Blogarchiv
UFO-Forschung - Der Beginn der belgischen UFO-Welle 1989 - Teil-7

.

TESTIMONIES OF 29 NOVEMBER 1989 : EUPEN , GILEPPE. / Roger Paquay - Physicist

.

Editor note: I tried to keep Roger’s article intact and made very few editorial corrections fearing I might edit out something important. I ask my readers bear with the syntax issues in order to understand Mr. Paquay’s arguments as he presents them. One thing I think is important to note is that when Roger is discussing the apparent size of Venus, he is NOT describing the actual angular size. He is trying to point out that Venus appears much larger than a star to the casual observer.
Observations made by 2 gendarmes on Wednesday 29 November 1989 .
These testimonies were the starting point of what was called “The Belgian wave of ufos”.
On 29 November in the evening, it freezes, the sun goes down on 16h45, the moon is absent from the sky, the stars and the planet Venus are particularly bright. The atmosphere is very transparent.
We will look at these testimonies without “a priori” and with an open mind.
The data we will use came from VOB1 and VOB2 and other sources.
Warning: We point out that we don’t want to negate or invalidate the testimonies from the gendarmes nor doubt their good faith or sincerity. They have seen (observed) something they could not explain. Nevertheless, these testimonies contain information’s that can be interpreted with different ways. These ways must be investigate and the different conclusions that can outcome may be presented. They don’t constitute an attack against somebody. One observation was made but you must look to several possibilities. You must too keep a critical and open mind.
Observation 1: EUPEN:
Made by two gendarmes driving from Eupen in the direction of Eynatten.
At 17h20, from the car driving on the N68 street Eupen-Eynatten between Kettenis and Merols, the gendarmes see a bright spot on a grassland at the right side of the street in the direction SEE. The centre of the bright spot is situated at 50 meters from the street and extent to 20 meters of the street. They drive slowly, window down when looking to the phenomenon. Nevertheless: “The others cars pass just like if there was nothing abnormal”.( VOB1 p 17)
Looking in the air they see an engine, a big platform with three enormous lights forming a triangle and directed down. The circular lights emit down three cone-shaped beams of light that go to the ground like spotlights. One gendarme evaluates after the altitude of the engine at 120 meters by comparison with the height of the telecommunication tower at the Eupen gendarmerie. (height 74 meters), the seeing angle and the situation of the spot in the grassland. They deduce the elevation angle is 68° later by comparison with a tower..
They see distinctly, they say, the outlines from a big dark shape (mass) on the bottom of the twilight sky. ( ref: A. Delmon: les cas solides ) The lights are dazzling, the base looks perfectly plane. The base is horizontal and is forming an isosceles triangle with a wide base. The dimensions are estimated 30 to 35 meters for the length of the base from the triangle and at 25 meters for the height. The thickness is two meters. The corners at the base of the triangle are cut. The diameter of the lights is estimated to one meter. A red spotlight flashing one to two times per second is situated at the centre of the triangle. No noise seems outpass the noise of the car engine and the traffic noise. (VOB1 P 17). So you cannot say : “The engine was silent”
Nevertheless, in an article edited in the newspaper “Le Soir” from 1 December 1989, it appears they had declared to the journalist to have heard a weak noise coming from the engine, a weak humming like an electrical engine. The estimated altitude was 300 meters.
In the German edited newspaper “Grenz Echo” from 1 December 1989 the altitude was between 300 to 400 meters.
Here under a translation of different part of this text:
...By 17.30, the gendarmerie patrol noticed an unknown flying object (Ufo), that approached the city of Eupen from the German border. The flying object had three strong spotlights that were directed toward the ground, the object itself remained hidden behind this light...(first paragraph).
The flying object travelled at an altitude of 300 to 400 metres, almost soundless. Only a buzzing sound, comparable to that of a strong electrical motor could be perceived. Now and then the object remained stationary in the sky, while further rays of light beamed to the surface. (second paragraph)
Platform
The officers from the Eupen brigade who watched the Ufo, described it as a kind of platform, that had two spotlights in the direction of travel, pointed toward the ground, while a third light shone at the back of the object. In between was an orange-coloured flashing light. (third paragraph)....
