Uncovering the Belgian Triangle: Investigating the 1991 UFO Wave

[PIT2]

Take a look at this video.

http://www.untoldmysteries.com/HARD...O-Wave-1991-19min43sec-untoldmysteires-com.rm

It shows much more detail by simulation and by what eyewitnesses (police) report. For example there was an orange/red ball that exitted the triangle and went to the ground and back up again, while on both sides the triangle shot lasers to the ground.

If u can't play the file, download realplayer alternative (small program without spyware) here:
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Real-Alternative-Download-14790.html

What do u think the triangle was?

 

[Tony11235]

Very interesting. I have no idea what it could have been. What is it about this case that is easily debunked?

 

[cronxeh]

Ahh darn! They spotted our F-117's

But jokes aside, I think the international community should sign a pact to shoot down any UFO they encounter over their airspace. If they exist, shoot them down and publish the in depth analysis

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is it about this case that is easily debunked?

To the best of my knowledge, little to none. This information is fourteen years old and well documented in the UFO literature. Note also that many similar events have occurred. For example, a recent and well documented case involved the police chasing a similar triangular shaped craft around Highland and Lebanon Illinois. In fact, these reports go back at least thirty years.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42104

Note also another famous event where we find an object leaving and returning to the main craft in a manner similar to that described by the police in Belgium.
http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00020.pdf

 

[Tony11235]

Would it be fair to exclude that the craft could have been driven by a pilot? They mentioned in the film that humans cannot survive the kind of acceleration that the craft was performing. They also mentioned that there was no apparent sonic boom. The best thing a die hard skeptic could say would be that the radar equipment wasn't working correctly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It was tracked by four stations in addition to at least one pursuit jet. This is considered along with eyewitness testimony.

 

[PIT2]

Lets for a second suppose that anti-gravity was possible. Would this allow for supersonic speeds without causing a sonic boom?

If not, what other technology could do this?

 

[cronxeh]

I'm pretty sure NASA is designing an aircraft that just by shape eliminates the sonic boom, s yeah its possible. I don't believe in 'anti-gravity' but I think if aliens did exist then

1. there won't be biological entities flying inside of them
2. those crafts would be robotic in nature and powered by nuclear fission/fusion with some sort of supersonic jet propulsion
3. since nobody has ever filmed a half decent footage of those crafts, i would assume that we have never been visited, and whatever this triangle thing was is just another military spy project

 

[Tony11235]

3. since nobody has ever filmed a half decent footage of those crafts, i would assume that we have never been visited, and whatever this triangle thing was is just another military spy project

You're totally sure that this craft was military? Even with the unbelieveable accelerations? Of course it's possible both ways, but I really do not think that there is any military aircraft who's maneuvers would make think for a second that it could be of ETI.

Oh and it's not suprising that there hasn't been much decent footage, who really walks around with a video camera on them preparing to film something at an instant?

 

[PIT2]

I'm pretty sure NASA is designing an aircraft that just by shape eliminates the sonic boom, s yeah its possible.

I assume that just by shape, it is not possible for something to accelerate with 40G?

Some of the witnesses mentioned this red ball exitting the triangle and flying around between two laserlike beams, as if it were measuring something. Does anyone have an idea what that was for?

 

[dlgoff]

Lets for a second suppose that anti-gravity was possible. Would this allow for supersonic speeds without causing a sonic boom?
If not, what other technology could do this?

Not anti-gravity, just intense gravity fields. Maybe they move through space-time distortions by directing gravity fields as Bob Lazar says.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We should stick to the evidence and avoid unfounded speculation. This quickly gets into pseudoscience which is not allowed.

 

[PIT2]

What is the status of that picture the was taken?

Here it is:
http://www.swa-home.de/berlgtri1.htm

Has it been debunked? And what is known about who took it?
And does anyone here think it is fake?

 

[SGT]

What is the status of that picture the was taken?
Here it is:
http://www.swa-home.de/berlgtri1.htm
Has it been debunked? And what is known about who took it?
And does anyone here think it is fake?

Read http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm .

 

[PIT2]

Read http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm .

Ill have a look at it. Meanwhile I suggest u read this:

http://ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm

I just read ur site. There seem to be no decent arguments against this case, nor against the photo. I am surprised they didnt mention that all radars could have malfunctioned or been manipulated, the site seems to focus on a book someone wrote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Read http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm .

The interesting thing that the article fails to address is that the Belgian military is making the basic claim. From there, it seems to be a complaint about one group's interpretations or alleged misrepresentations. That is a bit like debunking the US military for something that Art Bell said.

