968, staff members of the Minot missile AFB sighted a bright red-orange object hovering at about 1,000 ft above the ground (Members of Project Blue Book had gathered the testimonies of 14 staff members of the missile base). A USAF B-52 from Minot AFB was vectored toward this location.

According to Bradford Runyan Jr., co-pilot of the B-52H : « While flying in the right seat as instructor co-pilot of a B-52H, I requested permission to descend from FL 200 (flight level 20,000 ft) to land at Minot AFB. At this time I was requested to check on something in the area and given a heading to follow. When I asked what I was asking for, I was told I would know if I found it. Minutes later we had an object on our radar scopes approaching from the right rear of our plane at such a high rate of speed that they thought a collision was imminent.

The object stopped off our right tail momentarily, then moved to the left side of our plane. We lost radio contact with the base, and I decided to land the plane. The UFO stayed with us until within 10 miles of the base where it set down on the ground and our radios came back on. We were instructed to go back and overfly the object which we did at 2,000 ft altitude, again loosing radio contact with the base when we flew over the object. At a briefing the following day, I was told that a 20 ton concrete lid had been removed from a Minuteman missile silo and both outer and inner alarms had been activated. Our aircraft film showed a radar return about 5 times as large as a KC-135 tanker and a closure rate of about 3,000 mph.

Ground crews saw the object joined with us, and recently a retired CIA investigator sent to investigate the incident told me that Blue Book lied, and that it was a UFO. » The body was several hundred feet long and glowed dark orange in color. The crescent moon-shaped part was connected to the body with a space between. Blue, green and possibly orange lights appeared to be inside the crescent shaped part as we passed over the object and to the right of the picture.

(From USAF Project Blue Book 16 mm microfilms from Maxwell AFB and co-pilot's report to CUFOS (11/02/2000) and filmed interview by Tom Tulien SHG)

To my knowledge and i am happy to hear if there others, Lightning, St Elmo's Fire, Ball lightning, Aurorae, Elves,Jets, Sprites, the Ionosphere are the accepted known forms of terrestrial plasma....

I think we can add geo-luminescent phenomenon to that list. However, even that, doesn't react like the Belgian and other Triangle sightings. It is way more "random" and erratic in its motion.

You are correct!

What did I tell you earlier about what I posted in regards to radar tactics, and asking you earlier about the type of radar that was in use? If you know anything about radar, you will obtain your own answer without my help except that little hint I just supplied to you.

I would like for you to obtain the answer for us all, and I see it as an insurance policy against further debunking attempts since you will be the person supplying that information.

Why dont you answer questions.!?

Shut us all up, answer Badeskovs radar/plasma question!! Show us all, like you say, for the record, that you have the slightest idea of what you speak.

Quoting Badeskov...


You see, Skyagle, your "Do the numbers in that data depict an object that is ours?, Or, those of someone else?" question is simply not valid until you have excluded all natural phenomena, which you have utterly failed to do so far.


And then, after that, you can tell MID, and the rest of us were his enterpretation of those radar numbers was wrong.




And then, of course, we have Pericynthions observation.



Well...?

Prove these three guys wrong, and I promise you, I will start to take you serious. If you fail, well...then everything will remain as they are.


Bottom line... To me, all this points more towards a terrestrial tracking error and localized plasma.(?).. then some extraterrestrial spaceship here on a visit.

What Radar Tells About Flying Saucers

"The same maneuver was reported from Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, on July 29. On this occasion a mysterious disk sighted by numerous ground observers - was seen to whip around at terrific speed behind jet planes sent up to intercept it."

At 3 a.m., two Air Force jets, brought in from another mission, roared down over Washington. Just before they arrived, all the strange blips left the scope. Coincidence or not, as soon as the jets headed back for their base, the visitors reappeared and again swarmed over Washington. One, simultaneously plotted by the Center, Andrews Field, and the Washington tower, followed an airliner to within four miles of the airport, as the pilot watched its light. At one time, ten of the "saucers" were over Andrews Field, then at daybreak they were gone.

The shaken controllers, for the most part, agreed they had tracked solid objects capable of fantastic maneuvers.

"I'm positive they were guided by some intelligence," Barnes has since told me. "If no planes were in the air, the things would fly over the most likely points of interest - Andrews Field, the aircraft plant at Riverdale, the Monument, or the Capitol. One or two circled our radio beacons. But as soon as an airliner took off several would dart across and start to follow, as if to look it over.

http://www.nicap.org/whatradar.htm

I already have. Witnesses described a craft, not plasma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoBL_Wpx7Fo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQ6W9eduV8...feature=related


What is said at timeline: 2:55 in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI...feature=related


Now, answer those questions, I posed earlier in regards to what has been presented in the videos. It is evident that witnesses are not describing anything to do with plasma, but of a stuctured craft.


