sitemap

V i s i t o r   r e s p o n s e s 

R e :   E r n a g e   -   D e c e m b e r   1 1 ,   1 9 8 9   
 Received : 10/27/07  Estimates of size and distance - 1   Roger PAQUAY   
 
 

According to your web site, when the craft turned and moved in the direction of the witnesses, it was at a distance of 1 km (0.62 mile or 3,280 feet), a distance that can be measured on the scaled map....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 04/20/08  Helicopter noise - 1   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

In this case, an Army officer, Lt. Col. AMOND [now retired], and his wife, stopped their car on what Wim [VAN UTRECHT] describes as a "lonely road" and wound down the window with "ears pricked" to try and detect any sound from an object of evidently large angular size showing details of lit "panels" or windows as well as various other separate lights which circled apparently nearby for up to 8 minutes.....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 05/13/08  Helicopter noise - 2   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

It is correct that an inversion will refract sound towards the surface, and the recommendation to avoid flying in an inversion makes sense therefore. But the inference that flying above the top of an inversion will have the inverse effect of abnormally refracting sound upward is unwarranted I think.....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 05/17/08  Helicopter noise - 3   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

Re the Ernage case in particular and silent helicopters in general, I looked a bit further into the sound propagation question and helicopter noise sources. Perhaps this will help us decide the merits of the theory. Anyway I've collected some information for future reference - and just because it's interesting.....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 05/26/08  Estimates of size and distance - 2   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

I'd like to point out that Mr. PAQUAY treats Lt. Col. AMOND's "2x moon diameter" light as relating to the angular size of a light source, when clearly this should be treated as an impression of the circle of glare (overloaded retina) caused by this "huge" and "brilliant" light shining into the witness's face......  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/05/08  A response from the prime witness   Andrť AMOND, Col. (Ret.)   
 
 

1. Let me introduce myself: I am Colonel AMOND, Civil Engineer. I witnessed and reported a UFO sighting that you discuss on your site.

2. I would like to correct the approach of Mr. PAQUAY who claims that the observation of the "spotlight" was made while the craft was 1,000 m from my observation point. This is COMPLETELY WRONG. Indeed, at the moment the craft was closing in, its distance to my observation point was approximately 100 to 200 m. Hence, using the calculation method of Mr PAQUAY, the diameter of the APPARENT (not real) spotlight = 0.018 x 1000/10 to 5 = 1.80 m to 3.60 m.

3. Helicopter Issue. A loony assumption. Here is why I never mentioned it :

- That evening, no MANDATORY flight plans had been introduced and no helicopter flights took place (information provided by the BE HeadQuarters).
- The luminous panels (windows) of the craft were significantly larger than the windows of the Puma which have a parallel shape as opposed to those of the craft which were trapezium shaped in any relative position.
- The triangle formed by the lights was more equilateral than isosceles.
- The apparent size of the Main Spot at the nose (see paragraph 2) was significantly larger than the dimensions of the lights in a triangular configuration.
- The diameters of the spotlights of the craft were much larger than those of a Puma.
- NO noise from a craft that manoeuvres between 100 to 200 m and at an altitude of the same order of magnitude 50 m - 100 m. Forget the issue of temperature inversion, pure theory that plays no role at such short distances. Besides, how would that explain that I did hear a train pass at + or - 700 m and also the background noise of traffic on the N4 located at about 1 km?
- NO mass as shown on the images of the helicopters that you've photographed and which are on your site.
- Finally, being familiar with helicopters, I can assure you that, for a helicopter, it is impossible to manoeuvre at such a very slow speed and then at a very very fast speed at the end of the sighting like the craft did.
- In addition, there was no propeller wash or any other air turbulence created by the craft.

CONCLUSION : Itís curious to see how people develop a theory, or rather a story, based on unverified assumptions. This is not scientific at all.

AMOND Andrť, Ir.
Colonel (Ret.)
Ernage, Belgium


Our reply :

We should first point out that the helicopter images in our picture galleries are not ours. As stated in the captions that accompany them, they are computer generated images from the SF movie Lost Voyage. As such they cannot be used for comparison with a real life event.