The Ufo moved steadily over Baelen in the direction of the Gileppe barrage. According to eyewitnesses, it stayed there for about 45 minutes, before it disappeared in the direction of Spa.” (Fourth paragraph)
This translation is in contradiction with the assertion that “the object was flying at low altitude, without the characteristic noise of combustion engine.
The engine starts to move parallel to the street at a speed of 50 km/h, point forward in the same direction of move just like the gendarmes. Then the gendarmes stop on the little street between Merols and Raeren. They see an engine that seems to stop and go backwards in the direction of Eupen. It is now 17h 24.
Intrigued by this behavior who could suggest an answer to their attempt of interception, they drive immediately on the “Hochstrasse”, a street that skirt round Kettenis and Eupen at the NW. So, they can see continuously the engine when pursuing it discreetly. The engine flight slowly in the direction of Eupen along the N 68. When the gendarmes come on the street from Herbestal, they see the engine flying over the town of Eupen. The lights directed down permit to follow it easily.


They enter the casern situated on the street of Herbestal at the beginning of Eupen. They receive an answer from Elsenborn where they say there are no military exercises and an answer from Bierset saying there was no AWACS in the air, but don’t speak from the flying Mirage planes.
They say that from a window situated at the first floor they can see the stopped engine through the branches of a tree. It is then 18h.
In “Inforespace 95, in the text: “Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989” Meessen say that, at 18 h the engine was seen from the casern at the azimuth 166. The azimuth 166 is in direction of NE in direction of Germany. So the engine had first flied in the same direction east that the gendarmes then turned in direction of Eupen and above Eupen. At 18 H it is now seen flying in the opposite direction above the Hertogenwald in direction of Germany (anew southeast direction).
After 20 minutes they quit the casern and the light follow them in direction of SW, anew a change in the opposite direction.
They go away immediately, but it seems they stayed 20 minutes; they drive on the Hochstrasse and go in the direction of Membach. They see again the Ufo who is moving in the direction of the barrage of La Gileppe.
Analysis:
The car from • the witnesses is driving, so it is very difficult to evaluate the stationary or the displacement of an air moving engine. Why did they not stop the car to see the phenomenon more close? This would have given more precise data that the data you can obtain when driving on this street with other vehicles at this hour , 17h 24. The gendarmes himself spoke over the noise of the traffic. N 68 is indeed the an important street between Eupen and Aachen ( Aix-la-Chapelle). This street is quasi-parallel with the Hochstrasse , the street followed by the gendarmes to return to Eupen.
The evaluation of distances, altitude, • speed is impossible in the dark and in the day too without measure instruments like laser telemeters and Doppler radar. Here , no measure was done , they were driving.
The evaluation of the altitude 120 • m was made a posteriori. This type of determination is always affected a very big uncertainty , the angles were not measured. In the sky there are no landmarks. You must remember in the first declarations, they situated the altitude between 300 to 400 m , this differ from 120 m in VOB1. So the angle of 68° estimated is in fact a very subjective data with great uncertainty.
The evaluation of the distance is also • impossible. The only interesting data to know was the apparent diameter, angle of vision of the engine, but he was not measured while driving the car.
The gendarmes speak over lights • that lighted the ground. This was surely not very bright because the other cars drivers don’t stop and don’t see anything abnormal. The lack of audible noise, but is this really the case, indicate an under estimation of the distance. The noise of a car with open window cannot drown the noise of an engine flying at low altitude and at the distance estimated by the witnesses. A light vroom was indicated in the first declaration to the reporters. Later, in the second interview from 1997, they say the lights were more luminous (brighter) that the lights of a football lawn and that 140000 w lights. If it was the case, the other car drivers would surely have stopped to see a so powerful light on a lawn. It is very difficult to estimate the luminosity of a light. If the light were so bright and more brighter that those of a football lawn, they would have been dazzled. They never say that it was so. You cannot look light spots on a football lawn without being dazzled.
When they stop the car on the Merols • street for a better observation they see the engine goes in a different direction and is going in the opposite direction towards Eupen. They immediately interpret this change in the direction like a manoeuvre to escape to their observation. Why an engine would be more interested by one car on a street when they are many other cars with different behavior on this street? This is not objective observation but oriented interpretation.
A very curious thing is the fact that • the other drivers on the same street seem see nothing and don’t stop, just as if there was nothing abnormal. We can ask why they are the only persons to see something abnormal and why the other doesn’t see something.