You reposted this:

QUOTE

Didn't you even read the response of myself and that of AstroPro??? "0000" at a minumum, was 200 feet, not at ground level, and how many times have I stated that the radar never tracked the object into the ground?! . He thought that "0000" was ground-level, but he was wrong and details were provided to show why "0000" was not at ground-level, but at 200 meters (Thanks, AstroPro) AGL, not MSL. By no means am I bragging, so get that out of your mind, I am just telling it like it is. but you can best-believe that I am going to keep this discussion for future reference.

So here is a classic case where the debunkers attacked data that has already been authenticated by experts and examinations! Simply amazing!!

To sum it up Hazzard, I was right, and they were wrong because they didn't know the rest of the story! As i've said before, some of my best support comes from the debunkers themselves, and this is just another example.

Hazzard,

You reposted this:



Once again, you have not been following what has been going on.

I told Badeskov there was no problem and then, told he could find the answer for himself and post the information for us all, so I gave him hints, such as to find what type of airborne radar was involved, and what I posted a few days ago in regards to radar tactics. If he knows anything about radar, he will come up with the answer for us all. I asked him to find that answer for us as an insurance policy against any debunking attempts. To add, I asked him if the Belgian Air Force made that an issue! If not, then why?

Hazzard,

You reposted this as well.







Now, go back and review the three (3) videos I posted and tell me if the object was plasma or a flying machine and tell us all what you think it was.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2380460

Actually, not 200 feet, but 200 meters, or roughly 650 feet altitude. The F-16s radar systems were calibrated to eliminate ground clutter with a 200 meter altitude range radar detection limit, according to the reports, that is. Thus, the object in question merely dove below the range of the F-16's radar, not below the surface of the Earth.

Oops!! Thanks for the correction. I am so use to using feet in altitude so much that I let the meters get away.

Anyway, that was a good post you've written and I just hope I've heard the last from the UFO debunkers who'd thought that radar tracked the object into the ground and now, they know why radar never tracked no such thing.

The Worlds Greatest UFO and Alien Encounters

The UFO Phenomena

Alien Abduction

Communion

Beyond Top Secret

Unearthly Disclosure

The day after Roswell

The UFO Investigators Handbook

UFO: A history of the mystery

The Flying Saucers have Landed

Men in Black?

The Case for the UFO

Missing Time

Dimensions



I have not read any of them.



Just because it deserves further study does not at all mean it is alien in nature. I believe in UFO's, I just don't think they are alien spaceships.




I feel that anyone who chooses to believe in such things is living in a fantasy and that UFOlogist is a term that mocks everyone who has actually worked hard in an actual profession to earn scientific respect.




Why those two? What about time travellers?

Or Inter-Dimensional Beings?

Or robotic beings from within the earths crust?

Or sentient sea creatures visiting terra ferma?

Or some sort of government cosnpiracy keeping us within a massive artifical world (Think Matrix) and UFO's are glitches in the system?

This thread is going quantum any day now LoL. Keep-em-Flying Skyeagle! just DONTEATUS

"Lets get that straight right now then. Do you refute that a localized plasma can:"


What localised plasma?? show me this localised plasma that can be tracked on RADAR? Yellow/ Orange in colour that appears time after time of a similar size.

Are we talking about something like the "Dyatlov Incident". Even there, if the story is to be believed, the victims clothes were *strangely radioactive*. I am not aware of similar increases in radiation readings around the vast majority of triangle incidents.

I am seriously beginning to suspect that this whole plasma mantra is based on the MOD document released in 2006 and quoted on this thread. It has done the rounds till it has just become a mantra with certain groups.

Let us be quite clear on this subject. The MOD document, contains not one shred of scientific data or research for the conclusions they draw about plasma. There are no reports quoted , no academic names mentioned that provide any confirmation of this hypothesis.

In short, in the debunkers terminology, it is complete and utter pseudo science.

Almost all of the books listed are tremendously sensationalistic. As a matter of fact, I haven't read (at least not start to finish) almost any of the other books you listed, as I prefer to stick to the more objective works.