 

[SGT]

Ill have a look at it. Meanwhile I suggest u read this:
http://ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm
I just read ur site. There seem to be no decent arguments against this case, nor against the photo. I am surprised they didnt mention that all radars could have malfunctioned or been manipulated, the site seems to focus on a book someone wrote.

From the article I linked to:

Far from sharing this enthusiasm, using very simple technique, astrophisicist Pierre Magain and his colleague Marc Remy from Liège University produced a picture that presented most of the characteristics of the Petit-Rechain slide. Moreover, former-UFO believer Wim Van Utrecht, from Antwerp, obtained also a similar picture with another simple photo-trick technique. These three men have at least proved the lack of imagination and knowledge SOBEPS collaborators have in photo faking.
Even ufologists admit that it is not always possible to prove that a picture has been faked. In this case, several elements seem to indicate a deliberate hoax. But SOBEPS knows there is no definitive proof of trickery and takes advantage of it. This is not a scientific attitude because contrary to what the facts seem to indicate, SOBEPS clearly tries to lead the public to believe that a UFO has really been photographed. This is the kind of argumentation that these UFO believers propose as "scientific evidence".

The fact that someone was able to fake a similar photo does not prove that the original one was faked. But it proves that the SOBEPS is careless in stating that the photo is genuine.

It is important here to underline that the F-16 pilot saw no UFOs at all. I spoke with some of his friends who had laughed with him about the UFO hypothesis. Had it not been for the SOBEPS team, these so-called mysterious radar returns would have been labeled as ordinary "angels". Another important thing is that at one point the "return" remained unchanged on the screen while the plane was manoeuvring, which is indicative of an instrument failure. This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992. And this is also what I had written in an article that the ten scientists had chosen to add to their press-release in October 1991. (6)

May I add that in their press-release, in October 1991, the ten Belgian scientists who had criticized professor Meessen's conclusion had already written :
"The analysis made by Mr. Meessen seems to indicate that it could be a meteorological phenomenon whereas the (supposed) occurence of subsonic speeds and sudden accelerations made by material objects is far from convincing." (2)

Of course you cannot believe in the opinion of scientists. What do they know, anyway? And if you are French you can seriously doubt the opinion of a Belgian scientist.

 

[PIT2]

From the article I linked to:
The fact that someone was able to fake a similar photo does not prove that the original one was faked. But it proves that the SOBEPS is careless in stating that the photo is genuine.

U understand I have to take everything on that site with a grain of salt. Where are these photos they produced? Even if they did reproduce the photo, that does not prove carelessnes on the side of SOBEPS. It simply proves that the photo was reproduced. Notice also how they mention:

Marc Remy from Liège University produced a picture that presented most of the characteristics of the Petit-Rechain slide

What is most? Rather vague and unconvincing.

In this case, several elements seem to indicate a deliberate hoax. But SOBEPS knows there is no definitive proof of trickery and takes advantage of it.

This is a weird statement. There are indications that it is a hoax (where, what, how?) Next it claims that SOBEPS takes advantage of the fact that there is no proof of trickery. These kind of accusations are not scientific. In fact it appears as if they are trying to twist the fact that no proof is trickery was found, into a direction as if there actually was trickery.

Of course you cannot believe in the opinion of scientists. What do they know, anyway? And if you are French you can seriously doubt the opinion of a Belgian scientist.

SOBEPS is an organisation of civilians and scientists.
The idea of a meteorological phenomena is dismissed in the airforce report.
The reason why the F-16 pilots did not see the UFO was given in the airforce report.

This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992. And this is also what I had written in an article that the ten scientists had chosen to add to their press-release in October 1991.

Professor Emille Schweitzer, working at the Center for the Study of Electronic warfare, testified that it is highly unlikely that a radarfailure in all radars can be the cause. Furthermore he says the UFO used "infinite acceleration" and he believed it is very highly likely to have been an Extra Terrestrial craft.

Video here: http://ufobras.com/ufobras_belgian.ram
(if it doesn't work, fastforward it to 4min37 and listen to audio)

 

[PIT2]

I just had a thought about this red light in the center of this triangle, which also departed and flew around on itself according to police witnesses. According to some witnesses who also took pictures of this thing(the triangle), the pictures turned up blank. An explanation was that it could have been infrared light interfering with the film.

First of all:
is there any truth to the claim that infrared light disrupts photofilms abilities to capture visible light?

Secondly:
is it possible that this red light on the UFO was a device that produced infrared light in such amounts that it could have achieved such an effect?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it could be possible that the military is playing around with stealth systems designed to create confusion. The problem is that these triangles have been around for at least thirty years and maybe longer. It would be interesting to see when the first triangle report [typical of those found today] was made. Is this strictly a modern phenomena, or does this go way back as do other types of UFO reports?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it could be possible that the military is playing around with stealth systems designed to create confusion. The problem is that these triangles have been around for at least thirty years and maybe longer. It would be interesting to see when the first triangle report [typical of those found today] was made. Is this strictly a modern phenomena, or does this go way back as do other types of UFO reports?