They estimated the diameter of the lights to 1 m; and the altitude at 120 m. this give an apparent diameter of 0,0083 radians, what is equivalent to ½ degree .This is the same apparent diameter like the moon. The lights had on the sky the same dimension as the moon. The gendarmes did not this remark. Later they did a greater estimation of 2 m (Inforespace 95). This had given to the lights a diameter twice the diameter of the moon.
The frequency of the flickering was • one to two times in one second. This correspond to the flickering of the anticrash lights of planes and helicopters.
It seems likely the gendarmes observed one helicopter, the three lights in triangle, the adjustable beams in direction of the ground and the central red flickering with a frequency of one to two flickering per second are very typical.
After having stopped, they see it again turning in the direction of Eupen. But a helicopter must have been far away and at a distance upper than 500 m to be inaudible. But was it really the case? They follow it and see the engine flying above Eupen.
Then they enter the casern. They don’t see the engine for twenty minutes. Then they go away and follow something in the direction of La Gileppe. They see the Ufo again they say. But as they did not see it for many minutes, 20 probably, they cannot assert it is the same observation.
This second observation from the same gendarmes will be considered as a different observation.
Observation 2: The spectacle above La Gileppe.
The same gendarmes , after their stop at the casern were they are said there is no AWACS in the air, continued their journey in the direction of Membach.
They see the Ufo again at 18 h20. He is displacing in the direction of the dam of La Gileppe.
The gendarmes stop at 18h 30 on a height called Kortenbach. : latitude 50° 37’ 27,33” N and 5° 59’ 58,72”E, altitude about 280 m.
.The ufo stop above la Gileppe (first interview from Hubert von Montigny). In 1997, eight years after, in a second interview, he declares the ufo stop above the lighted tower, with a very bright luminosity, 50 m upper than the tower. The tower is situated at 4,6 km. (following A Meessen). Latitude of the tower:50° 35’ 06” N, longitude, 5°58’03” E, altitude 323 m. As the tower is 77 m height , the top of the tower is situated at about 400 m.
At this time, with naked eyes, the angular resolution is so small they see only one motionless bright white ball, this ball was quasi punctual.
They will stay motionless during one hour (VOB 1 p 23) until 19 h 23.
the engine stayed motionless above the Gileppe until 19h23 (L’engin est resté stationnaire au-dessus de la Gileppe jusque 19 h 23.) Then he moved to disappear in the direction of SPA (VOB 1, p 24).
Note that the azimuth of Spa seen from Kortenbach is 217° compared to the 205°, azimuth of the tower seen from the same point.
For Spa, latitude 50° 29’ 01”N, longitude 5° 52’ 00”, given by Google earth.
The gendarmes then describe what they are observing and notice red light beams coming from the ball, horizontally in two opposite direction with a high speed they say and getting away so far as one km. In the first interview they indicate a distance of 5 to 6 km.
How explain this phenomenon?
The sky was clear. It was freezing and the “engine” was above a lake. Thus there must be a bit water vapor not visible. This vapor could maybe (hypothesis) disperse light in a horizontal way.
Another hypothesis , because one gendarme stayed in the car, that mist on the window could have product this phenomenon. The gendarme said the window was open.
Personally I did observe horizontal rays through the window of my car covered of a tiny mist . I had no camera with me. I had informed WVU . Two years later he could observe the same phenomenon through the window of his bathroom. He took pictures showing these horizontal rays due to the tiny mist on the window.
Could this be an explanation? I don’t know.
Always in the second interview, Mr Montigny when he goes up to the first stage of the casern say:
From the window, we could see the motionless object (azimuth indicated by A. Meessen: 166°) above the Hertogenwald. Then we go away with our car and in he Hochstrasse, we could see continuously the object. Then the object moved again slowly in the direction of Garnstock and Roereke.
This is not the direction of the tower that lies south but the West direction that is followed by the gendarmes at this moment. The bright light is displacing parallel to the gendarmes and at the same speed. They turn in direction of Membach and Kortenbach. Then they see the bright point going in direction of the Gileppe tower. So the engine makes the same moves as the gendarmes. They stop near a chapel at Kortenbach and then the bright light stop too.