I highly recommend all of them to anyone that says there is nothing to UFOs, or that there is no government cover-up, or that the media isn't complicit to government demands regarding censorship of the subject, or that the ETH is not plausible -- that doesn't mean the books "prove" the ETH, but that the data is indicitive of manufactured craft piloted by non-human intelligences.





That wasn't the point. The more scientists have read, the more they think the subject deserves further scientific study. In other words, the evidence is by no means weak, nor is it incontrovertibly conclusive. UFOs still remain enigmatic, but the evidence is only non-existent to those that choose not to evaluate the evidence. It is a common misconception that science has evaluated the UFO phenomenon and found the claims to be without merit -- that's absolutely false. That was the point I was attempting to make.




There exist a great deal of "Ufologists" that are employed as professors, engineers and scientists by profession that are careful and meticulous about their analyses of UFO events. The many credulous investigators that get all the lime light do not speak for the community as a whole. There is a tremendous amount of in-fighting that you never hear about. Unfortunately, the credulous investigators get the most attention on account of their sensationalistic approach that appeals to the imagination. As noted before, science hasn't evaluated the evidence, and those that have evaluated the evidence have found it to be worthy of further study; therefore, your statement as to the scientific respectability of the phenomenon is unfounded.





Time travel is not as plausible a hypothesis as a visiting civilization from another solar system. Time travel has not been proven practical, nor even possible for that matter, in stark contrast to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligence and visitation by such extraterrestrial intelligence. In Cosmos Carl Sagan hypothesized that a civilization a million years in advance of us, 100 light years away, moving outward and colonizing adjacent solar systems would be entering our solar system just about now. However, Sagan supposed the civilization would be only a million years more advanced (recent calculations demonstrate that the average age of Sun-like stars in the habitable zone of the Milky Way Galaxy is a billion years older than the Sun). He also supposed that the civilization would start off 100 light years away. In other words, a civilization a billion years more advanced than us would have known of our existence long ago and visitation, even excluding faster than light speed travel, is a likely possibility.

It is also highly questionable why a civilization would choose to employ such time travel so frequently and with apparent interaction that would in all likelihood change the course of history, which could have an adverse affect on their very existence. The same goes for inter-dimensional beings. The latter hypotheses are merely fanciful alternatives that are absurd in their nature. Extraterrestrial visitation is not only possible, but probable. Robotic beings from within the earths crust, sea creatures, and the matrix idea are all pure science fiction alternatives that are as silly as the invisible pink unicorn or the dragon in my garage analogies in that you cannot disprove them, but they are not rational hypotheses. I find the idea of ET visitation far more rational than any of the proposed alternatives, as we should expect such visitation. As Enrico Fermi wondered, "Where are they?" However, if you favor one of the above alternatives, so be it. The important thing to establish here is that, if indeed these craft are manufactured, they are piloted by non-human intelligences. Draw whatever fanciful conclusion you wish as to the origin of the entities. However, if indeed such is the case, with terrestrial manufacture ruled out, I find the ETH to be the most reasonable hypothesis.

Hello Astro,
Dont you feel that our understanding of science and technology is in its infancy though? I realize that scientifically speaking, if you want to have debate here and elsewhere that you have to speak in a universal, scientifically accepted manner (yep, the scientific paradigm which you must not step out of) but ... things could just be way stranger than we think, they usually are. Perhaps we do not posess the capacity to understand any of it at this point in time. lol, thats probably why there are so many quotes from famous scientists relative to this "wierd science" and, in my honest opinion we are most probably missing a huge chunk of the puzzle scientifically concerning the creation and/ or the existance of everything we know.
I think the next 50 years in science will be mind blowing but thats just my gut:-)
Thats also just my two cents worth of poo

Im with Astropro,there`s little truths in every report ,book,movie and dream.Thats whats so great abouth the human mind.ITs Vast and ever expanding.

I agree completely that our understanding of science and technology is in its infancy, but I don't think that is means enough to suggest stranger alternatives as the more likely hypotheses. Time travel doesn't make much sense. What would be the purpose? Other than for historical reasons, of course -- but wouldn't there be enough recorded documentation to sustain a historical inquiry deep into the future without direct intervention by means of time travel, which would run the risk of altering the history you are attempting to study? If the purpose of such travel is to alter the course of history to the benefit of our civilization, why would we have suffered through so many catastrophes? Consider the condition of the planet, for example. If they do not wish to alter the course of history, why be seen, and why interact with the environment in such a way as would undoubtedly alter the course of history, even if only slightly, because even a slight alteration poses a great risk.

