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

printable version
 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   André AMOND, Col. (Ret.)   

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.......  read more 

 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. It's hard to find reliable information about airspace regulations in 1989 because new ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization - WVT] conventions appear to have come in during 1990, but certainly the situation since then would seem to support the Minister in one important respect : VFR [Visual Flight Rules - WVT] helicopters in a Class G airspace or earlier equivalent (uncontrolled, below a few hundred metres and not near an airport), which this probably was, would not have been subject to ATC [Air Technical Control - WVT] clearance. No flight plan required (assuming they intended to stay in that space).

Since 1990, though, it would not be correct to say that helicopters are especially exempt in this way - any aircraft operation within the airspace is covered by the ICAO regulations pertaining to that airspace. But perhaps the Minister's statement was exact in 1989?

I think the issue of the maps and distance estimates has already been turned inside-out and upside-down. Recent "memories" about distances that could not have been reliably known in the first place, and which have no provenance in the case record, have low weight and new arguments based on them can only prompt further rationalisations and confusions.

I tend to agree that qualifying Mr. PAQUAY’s calculations as "pseudo scientific" is an unnecessary and not very amicable insult, but I don't think that the suggested inconsistency in the apparent size of the light is very material, as discussed in detail elsewhere.

As regards the distance issue, this has been approached in an early post from two different directions - angular size of resolved details and angular rate - and on these grounds it was proposed that consistency with helicopter speed and size could be argued if the distance of the helicopter during the first phase of the sighting was about 1km or so. Of course errors can arise with the timing, but less so with the angular size argument owing to the rather well-defined limits of human visual acuity, and these two lines of argument (if I recall correctly) tended to converge. This is fairly consistent with the map path as originally drawn in VOB [Vague d’OVNI sur la Belgique - WVT] figure 2.21. A path including a descending circular turn towards the witnesses, dropping below the tree line (backstop distance ~1500 m according to the original scale)would then tend to bring a helicopter within a few hundred metres. This then becomes problematic on the grounds of the silence (for all the detailed reasons previously adduced).

If the UFO was an unidentified VFR helicopter staying low underneath controlled airspace then maybe ATC wouldn't have known about it, and, as you say, perhaps helicopters were not at the forefront of people's minds so it did not occur to DE BROUWER or anyone else. But in that case a radar track meandering around Sart Ernage that was not recognised as a helicopter would have been seen as confirmation of Col. AMOND's "UFO" and we would presumably have heard about it from DE BROUWER. Ergo, if there were any unrecognised VFR helicopter "UFOs" tracked Belgian radars that night they presumably did not fit the place and time of the sighting.

Re your reply to Prof. MEESSEN’s response, storing the helicopter theory in the "fridge" sounds good. I completely agree with all of that.

Strathconon, Scotland


 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.