In the same interview, after being questioned by Mr Meessen , he said:
...the object we were observing followed the valley. The object was moving at a constant distance from the ground, because it was hidden by the pine trees. It reappeared. It continued in a straight line in direction of the panoramic tower.
Note that the tower is only visible from Kortenbach and two or three other points but is not visible while riding in the area. Indeed if you go from Eupen to Kortenbach you are surprised to find this road is very narrow with houses and trees blocking the view most of the time. Apart from the chapel at Kortenbach you have just one spot near the boundary post 182 that permit to see clearly the sky and have a panoramic view of the landscape.
In the second interview in 1997 by A Meessen from gendarme Nicoll we can read:
A= answer by gendarme, Q = question by A Meessen.
A: the object is displacing slowly;
Q: In straight line?
A: Yes, as if it had an object if and as if it was piloted. Seen from the casern this moved slowly from the Ville haute in direction of the Hertogenwald or Membach or Spa.
Remark: The Hertogenwald is situated at an azimuth between 150 and 170°, south east side of Eupen, Meessen indicate 166°. Spa is situated at an azimuth 217° to 220° south west side of Eupen. This is 50° difference in the direction. This makes this localization of the direction followed by the “engine” very subjective.
Again , in the second interview from gendarme Nicoll by Mr Meessen in 1997, we can read the following text that is the better proof the light above the panoramic tower could not be something other than Venus. Venus the gendarmes say they did not see it:
The gendarme Nicoll said:
...the sky was starry, but the stars are higher and I stayed in the car because it was cold weather. Normal stars, nothing special.
Meessen question then:
Was the light we are speaking brighter then the stars?
Nicoll:
This light was very bright and the stars are so far away. They cannot bright so much. It was like giant lights. It was not comparable to stars. I cannot explain that.
He added:
...it was like the big lights of a football stadium….We were at a certain distance, (4,6 km), and it combined a bit, but there were several lights. We had see them close .
They add the light was brighter than spots lights from 140000 W.
These latest assertions seem to be acquired data. We will explain why in another paragraph below.
This assertion is in contradiction with the first declaration where they declared they see a bright light ball quasi punctual. A drawing made by the gendarme can be found in the latest upgrading from his text in 2008 by A Meessen and shows a ball the same apparent diameter as the tower.
The gendarme specifies the engine finally goes away in the direction of Spa in their line of sight and disappear at the horizon.


Note the azimuth of the tower is 205° following Meessen and the azimuth of SPA is 217° to 220°. So, the line of sight is not in direction of the tower.
The engine did not go to the left or to the right in relation with the tower but behind the tower. ( and not at 25° right side of the tower say the gendarme)
We will notice this remark is one acquired characteristic by the witness and not one initial data. The gendarmes said indeed they never had seen Venus.
NB: the second interview from the gendarmes by Mr Meessen took place after Paul Vanbrabant and Wim van Utrecht proposed the Venus hypothesis. It is why Meessen contacted the gendarmes again. It then appeared nobody before had looked to the astronomical data in the study of this case.
In this observation, the engine they follow till Kortenbach and stay motionless above the Gileppe tower is a white bright ball quasi punctual. By comparison it is very interesting to see the apparent diameter from the top of the tower. The dimension is of the order of 16 m. at a distance of 4,6 km, it look on the sky an angular diameter of 0,003478 radians or an angle of 12 arc minutes; By comparison the angular diameter of the moon is 30 arc minutes. So, the top of the tower has on the sky one third the size of the moon. This was also the apparent dimension of the bright ball. Indeed, in a mail from A. Meessen on 8 December 2006, he writes: “I have two drawings , made by the gendarme von Montigny showing the dimension of the light was quasi identical to the size of the tower”. This size does not match with the assertion of “quasi punctual”, but Meessen had said it was not negligible.
Drawing from H V Montigny, ( ref: Meessen : “Etude approffondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989” in inforespace 95.
Between 17 h30 and 19h30 in this direction was visible the star of the night, the brightest planet in the sky, the planet VENUS with a magnitude of (- 4,6). The planet Venus was not punctual but his apparent diameter for seeing was 3/10 or one third the diameter of the moon, so Venus had the same apparent dimension that these of the tower and the drawing from the gendarme. Remark that the apparent diameter for seeing with naked eye differ strongly from the diameter you can calculate with his dimension and distance. The picture Vantuyne shows that clearly that the apparent diameter of Venus is the same size the tower (see page 18).