As for interdimensional beings, the question becomes exactly what do you mean by the term? Do you mean 4th or 5th dimensional beings making an appearance in a 3 dimensional universe? That wouldn't make much sense, and they would certainly not be seen and described in the clarity with which such objects (and on occasion entities) have been documented throughout history (see Carl Sagan's explanation of the 4th dimension). If, however, you mean to suggest the entities have come from a parallel universe, the question is Why Earth? In a universe with literally trillions of stars and countless galaxies, what are the chances such beings would even happen to stumble upon our little world from a parallel universe? The ETH is plausible because of the localization. A visitor from a parallel universe could start off anywhere. However, an ET civilization in our own backyard, whose existence is almost guaranteed mathematically speaking, could find us quite easily. In other interpretations, "interdimensional beings" are interpreted as spiritual entities, rather than physical, biological organisms.

I am certainly not excluding any of these possibilities, I am merely pointing out that visitation from an ET civilization seems far more plausible than the provided alternatives.

If you reviewed the eyewitness accounts in the videos, where the witnesses described the Belgian object, and the data, then I hope that a muzzle won't be needed since the accounts were of a structured triangular-shaped object, not plasma, but I would appreciate it very much if you would tell us all what the witnesses were describing in those videos as far as the description of the triangular-shaped object is concerned.

Where they describing a triangular-shaped, structured craft? Or, plasma?

Please answer those questions for us all.

Which data set of the two you've posted ties directly to the Air Force's report? Is it the chart or the table of numbers? They have different time scales, so one is right and one is wrong. This wasn't a trick question -- I just wanted to know, but since we're going around in endless circles here, I'll drop it now and assume that you're either unwilling or unable to answer it.



Thanks for the description. I do understand how STT works. What I was really hoping to discuss with you, though, was just HOW you know from the video that the radar has switched to STT mode. I've been looking at this YouTube video which you pointed out earlier (thanks, by the way). It has a decent copy of the radar display video from the intercept we've been discussing beginning at about 5:24. Could you please tell me at what point in that video clip the radar switches to STT mode? You've been making a very big deal of STT mode here, so I'd really like to know which portion of the data you think was recorded in that mode.

So why won't you answer my question, Sky? If you're thinking that the answer has something to do with the target maneuvering against a pulse-Doppler radar and getting lost in the Doppler notch, sorry, but that doesn't explain what's happening here. Even if the radar is receiving only intermittent returns, the tracking filter should be spitting out correlated sets of position and velocity. It doesn't appear to be doing that in this case. The data I highlighted is physically impossible. I don't know the answer, but I would love to hear from an expert on the APG-66 hardware/software.

Hello AstroPro,

Do you have a reference for those reports? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere with regard to this case. You seem to be implying that all of the radar's target altitude readouts are biased by 200 meters, so that 0 ft is actually 0 ft + 200 meters, 10,000 ft is actually 10,000 ft +200 m, etc. That doesn't seem to be terribly helpful to the pilot, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. If you could point me to a source for that information, I'd really appreciate it.

Regards,

Pericynthion

Here is one source: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm

"The radar has a perfect view of all flying objects with an altitude above 200 meters over the ground."

"...the trajectory of the object was extremely disconcerting. It arrived at 1,700 meters altitude, then it dove rapidly toward the ground at an altitude under 200 meters, and in doing so escaped from the radars of the fighters and ground units at Glons and Semmerzake."

Even UFO Debunker Tim Printy noted the radar limit in his article entitled "BELGIUM 1990: A CASE FOR RADAR-VISUAL UFOS?"

"The pilots . . . receive a break lock as the altitude drops to 0000 (roughly 200-500 feet above surface...)." Emphasis mine.

Another source: http://moonshot.com/ufo.htm

"As the F-16 continued to search for the intruder, the UFO dove for the ground until at an altitude of 200 meters, at which time it was below the scan of the ground radar."

Another source, transcribed from a lecture given by Edgar Fouche: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardt..._technology.htm

"Six seconds later the object speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 kilometers per hour to 1800 kilometers per hour; at the same time descending from an altitude of 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters, then down to 200 meters, causing the F-16 radars to lose lock-on."

Another: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf072/sf072g15.htm (quotes same material as was included in ufoevidence.org article)


The above references were collected simply upon a Google search as I don't recall the initial source that I was informed by.

EXCELLENT POINTS!!!...

