UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 31

ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? [was: Solved

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:57:46 -0500
Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? [was: Solved

Regarding...

>Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:44:37 +0100 (MET)
>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved abduction cases?
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

Henny wrote:

>>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.


Henny,

You wrote to John Velez:

"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".

A claim to which John expounded:

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

It's a reality which is debatable, I suggested to John.

The ET hypotheses is of course taken seriously by many people in
most countries, but that wasn't the only claim being made. The
point being addressed was whether it is a recognised concern at
government level.

In context, it's not, and the government officials who do
sometimes express that concern, often do so based on evidence
which in fact has a proven, or probable, explanation.


[On Chris Gibson's reported sighting]

>The aircraft you refer to is the Aurora spy plane which falls in the
>category of human made craft.

The aircraft reported by Chris remains unidentified. "Aurora"
remains absolute speculation and from knowledgable discussions
I've witnessed within the military aviation community, is long
accepted as a likely myth.

>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?

Around June 1981, seismological sensors operated by the USGS
first recorded anomalous sonic booms. It was estimated that these
originated from an object travelling at Mach 3 or 4 and all of
the tracks pointed north and east over LA, heading towards
southern Nevada.

So far as I know, this also remains unexplained, but there's no
evidence linking these events with "Aurora".

You might find the following article informative:

Plane Mystery Gains Speed, Hits 5,500 Miles an Hour
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer

[...]

Jane's said it believes the spy plane has been flying tests since
about 1985 and has been operational since 1989.

Air Force officials have denied such reports for years, with more
pointedness than the "I-have-nothing-for-you-on-that" nondenial
denials used in reply to queries about other classified subjects.
"The Air Force has no such program, period," said Capt. Monica
Aloisio, an Air Force spokeswoman. Yesterday she also denied a
suggestion in Jane's that the Air Force would lie to cover up the
secret plane. "Air Force public affairs doesn't knowingly
participate in any disinformation programs," she said.

But Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), a member of the Armed Services
Committee who led congressional opposition to retiring the SR-71,
said this week that the Pentagon's trickiness in denying secret
programs over the years gives people pause. So with each flurry
of reports like the one in Jane's, he calls the CIA and senior
Defense Department officials "to make sure I wasn't being hung
out to dry."

"They answer me from all quarters there is no such program,"
Glenn said. "Everybody in CIA swears up and down there's no such
program. I think they're telling me the truth."

He said he used to wonder about those denials, because the Air
Force's 1990 retirement of the SR-71 did not make sense. Air
Force officials said satellites are more cost-effective for
reconnaissance, but Glenn said planes such as the SR-71 are far
superior. Spy planes, he said, are more maneuverable and can get
to a target more quickly than satellites. Further, an adversary
can often calculate when a satellite is making its
once-every-few-hours sweeps and hide secrets on the ground. "The
only way doing away with the '71 made sense," Glenn said in an
interview this week, "was if you had a (spy plane) follow-on,"
which the Air Force has always denied.

Glenn said he was also intrigued by the suggestion in the Jane's
article that the supposed new plane is so secret that Defense
Secretary Richard B. Cheney has designated it a "waived program,"
meaning only the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the
House and Senate military committees would have been told of its
existence. If true, Glenn is being kept in the dark by his own
committee chairman, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.).

Glenn said he called Nunn's staff this week and was told Nunn has
not misled him on the subject. Glenn said that under the Senate's
"rules of engagement," a direct question to a colleague must be
answered straight.

There are other indications suggesting there is no new spy plane.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for instance, field commanders were
distressed at what they believed was inadequate photo
reconnaissance by U.S. satellites and the some subsonic spy
aircraft. The Pentagon considered reactivating the SR-71, but
rejected it, government officials said.

"If they'd had this (new spy plane) operational," said William
E. Burrows, author of a 1987 book entitled "Deep Black: Space
Espionage & National Security" about space-based military
projects, "they would have used it" in the Gulf.

Ernest Blazar, who is writing a book on the SR-71, said industry
sources told him the Pentagon planned a second-generation
Blackbird that died in 1990 when the SR-71 was withdrawn from
service.

John Pike, director of a space policy project for the Federation
of American Scientists, a nonprofit research group that favors
disarmament and opposes government secrecy, contends as do other
nongovernment experts that secret airplanes may exist but may
have multiple missions operating as, say, spy planes and
spacelaunch vehicles.

Speculation about a possible successor to the SR-71 heated up in
1984, when an entry in the defense budget mentioned a $2 billion,
two-year "Aurora" project. Pentagon officials said it was not a
spy plane, but journalists became suspicious when, a year later,
"the Aurora line item vanished as mysteriously as it had first
appeared," said a report by the Federation of American
Scientists. Jane's still uses that name for the supposed project,
but Blazar said if a new spy plane exists, it would be code-named
"Senior Citizen."