On a picture taken by Mr P. Vantuyne 12 days after, on the 9 December 1989, at the sundown, picture you can see on his web site www.tridi.be, see PRO-SEETI, you can see clearly the planet VENUS. Venus occupied on the sky the same apparent dimension as the tower. This match with the assertion of the gendarmes that “the dimension of the light was quasi the same as the dimension of the tower”. This coincidence is very remarkable and is a supplementary argument for the VENUS hypothesis.
We evidently remark that when this picture was taken Venus was no more at the same place in the sky that at the 29 November. But this picture allows having a correct idea of the aspect of Venus when the gendarmes did their observation.
On the picture below, at the right of the tower you can see another bright light. On this picture the tower is lighted. But “Was the tower lighted on 29 November?”
This is very important because the tower was unoccupied; we were out of the touristic period and logically only one flickering light on the top of the tower was justified for aerial traffic.. But twelve days later, on 9 December the tower was lighted as can be seen on the picture. Has someone ask to light the tower on this day were they returned with journalist at Kortenbach or was the tower permanently lighted?
In the first interview from H von Montigny in December 1989, questions by A Meessen and answer by HVM, we can read:
Q: It stayed motionless above the Gileppe how many time?
A: A half hour;
Q: And at what place?
A: Above the panoramic tower;
Q: Was the tower lighted?
A: The tower was lighted.
So maybe the tower was lighted but did the interview took place after 9 December where the tower was lighted?
We will also remark that the apparent visual diameter of Venus differ strongly from the angular diameter you can calculate with his dimension and distance. This can clearly be seen on the picture from P. Vantuyne. Venus disappears between 19h 23 and 19h 30 according to Meessen. But is this the reality?
Indeed, the astronomical data indicate a Venus down for 19h23. But the astronomical data give the elevation of Venus by reference to the sea level. So you have to take in account the altitude of Kortenbach, the altitude of the top of the tower , 400 m, and the fact that the top of the hill behind the tower is at the altitude of 385 m. If we look the diagram with the elevation of Venus , we must replace the line of reference for Kortenbach, the top of the tower and the top of the hill. See Diagram in Meessen text “Analyse et implication ….. The line level for Kortenbach must be placed at 2,73 °, the level of the top of the tower at 4,97° and the top of the hill at 4,72° . This result was verified by a skilled astronomer.


Then on the diagram place these level: You can see that planet Venus disappear behind the hill at about 19 h quasi in the direction of Spa at the azimuth 222° and not at 19h23.
Following the sky map for 29 November 1989 at 18 h 45 local hour (17 h 45, UT), the height of Venus at 18 h 45 was 4,8° height by reference to the sea level. This place Venus at the same height the top of the tower, height corrected for atmospheric refraction following the program SKYMAP.
Moreover, in the first interview from 1989 the gendarme HVM said the observation at Kortenbach lasted for one half hour. As they arrive at Kortenbach at 18h30, one half hour of observation situate the end of the observation at 19 h (and not 19h23). It is just the hour Venus disappear behind the hill.
This half hour is also confirmed in the rapport of gendarme Creutz on adelmon.free.fr Vague belge. The gendarme Creutz who stayed in the casern and took the radio communications with the gendarmes at Kortenbach says: the engine disappeared at 18h 50.
One fact seems to confirm the hypothesis Venus: when the gendarmes drive after their passage at the casern, the object is displacing parallel to them and at the same speed, when they stop , the object stop.
Note that the immobility is asserted by Mr Meessen in “Analyse et implication physique de deux photos de la vague belge publiée dans Inforespace n° 100, p 5-40 . One can read:
… he flyed over the town of Eupen and stopped above a lighted tower at the dam La Gileppe. He stayed motionless for one hour…
Nevertheless, the assertion the engine is going far away and disappears in the direction of Spa refute the location at the left or above the tower. Indeed the tower is situated at the azimuth 205°. But the azimuth of Spa center is 217° clearly at the right of the tower. This is closer to the situation of Venus that disappear at 19 hat azimuth 222) close to the direction of Spa.