Essential in Col. AMONDís mail however is the new distance estimation for the objectís closest approach, namely 100 to 200 m, whereas the initial SOBEPS account, published in both Vague díOVNI sur la Belgique and in the April 1991 issue of Inforespace, suggests a distance in the order of 1 km for this phase (for a detailed discussion see "Our reply" to Prof. MEESSENís response of June 26, 2008).

Equally detrimental to the survival chances of our helicopter explanation is to know how literal one can take Mr. AMONDís statement that no helicopter flights took place in the evening of December 11, 1989. This point was resolved in two messages from the then Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force Major-General Wilfried DE BROUWER, one received on June 22, 2008 the other on July 6, 2008).

 CLOSE 

 
 
 Received : 06/17/08  Estimates of size and distance - 3   Roger PAQUAY   
 
 

In his response, dated June 5, 2008, Col. AMOND claims that my distance estimation of 1,000 m for the phase during which the craft turned towards him is completely false and that the real distance at that moment was 100 to 200 m. He also disputes my calculations and qualifies them as unscientific.......  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/22/08  Not a helicopter - 1   Wilfried DE BROUWER, Maj. Gen. (Ret.)   
 
 

The Belgian airspace is surveyed by four powerful radars, two military and two civilian, which are all interlinked, i.e. any duty controller can select the image of any of these radars at any one time. All radar registrations are recorded and these recordings are kept during a well determined period......  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/23/08  Witness reliability - 1   Jean-Michel ABRASSART   
 
 

A little comment about the strawman argument at the end of Wilfried DE BROUWER's email......  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/23/08  Witness reliability - 2   Grégory GUTIEREZ   
 
 

In my opinion, the important information in DE BROUWER's e-mail is not in his last paragraph about the reliability of Col. AMOND. Of course human testimony is not always reliable, but Jean-Michel ABRASSART tends to say that it's NEVER reliable. I think he pushes his argument too far here, turning it into some kind of indisputable doctrine.....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/23/08  Plasma stealth chopper - 1   Jean-Pierre PHARABOD   
 
 

Now I am beginning to wonder : how could it be that the four Belgian radars did not detect these objects in the sky which were neither aircraft nor helicopters...  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/23/08  Not a helicopter - 2   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

Gen. DE BROUWER's first-hand testimony confirms not only that no helicopter should have been flying (as previously reported by Col. AMOND) but that, in point of fact, no illicit helicopter or other aircraft was detected by radars covering the area....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 06/26/08  Plasma stealth chopper - 2 / Map confusion   Prof. Auguste MEESSEN   
 
 

I will try to contribute to this debate by sharing with you that I have the following documents concerning the Ernage case....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 07/02/08  Recapitulating   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

Re your reply to Prof. MEESSEN, you're right, the statement about flight plans in the Defence Minister's reply to the Parliamentary question is different from what we understood Gen. DE BROUWER to say....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 07/03/08  Estimates of size and distance - 4   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

Thanks for Mr. PAQUAY's follow-up. I was not (as Mr. PAQUAY believes) suggesting that Col. AMOND was "dazzled" to explain a large image. As he says, an "overloaded retina" is not a very good explanation....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 07/06/08  Not a helicopter - 3   Wilfried DE BROUWER, Maj. Gen. (Ret.)   
 
 

Allow me to clarify a few points. 1. Your statement: "A helicopter is perfectly capable of executing such a manoeuvre". The report of André AMOND suggests that the object was making a tight turn with a considerable angle of bank (45 degrees?) at very slow speed (20-30 km/h?)....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 07/14/08  Helicopters noise - 4 / Banking angles - 1   Joe McGONAGLE   
 
 

I don't claim to have the detailed aeronautical experience of General DE BROUWER, but during my own military service, I did have some exposure to helicopters as a passenger and as an observer from the ground.....  read more 

 
 
 Received : 07/14/08  Helicopters noise - 5 / Banking angles - 2   Martin SHOUGH   
 
 

Thanks for your input Joe. Yes, clearly it can happen that when the conditions for sound propagation and other witness circumstances are unfavourable people can fail to hear helicopters......  read more 

 
 
   See our contact page to find out how you too can contribute.