I seem to notice how quiet it gets on the threads when you mention someplace like Tau Ceti. A star roughly 11 light years away. Postulated to be about a billion years older than our solar system. I have heard it stated that given a vehicle spacecraft that could reach even 30 percent light speed, or .3 c, you could reach Tau Ceti in a human lifetime. This isn't even light speed!!!...let alone something even faster or more advanced!!!...The ET visitation hypothesis is lookin better all the time!

Thanks, AstroPro, I really appreciate the links. I've only had a chance to glance at them so far, but I'll read them over more carfully tomorrow. I see that some of them are referring to the ground radars, so that's really a separate issue from the F-16 radar. I have no problem at all with the concept that the F-16 radar display actual shows 00 for altitudes between 0 and 500 ft msl. It definitely displays only thousand foot intervals. I haven't found a reference to verify the actual rounding logic, but rounding down to zero below 500 feet is certainly a valid possibility.

I think I understand your position a bit better now. You're not claiming that there's some sort of bias built into the altitude display, but only that the F-16 radar won't track objects below 200 meters msl, right? I'm not sure I agree with that since ground clutter is related to altitude above ground level, while the altitude display is relative to mean sea level. Let me spend some more time with your links and do a bit more research on my own, though.

Thanks again for taking the time to dig up those links for me.

P.

Didn't you mention "vertical"? To re-write, how practical is it for a cop to focus a pulse-doppler radar gun perpendicular to approaching traffic?.

A few days ago, I mentioned tactics used against pulse-doppler and continuous-wave radars, and that was a clue. The other that I wanted Badeskov to determine was whether the radar was a pulse-doppler radar.

Now, to make it simple, you are a cop holding a radar gun on approaching traffic that are moving about 45 degrees relative to your position and toward the right. You will receive velocity information, but will the gun display information in miles per hour on how fast the traffic is moving to the right in relation of your position in addition to the basic velocity information? Why would it anyway?

I can also apply that to the F-16's radar as well. Why would rate-of-climb velocity in knots be more important than altitude reporting to the pilot? He can determine the basic rate just by looking at his scope in regards to altitude information displayed on the scope. He will be more concerned with altitude, closure and bogie velocities, aspect position, and heading information and could care less how fast in knots the bogie is climbing.

I do believe the designers of the APG-66 radar knew what they were doing when they designed the radar and what information to be displayed..

Now, did the Belgian Air Force make that an issue?

No, you did not. But in any case, I determined that fact almost 200 pages back when I explained to you in detail how the clutter reduction filter works on that particular radar type. My guess is that was the first time you heard that phrase. That you can't even answer simple questions here speaks volumes. My take is that you know nothing about radar and got caught, and can't find the graceful exit that you are so desperately looking for.

QUOTE

Now, to make it simple, you are a cop holding a radar gun on approaching traffic that are moving about 45 degrees relative to your position and toward the right. You will receive velocity information, but will the gun display information in miles per hour on how fast the traffic is moving to the right in relation of your position in addition to the basic velocity information? Why would it anyway?

I can also apply that to the F-16's radar as well. Why would rate-of-climb velocity in knots be more important than altitude reporting to the pilot? He can determine the basic rate just by looking at his scope in regards to altitude information displayed on the scope. He will be more concerned with altitude, closure and bogie velocities, aspect position, and heading information and could care less how fast in knots the bogie is climbing.

*cough* utter BS *cough*

Velocity is a key factor, among other things. Secondly, the signal processing unit will normally correlate velocity with position so you don't get wildly different values. So why doesn't it here?!

QUOTE

I do believe the designers of the APG-66 radar knew what they were doing when they designed the radar and what information to be displayed..

Absolutely. You just have no idea what the numbers mean and how they correlate. That is painfully obvious.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I guess because he can't.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I hate to say this, but you are knowingly fabricating facts as you go along. The triangular shapes you refer to were never observed in conjunction with the radar data. Some described seeing a triangular craft at other times, sure, but all the official reports specifically states that the lights that were recorded on radar were moving independently and were only intermittently forming a triangle. How you could exclude a plasma in that case was the question that I posed and that Hazzard reiterated.

It is painfully obvious that you simply don't have the answers to the questions, but that you keep this tirade going is simply baffling...

Cheers,
Badeskov

It is truly amazing. You want to use that data set, you tell us why it is valid. It is not our job to justify it simply because you don't have the knowledge. And as mentioned earlier, I have explained in detail to you how that particular radar works, so I don't need to do that (again). Clearly:

* you don't know atmospheric physics
* you don't know how radar works
* you don't know how to read reports and extract meaningful conclusions

That is what I gather from your posts here. You have been unable to answer even simple questions about radar, which is truly odd as many are really simple. And your evasive tactics avoiding to answer all questions that are even remotely critical and technically in-depth indicates that you lift data and reports without doing the proper background check for the validity.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Just another UFO debunker ploy.