Venus, the brighter object in the sky and who looks like a ball of light non punctual. Moreover the gendarmes say they did not saw Venus, the brighter light in the sky, and they saw only ONE bright light in the sky. If they saw only one bright light in the sky, this light is necessarily VENUS. Otherwise they had to see two bright lights in the sky in this direction.
What the gendarmes have observed after their passage at the casern is effectively one planet, Venus clearly visible in this direction. Venus is the most frequent confusion with ufos.
The hypothesis for a confusion with Venus is rejected by Mr. Meessen but stay plausible and even the most probable.
About the red rays who seems to go away and to return to the light ball, I must say I cannot agree with the assertion edited in VOB1 p 24 saying to be visible this rays must have fantastic energy:
… if it were laser beams in visible light, the source must have an extraordinary power to permit the visibility at 4.6 km.
This assertion is not logical when you know that a car light of 21 watt in ordinary light is visible at more then ten km.
Remarks about the observations: Eupen and Gileppe.
In “Inforespace 100”, Mr Meessen say the observations of the gendarmes von Montigny and Nicoll between 17h20 an 19h30 are only one observation. But as they stopped at the casern and stayed there between 15 to 30 minutes they are two distinct observations. Nothing indicate they observe the same object as they say. Indeed , in the first case a triangular engine of 30 m with three lights and in the second case a bright ball quasi punctual as confirmed by the drawing of the gendarme.
The dimension of the lights was 1 m in VOB 1 and became two meters in “Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989, inforespace 95”
Another difference in VOB1 the engine is observed to the left of the tower and in inforespace 100 he is situated above the tower.
Strangely in the second interview in 1997, the unique light described in VOB1 become “ several lights, maybe 10 or 15, … very bright, intense white”. It is strange because in “Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989” we can read” the light observed above the lake is quasi –punctual”.
In the second interview from Heinrich Nicoll , on 20 January 1997, we can read one astonishing phrase:
This light was very intense and the stars are far away. This cannot bright so much. … We were at a distance of 4.6 km and this was merging a bit, but there was several lights. We had seen them from a close distance.
This indicate they think they observe the same engine despite the great difference between an engine of 30 m and a ball quasi punctual.
***
How can we explain the significant difference between the observations on the evening from 29 November 1989 by the gendarmes von Montigny and Nicoll in VOB 1 and the later data?
May we reasonably consider that 1. two distinct observations separate in time by a visit to the block, duration 15 to 30 minutes, do represent the same engine? Remember the first observation did concern a luminous spot very intense on a lawn and the observation of a triangular object with a triangular shape and dimensions close to 30 to 35 m with three circular lights one meter diameter situated at an altitude of 120 m. The second observation did concern a quasi-punctual light at the left or above the tower of the dam La Gileppe. This light stayed motionless, but is it really the case, during one hour ( one half hour according to HVM in the first interview) and disappears at the horizon in direction of Spa between 19h 25 and 19h 30, at the same time the planet Venus according to Meessen data. Remember Venus down is at 19 h and not 19h 23.
In the article Etude approfondie et 2. discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre 1989”, professor Meessen, Inforespace 95, we can read about the end of the observation: …and the ufo goes away at 19h 23 without moving left or right”. This disappearing with a progressive removal is typical for the disappearance of a star or a planet at the horizon. Remember Spa is not in the direction of the tower.
During the last third of 1991, one 3. TV team from the American TV NBC came in Belgium to film for the emission “Unsolved Mysteries” one reconstitution of the events from 29 November 1989 and also the events of the evening from 30 March 1990, the F16 fly. For the events from 29 November, powerful spots, 140000 watt, were used. The gendarmes say what they observed was more brighter. The evaluation from luminosity with naked eye and without instrument is very subjective after two years. This value, 140000 W, appear in the second interview of the gendarmes. It is an acquired data due to this reconstitution in 1991.
The gendarmes played their own role. Many sequences were filmed several times. We can ask the question: Did this reconstruction, with a big material and the restitution of events many times influence the memories of the witnesses and have influenced the 1997 declarations. Hope it is not the case.
But when the gendarme says:
This light was very intense and the stars are far away. This cannot bright so much. … We were at a distance of 4.6 km and this was merging a bit, but there was several lights. We had seen them from a close distance.
We cannot doubt there was influence of the episode “Unsolved Mysteries”.
Don’t forget the initial data spoke for a white ball quasi-punctual.