[...]

"The number of reports (of mystery aircraft) and their
consistency suggest that there may be some basis for these
sightings other than hallucinogenic drugs," the report said. But
it warned: "There is no exit from this wilderness of mirrors."

[End]


Incidentally, Paul McGinnis, a researcher from the US, later
confirmed on the skunk-works mailing list:

"SENIOR CITIZEN was one of the first "black" programs I located
in the Fiscal Year 1993 budget, among a group of highly
classified Air Force tactical programs, whose individual cost was
classified, but as a group cost more than 800 million dollars for
FY 1993. (Other programs included the aircraft program code-named
OMEGA (PE 0207591F), COPPER COAST (PE 0207424F), the HAVE FLAG
missile (PE 0208042F), and "special tactical unit detachments"
(PE 0207248F), the funding for the flying of covertly obtained
Russian aircraft.)

A number of people, myself included, had assumed that the
code-name SENIOR CITIZEN referred to a high speed spy plane,
sometimes called "Aurora". Hot on the trail of this aircraft, in
August 1994, I located an obscure DoD budget document the size of
2 telephone books ("FYDP Program Structure") that clearly
indicated that, surprise!, SENIOR CITIZEN was a transport
aircraft".


>>The Belgium reference is a good example of the questionable data
>>which some government officials base their beliefs on.

>>... 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.

>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 appear to be unaware of any developments which succeeded the
initial conclusions.

I've checked my elementary research and although it's almost
three years old now, it still notes that on the skunk-works list,
the learned Jean-Pierre Pharabod, who does know a thing or two
about the Belgian incidents, advised me:

[Defence Department report, Belgium: "On some occasions they
described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200
feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +-100m
above the ground and making only a very light humming
noise...On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F-16's during the
evening hours...On the second occasion, pilots could identify a
laser-beam projector on the ground...A total of 9 interception
attempts have been made. On 6 occasions the pilots could
establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on
distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets
varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred
after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts.
At 3 occasions both F16's registered simultaneous lock-ons with
the same parameters].

"The above are excerpts from an old "SUMMARY REPORT ON
OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990", written by Col. (now General) De
Brouwer. Further studies have been made, and the conclusions are
different. The first "two occasions" were before the night 30-31
March 1990, and the "laser-beam projector on ground" was used by
a night-club (this was well known, and was what De Brouwer meant
in his summary). During the night 30-31 March, the pilot of the
second F-16 video recorded his radar echoes. It appears now
(Gilmard & Lt. Col. Salmon's study) that the first lock-ons,
with speed and altitude varying very quickly, could be "ground
clutter", while the one which lasted for 60 seconds, with nearly
constant altitude and speed, was the first F-16. Now the Belgian
military say "though this is not excluded, there is no proof that
we got echoes from a real object with unusual abilities".

And later added:

"Now the Air Force has an explanation: ground clutter. I know of
only 4 radars involved (2 on ground, 2 airborne), not 5. There
were not hundreds of eye witnesses (this night), only a few
gendarmes. Now it is said that what they saw could be stars
through unusual atmospheric refraction phenomena.

Only one thing remains unexplained. The F-16's took off at 0h 05
local time (= GMT + 2). At 0 h 28, the Semmerzake radar detected
an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels
agglomeration, moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards
east) at 450 knots. At 0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also.
From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both radars followed the craft, which was
going in straight line towards Liege, increasing its speed and
its altitude. The Semmerzake radar spotted it again 6000 ft over
Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The last point was some 12
miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at 0 h 36. (This craft
was not one of the two F-16's, which were flying in complicated
loops, followed by the radars on ground).

The Semmerzake radar is an array type radar. It is used for
military air safety. Semmerzake is about 30 miles west of
Brussels. Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground
Environment). There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including
Turkey). Its missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in
the Belgian air space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe,
intercept and/or destroy according to the alert status. The Glons
radar is a multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6
miles north of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60
miles. There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic.
The craft passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem
radar did not see anything (maybe because it looked only for
transponders ?). As far as I know, the craft has not yet been
identified. Maybe illegal flight of a private jet?"

>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 manoeuvres
>recorded on radar tape matched the observations of multiple witnesses
>on the ground.

See above.

>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.

Perhaps you will now reconsider your comments and understand the
points I highlighted.

The "Belgian flap" remains an interesting series of events, but
maybe doesn't have the substance we thought it had.


James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com


Search for other documents from or mentioning: pulsar | hvdp

[ Next 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