The Belgian Air Force had already made that determination that the object had nothing to do with clutter and and look what you posted! Now, post exactly what was said in these videos and tell us all, what was described and if you don't, I will make it an issue to prove my case again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoBL_Wpx7Fo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQ6W9eduV8...feature=related


What is said at timeline: 2:55 in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI...feature=related

Srop the tap dancing and stalling routine and answer the question.

What was described as far as the Belgian Triangle is concerned?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoBL_Wpx7Fo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQ6W9eduV8...feature=related


What is said at timeline: 2:55 in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI...feature=related

Disregarding the time scales, does the data match? Thanks!



Single-Target-Tracking (STT). At what point do the other targets disappear from the scope?

question for you:

In regards to the data I posted on the Belgian inicidents, did the Belgian Air Force release that data?



A yes, or no response will be sufficient enough!

Just another UFO debunker ploy to deceive people on this thread. I am sure that you read where I posted the following:

Did I say something about; altitude, aspect position, heading, closure rate and bogie velocity? Of couse I did and do I have to link my post that proves that you have just commited another debunking error that is clearlly evident?!

I already did, and look what you posted!!! Just another UFO debunker ploy!

_______________________________________________________

skyeagle409 wrote:

I can also apply that to the F-16's radar as well. Why would rate-of-climb velocity in knots be more important than altitude reporting to the pilot? He can determine the basic rate just by looking at his scope in regards to altitude information displayed on the scope. He will be more concerned with altitude, closure and bogie velocities, aspect position, and heading information and could care less how fast in knots the bogie is climbing.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=118726&view=findpost&p=2381154

_______________________________________________________


What it is, you are proving that you are just here for the purpose of deceiving people on this thread.


Now, just simply answer the question as to the description of the Belgian object by eyewitnesses. Did they describe a triangular-shaped craft?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2381191

That is irrelevant by the fact that eyewitnesses described a triangular-shaped craft, and nothing to do with plasma.

Question for you:

Who released the data I posted in regards to the Belgian incident of 1990?

Please answer the question for us all.

Just another UFO debunker ploy on deceiving those in this thread. Check it out!

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2381191

Thank you, Astro.

Yes, some of these UFOs could be alien crafts. But we need to be 100% sure, and if we cant exclude everything else...

Time travellers? Inter-Dimensional Beings? Robotic beings from within the earths crust? Sentient sea creatures visiting terra ferma? Or some sort of government cosnpiracy keeping us within a massive artifical world (Think Matrix) and UFOs are glitches in the system? Localized plasma or someother terrestrial at this time unknown atmospheric phenomenon, or the next generation Chinese spy probe. Radar tracking errors, etc.

...well, then all of a sudden, we arent 100% sure, are we!?

Please, it's not fair to accuse someone of 'deception' just because they disagree with your conclusions.

Now, here's what I see being said by badeskov and others (badeskov, plese feel free to correct me if I have this wrong); the radar data from the Belgian incident was not taken at the same time/place as the observation of the triangular object. I refer to what badeskov said earlier:



This is a very different set of circumstances. Quite frankly, this means that the radar data and the personal observations could have been of two different types of phenomena....or maybe it was one and the same (not sure how we could ever know this?). Once again, there's certainly some very compelling evidence here, just not a 'slam dunk' for the alien visitation hypothesis.

Badeskov, I'm intrigued by your comments that the Belgian lights were moving independently of each other. If you posted a link to it, I'm afraid I missed it. Do you have a cite for that? Because in my mind, that'd be important evidence against one structured craft (like maybe, three planes--but if three planes or other prosaic craft were responsible, that wouldn't explain the alleged speed the UFO had--but one thing at a time).

Thanks,

Nige

Yes, that would only leave us with 2 years worth of reports, videos, photos and RADAR lock ons from triangular objects..

Hi NigelTM.

I actually posted it for the first time some almost 200 pages back now, so it is understandable if you missed. It is the official reports that cover the intercept attempts, the links are found below.



My take on it is below:



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:



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 do 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.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

Lilly, you are absolutely correct in your assertion. That is exactly what I am saying. Based on the official reports (properly excerpted from, referenced and linked to for independent verification), I would think that my position on this is very clear and hold no deception. i honestly see no ambiguity in this anywhere.