A strange element is the description of a red ray going out the engine and moving away so far as 1 km each side of the engine. This correspond to an angular move of 12.26° each side. It is a very great angle. This angle is very important because, in the Meessen data we found that at 19 h Venus was 10° at the right of the tower. If the red filament were extending so far the gendarmes must inevitably see Venus who then was situated between the tower and the end of the red filaments. Or, apparently they don’t see Venus the bright object in the sky .
Curious thing, this evening, without moon and with clear sky because it is freezing, Venus is exactly in the field of view from the gendarmes. Venus is very bright, his magnitude is “-4.6” thus far more bright then the other stars in the sky (see explanation on magnitude below). His apparent angular diameter on the sky was the same dimension that the tower. A drawing made by the gendarmes concerning the observation show a bright ball the same dimension than the tower. At what time correspond this drawing?
The apparent visual diameter give to Venus the aspect of a white bright ball, non punctual and seeming very close. The stars close to the horizon look greater then at a higher elevation. In the case of clear sky and freeze, the brighter planets seem to be very close, so close you could think it is possible to touch them. This fact is well known by astronomers
This very bright planet that disappears at the same time the observation seems not to have been seen by the gendarmes. Why? Maybe because the ufo was Venus? Indeed they saw only ONE bright light in the sky. If they saw only one bright light in the sky, this light is necessarily VENUS. Otherwise they had to see two bright lights in the sky in this direction.
The hypothesis for a confusion with Venus is rejected by Mr. Meessen but stay plausible and even the most probable.
A supplementary reason is found in “Etude approfondie et discussion de certaines observations du 29 novembre”, in inforespace 95 from October 1997/
In the second interview from 20 January 1997, mr Von Montigny goes up to the first stage of the casern and say: “From the window we could see the motionless object. We then go out with the car and, on the Hochstrasse we could see all the time the object. He did start up again and move forward slowly in the direction of Garnstock and Roereke”. This is not the direction of la Gileppe but the direction of the car at this moment. It is only when they go to Membach and Kortenbach the object seem to go in direction of la Gileppe, direction of driving .
This displacement, parallel to the moving car is typical of the observation of a star or a planet.
Mr von Montigny, questioned by Mr Meessen say: “the object we were observing followed the valley. The object stayed at the same distance from the ground, because it was hidden a few instant by the pine trees. It reappeared. It continued to go in the direction of the panoramic tower”.
So we can see that the object starts to move when the gendarmes start to move. Then the object follows the profile of the ground and stop when the gendarmes stop at Kortenbach. What the gendarmes describe is a “mimetism of move”. This description is characteristic of the observation of a star.
Thus the gendarmes did observe different things at different moments, first a big engine with lights, then a bright planet after their passage at the casern. This is explainable because they first saw something they cannot explain and they cannot see during the twenty minutes they stayed at the block; going in direction of Kortenbach, they say to see it again and to stop above the panoramic tower, but what they see then is a bright ball not punctual.
We have a mix of different observations they consider as one unique observation. Then this gives impossibility to understand.
Remark about the magnitude
A difference of five magnitudes correspond to a ratio of 100 for the luminosity. A difference of one magnitude corresponds to a ratio of 2.512 for the luminosity. Most of the visible stars with naked eye have a magnitude between 2 and 6. The planet Venus had a magnitude of “- 4,6”. This means Venus was 100 time more luminous that Betelgeuse in the constellation Orion, magnitude 0,4 and 10000 times more luminous that the limit of visibility with naked eye.
Conclusion
Curious things have been noticed, lights, moves or motionless objects, very few or no noise, imprecise shapes because the moon is not in the sky. What is clearly seen is the position of the lights.
Hypothesis I present don’t negate the testimonies and the bona fide from the witnesses. They aims at drawing attention to the difficulty to observe one phenomenon when driving and that searching for a parking don’t permit to see it continuously. The same difficulty occurs with the interruption caused by entering the casern for a few minutes.
The distances, except the distance between Kortenbach and the tower we can measure on a map, are not a viable data.
The helicopter hypothesis can match with the Eupen observation;, lights and conic rays in direction of the ground.
Venus matches perfectly for the second observation.

Quelle: SUNlite 2/2012

2832 Views
Raumfahrt+Astronomie-Blog von CENAP