Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Belgian triangle documentary

  1. Oct 16, 2005 #1
    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 cant 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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 16, 2005 #2
    Very interesting. I have no idea what it could have been. What is it about this case that is easily debunked?
     
  4. Oct 16, 2005 #3

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ahh darn! They spotted our F-117's :devil:

    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2005
  5. Oct 16, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  6. Oct 16, 2005 #5
    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.
     
  7. Oct 16, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was tracked by four stations in addition to at least one pursuit jet. This is considered along with eyewitness testimony.
     
  8. Oct 17, 2005 #7
    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?
     
  9. Oct 17, 2005 #8

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm pretty sure NASA is designing an aircraft that just by shape eliminates the sonic boom, s yeah its possible. I dont believe in 'anti-gravity' but I think if aliens did exist then

    1. there wont 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
     
  10. Oct 17, 2005 #9
    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?
     
  11. Oct 17, 2005 #10
    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?
     
  12. Oct 17, 2005 #11

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not anti-gravity, just intense gravity fields. Maybe they move through space-time distortions by directing gravity fields as Bob Lazar says.
     
  13. Oct 17, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We should stick to the evidence and avoid unfounded speculation. This quickly gets into pseudoscience which is not allowed.
     
  14. Oct 17, 2005 #13
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  15. Oct 17, 2005 #14

    SGT

    User Avatar

    Read http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Oct 17, 2005 #15
    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. Im surprised they didnt mention that all radars could have malfunctioned or been manipulated, the site seems to focus on a book someone wrote.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Oct 18, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Oct 18, 2005 #17

    SGT

    User Avatar

    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.
    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.
     
  19. Oct 18, 2005 #18
    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:

    What is most? Rather vague and unconvincing.

    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.

    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.

    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 [Broken]
    (if it doesnt work, fastforward it to 4min37 and listen to audio)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  20. Dec 14, 2005 #19
    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?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2005
  21. Dec 16, 2005 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  22. Dec 17, 2005 #21
    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.
     
  23. Oct 11, 2008 #22
    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):

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

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  24. Oct 11, 2008 #23
    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 cant 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 doesnt 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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  25. Oct 11, 2008 #24
    I'd like to see it, but it's removed!
     
  26. Oct 12, 2008 #25
    I forgot the links to the interview (don't bother clicking if you don't speak dutch):
    part1:
    part2:
    part3:
    part4:
    part5:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook