UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 26

Re: Solved abduction cases?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:44:37 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:29:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Solved abduction cases?

>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:54:11 -0400
>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved abduction cases?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>Regarding...

>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:22:34 -0500
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved abduction cases?

>John wrote:

>>Henny writes,

>>>Not only is the ET hypothesis taken seriously outside the USA,
>>>government officials of several countries, such as Chile,
>>>Belgium, Mexico and Russia, have openly stated that their air
>>>space has been violated by craft that do not originate on this
>>>earth.

>>Now this is one piece of reality that you'll never see debated!

>John,

>The reality is, if I may paraphrase, that, with rare exceptions, there
>is no indication the ET hypothesis is taken seriously by the vast
>majority of government officials, either within the USA or elsewhere.

James,

You missed the point. The reality of this discussion is that we
were pointing out that the ET hypothesis was taken seriously
outside the United States to demonstrate ET is not just popular
in the USA.

It's you who is now limiting this question to government
officials, whereas I mentioned them only as further demonstration
of my point. It is also you who now demands that there should be
a vast majority of it them who take ET seriously, thereby doubly
corrupting the discussion.

>>Here we have "official" government releases of information, some of
>>it formidable as in the case of the Belgium government, (military,
>>radar data, reports from credible sources on the ground -Gendarme-
>>etc.) and yet it is still not taken as an "official announcement"
>>that something 'out of the ordinary,'...'possibly not of this earth'
>>is -hoopty doin it- in our skies.

>The Belgium reference is a good example of the questionable data which
>some government officials base their beliefs on. It could be pointed
>out that rather than an ET origin, the reports of triangular UFOs
>which proliferated from December 1989, might have a connection with
>the unidentified isosceles-triangle shaped aircraft which recognition
>expert Chris Gibson witnessed flying with a KC-135 Stratotanker and
>two F-111s only three months previous.

Sorry, this is total hogwash. There is no human made craft around
that can at the same time hover, fly at speeds of a few miles
p.h. and accelerate with over 40 G's through the speed of sound
and all that without making a sound.

The aircraft you refer to is the Aurora spy plane which falls in
the category of human made craft. One of the clues that this
plane was flying were the results of measurements by the US
Geological Survey. The USGS is the outfit that monitors
earthquakes and they tracked Aurora when it went through the
sound barrier. Does that sound like a plane that makes no sound?

>Or that the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap was _officially_
>explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter and no pilot ever
>witnessed an actual object.

>Etc.

Hogwash again. I should simply say do some elementary research on
this one, James. The people who were involved in this
investigation would either have been insulted or would have
rolled over the floor over this explanation. Ground clutter! The
official explanation was 'unknown craft'.

You are partially right that the F16 pilots chasing the UFO did
not witness the object, but then we are talking about visual
contact. There was radar contact, however, and the position and
manoeuvers recorded on radar tape matched the observations of
multiple witnesses on the ground.

>>About a year ago I put this same piece of information on the
>>table in another thread Henny, the silence was deafening. It must
>>be a hard set of facts to rationalize/debunk I guess!

>The facts are that a few such individuals believe the ET hypothesis
>to be true.

The facts are that a few individuals have a reluctance to do even
the most basic research, which is very apparent from the fact
that they are not even aware of the most popular debunkers
'explanation' of this case.


            __________________________________________
           /    Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes    \
                      Henny van der Pluijm
		      hvdp@worldonline.nl

                       Technology Pages
                http://www.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
             \______________________________________/



Search for other documents from or mentioning: hvdp | pulsar | jvif

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

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com