I actually had a first hand report of a triangle from a guy I met at least 30 years ago. He and a friend were camping and the sky above them was blocked out by a slow moving triangle shaped something. No lights on it. No sound. It wasn't doing anything that couldn't have been a large, triange-shaped, helium airship. Were it a military stealth/confusion craft, then they'd naturally be experimenting with new features as time goes on.

It's hard to believe, but goverments actually think along these lines. You may have heard of the pictures of angels and heavenly figures someone was projecting from the ground onto clouds during WWI during a battle.

 

[pftest]

This is the most up-to-date (nov.2007) comment I've read about the Belgian ufo case in 1989, made by an official involved (Col. Wilfried de Brouwer):

My name is Wilfried De Brouwer. I am a retired Major General of the Belgian Air Force and I was Chief Operations in the Air Staff when an exceptional UFO wave took place over Belgium. Indeed, during the evening of 29 November 1989, in a small area in Eastern Belgium, approximately 140 UFO sightings were reported. Hundreds of people saw a majestic triangular craft with a span of approximately 120 feet, powerful beaming spot lights, moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds.

The following days and months, many more sightings would follow. The UFO wave would last more than one year during which a Belgian UFO organization conducted more than 650 investigations and recorded more than 400 hours of audio witness reports. On one occasion, a photograph revealed the triangular shape and four light beams of the object.

Belgium had no official focal point for reporting UFO observations. Nevertheless, in my function of Chief Operations, I was confronted with numerous questions about the origin and nature of these craft. In the first instance, and in consultation with other NATO partners, I could confirm that no flights of stealth aircraft or any other experimental aircraft took place in the airspace of Belgium. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authorities confirmed that no flight plans had been introduced. This implied that the reported object(s) committed an infraction against the existing aviation rules.

The Belgian Air Force tried to identify the alleged intruder(s) and, on three occasions, launched F 16 aircraft. On one occasion, two F 16 registered rapid changes in speed and altitude which were well outside of the performance envelope of existing aircraft. Nevertheless, the pilots could not establish visual contact and the investigation revealed that specific weather conditions may have caused electromagnetic interferences and false returns on the radar screens. The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.

In short, the Belgian UFO wave was exceptional and the Air Force could not identify the nature, origin and intentions of the reported phenomena.

http://www.cohenufo.org/Coalition%20for%20freedom%20of%20information.pdf

What he says contradicts the initial airforce report, because it ruled out meteorological phenomena:

The hypothesis according to which it was an optical illusion, a mistake for planets, or any other meteorological phenomenon, is in contradiction with the radar observations, especially the 10000 feet altitude and the geometrical position of the UFOs between themselves. The geometrical formation tends to prove a program.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm

 

[pftest]

I just listened to an interview with Col. de Brouwer, also from 2007, and he says several things:

• they always kept open the possibility that the radar images were caused by electromagnetic interferences

Asked about the dramatic acceleration that was seen:

• ground radar does not detect objects moving slower than 150km/h, because of a doppler filter that is used to only show relevant objects such as helicopters and airplanes
• when the doppler filter is turned off, so also is the system that stores the radar images, and one is left to look at raw radar data that can't be reviewed later. The ground radar with its doppler turned off did detect the ufo, but the data wasnt stored.
• one of the two f-16's did not store its data either, though its radar did detect the ufo.
• what is left of the dramatic acceleration is one f-16's radardata

About eyewitnesses:

• after a sighting of a big triangle with lights underneath and moving very slowly, which involved multiple police witnesses, the airforce, ministers, and police decided to cooperate and allow f-16's to investigate subsequent ufo sightings
• after having sent f-16's to sighting(s) that were not credible, they decided to put an extra check in place: eyewitnesses now had to report their sighting to the police first, the police then had to verify the sighting themselves, then they would have to contact the airforce/radar stations, and only then f-16s would be sent to investigate. This is what happened in march 1990

Asked about his own opinion, he says that he does think an unexplainable phenomenon was observed, an enigma, but that he doesn't want to get carried away and focus too much on it, because it can take up ones entire life. He regrets that they (the airforce) didn't record everything thoroughly, and that they didnt hire people to investigate and deal with the situation full-time.

 

[kasse]

I'd like to see it, but it's removed!

 

[pftest]

I forgot the links to the interview (don't bother clicking if you don't speak dutch):
part1:
part2:
part3:
part4:
part5:

 

[pftest]

I'd like to see it, but it's removed!

This is the video from the opening post:

part1:
part2: